HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 1999
~ .
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99
February 19, 1999 Page D 1
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/99, was held in the North Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 19, 1999. The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting
to order at 10:08 a.m.
PRESENT
David Barrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Milton Berger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair
Ila Bossons ............................................................... Member
Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair
Irene Jones ............................................................... Member
Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member
Richard O'Brien. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon ............................................................ Member
Pam McConnell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES.#D1 /99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Ila Bossons
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/98, held on November 20,1998, be approved. . CARRIED
RES.#D2/99 - FUTURE OF THE GREENSPACE PROTECTION AND ACQUISITION
PROJECT
Report on the funding issues regarding the Greenspace Protection and
Acquisition Project.
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: I rene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on the Greenspace
Protection and Acquisition Project be received;
02 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
AND FURTHER THAT staff report at the earliest possible date on the Greenspace Protection
and Acquisition Project and the need for a renewed commitment by all the Authority's member
municipalities and partners to greenspace acquisition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since its formation in 1957, the Authority has successfully used land acquisition as the preferred
method to provide relief from flood and erosion hazard; to carry out conservation and regeneration
measures; to protect environmentally significant greenspace lands; to provide the opportunity for
rehabilitation of degraded areas; and to provide opportunities for public use and enjoyment within
the regional greenspace system as envisioned by the Authority's Greenspace Protection and
Acquisition Project.
The Authority has been successful during the past 15 years in obtaining substantial municipal and
provincial funding for special projects such as The Metropolitan Toronto Hazard and Conservation
Land Acquisition Project ~nd The Project For The Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park (March
1993) . However, over the same period the general acquisition of greenspace lands under the
Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project has relied heavily on funding from Authority land
sales. In the case of "Land Sale Revenue," the Authority has disposed of higher valued and higher
taxed tablelands and has reinvested the proceeds by purchasing core Greenspace land. While it
is expected the Authority will continue to dispose of small parcels of tableland or isolated lots, lands
associated with encroachments and routine public uses, in accordance with approved disposal
procedures, it is recognized that the inventory of large parcels of surplus lands is finite and the
Authority cannot continue to rely on this as a major revenue source.
Without a major source of funding, the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project is in jeopardy
and with the continuing pressure from development, the long term protection of the regional
greenspace system is at risk.
In areas, particularly where development pressure is greatest, the basic valley and stream corridors
can usually be acquired through the development process, but there are few if any, mechanisms
to acquire major greenspace blocks or critical connecting corridors. It is felt that a long term
acquisition project and funding strategy is needed to ensure the protection of the regional
greenspace system throughout all our watersheds.
A secure funding base would also enable the Authority to take advantage of matching funding for
acquisition when opportunities arise, such as the Natural Areas Protection Program recently initiated
by the Province. As a result staff are recommending we report to the Authority on the Greenspace
Protection and Acquisition Project and review of other sources of revenue to meet the Authority's
and watershed partners future acquisition needs.
Report prepared by: Ron Dewell, extension 245
For information contact: Don Prince, extension 221 or Ron Dewell, extension 245
Date: February 4, 1999
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 03
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES.#D3/99
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Richard O'Brien
THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.2 - Project for the Acquisition
of Natural Areas within the Rouge River Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
ARISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES.#D4/99
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Ila Bossons
THAT the Committee arise and report from closed session .................. CARRIED
RES.#D5/99 - PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NATURAL AREAS WITHIN THE
ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
Report on the Project for the Acquisition of Natural Areas within the Rouge
River Watershed.
Moved by: David Barrow
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the "Project for the Acquisition of
Natural Areas within the Rouge River Watershed", in the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality
of York and The Regional Municipality of Durham, involving total estimated expenditures of
$5,000,000 be adopted;
THAT the City of Toronto and the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham be requested
to be the benefitting Municipalities for properties acquired within their area of jurisdiction;
THAT the City of Toronto, and the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham, be requested
to approve the project and advise the Authority of their estimated financial contribution over
the next four years, subject to annual budget allocations;
THAT staff be directed to seek other sources of funding which can be used to augment
the Project;
THAT pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the project by
The Ontario Municipal Board, be requested if required;
04 WA TERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
AND FURTHER THAT Authority officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary
action to complete activities required to be undertaken under the project, including obtaining
any additional approvals which may be deemed necessary and the execution of any necessary
docul1)ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At meeting #4/98 held October 23, 1998, the Watershed Management Advisory Board adopted
Resolution #D37 /98:
'THAT the following correspondence from Gord R. Weeden, General Manager, Rouge Park,
dated October 20, 1998, in regards to Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative - Rouge
Park be received;
THA T staff be directed to develop a Rouge Park Land Acquisition Project, which could
implement an acquisition program by providing matching funding to the Provincial
contribution of $2,500,000.00 over a four (4) year period commencing in 1998;
AND FURTHER THAT the Project and a staff report be on the agenda for the Watershed
Management Advisory Board Meeting scheduled for November 20, 1998."
On June 24, 1998, the Provincial Government approved the Natural Areas Protection Fund, of $20
million over four years, established for the protection of natural areas through acquisition. The fund
is to be distributed between three geographic areas: the Rouge Park, the Niagara Escarpment and
the Lynde Marsh (Town of Whitby). The Rouge Park and a small portion of the Niagara Escarpment
is within the TRCA's area of jurisdiction. The following is the maximum level of funding for each area:
. Rouge Park - $2.5 million
. Lynde Marsh - $4.5 million
. Niagara Escarpment - $13 million
The $2.5 million will be ajlocated to the Rouge River watershed from the Province over the next four
years, provided that the Rouge Park Alliance and partners can match this amount, thereby
increasing the total Project to $5 million. The Province has agreed to provide $1.0 million of the $2.5
million funding up front, provided it is spent by March 31, 1999. Although this amount does not have
to be matched initially, it is understood that there will be an agreement to match these funds over
the four years. All reasonable costs such as legal, survey, appraisal and environmental audit
expenses, taxes and other ancillary costs associated with the purchase of properties will be funded
by the project. Up to 10% of the funding can be used for capital expenditures such as signage, trail
improvements, and regeneration of the properties.
The "Project for the.Acquisition of Lan€! Within the--Niagara Escarpment Park System" approved in
March 1986, provides the mechanism for the Authority to utilize the funds currently being made
available by the Province for the Niagara Escarpment and staff is negotiating potential acquisitions.
Staff feels this is a remarkable opportunity to protect natural heritage features within the Rouge River
watershed and are therefore recommending adoption of this project.
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 05
The Rouge Park Alliance, at its meeting of February 1, 1999, adopted the following resolution with
respect to the acquisition of a property at Sheppard Avenue and Twyn Rivers Drive, known as the
"Glen Eagles Site":
"In light of the commitment from the Province of Ontario to dedicate an additional $2.5 Million
under the Natural Areas Protection Program to the acquisition of additional lands for the
Rouge Park and subject to the conditions of the Natural Areas Protection Program and on the
advice that the land known as the "Glen Eagles" site is available for purchase, at a price not
to exceed $6.5 Million;
I move that the Rouge Alliance approve, subject to the appropriate staff report, the request
that the full $2.5 Million go towards the acquisition of this site and
second that the Chair and General Manager will, prior to the next meeting, arrange for that
detailed staff report, which shall include an appraisal, a list of alternative sites, and details on
the necessary partners who are prepared to fund the balance of the purchase price. "
Work is currently underway to evaluate this site. Obviously, if a decision is made to pursue the
acquisition of this site, it would require all of the financial resources intended to be raised through
this Project and more.
WORK TO BE DONE
Under this project, Authority staff will arrange for preparation of survey and appraisal information for
the candidate sites and will negotiate the purchase of suitable properties. The TRCA will be
acquiring ownership of the lands and staff will be required to utilize the existing Authority approval
process for the purchase of all individual properties. The details of the arrangements between the
Province and TRCA will be set out in a Memorandum of Understanding between the two parties.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Given the funding that the Province is making available in year one of the project, it is felt that the
Authority should accelerate the acquisition of the high priority sites within the pool of acquisition
sites identified in the project to the level of funding available and begin negotiating immediately.
An early decision on the Glen Eagles Site is required to set the direction for any other negotiations.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Province of Ontario has indicated that $2,500,000 will be provided for this Project. The terms
for receiving these funds are that they be matched. Therefore, over the next four years an equal
amount $2.5 million, must be provided for land acquisition within the Rouge River Watershed. This
Project is the mechanism which provides for the Authority's member municipalities within the Rouge
to establish their respective level of .financial support. Staff. are optimistic that some funding, in
addition to the provincial and municipal contributions can be found to augment the Project.
Report prepared by: Ron Dewell, extension 245
For information contact: Don Prince, extension 221 or Ron Dewell, extension 245
Date: January 18, 1999
Attachments (2)
D6 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 Februa.ry 19. 1999
Attachment 1
--- -fflETORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
- -
PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NATURAL AREAS
WITHIN
THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
JANUARY 1999
February 19.1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 07
PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NATURAL AREAS
WITHIN
THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . Introduction and Background
2. Purpose 01 Project
3. Location and Description
4. Costs and Financing
08 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This is a project of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, in accordance with Section
24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to acquire natural areas within the Rouge River
Watershed. This submission outlines the location and description of the lands, together with the
purpose of the project, the estimated costs and the proposed funding arrangements.
On June 24, 1998, the Provincial Government approved the Natural Areas Protection Fund of
$20 million over four years, established for the protection of natural areas through acquisition.
The fund is to be distributed between three geographic areas: the Rouge Park, the Niagara
Escarpment and the Lynde Marsh (Town of Whitby). The Rouge Park and a small portion of the
Niagara Escarpment is within the TRCA's area of jurisdiction. The following is the maximum level
of funding for each area:
. Rouge Park - $2.5 million
. Lynde Marsh - $4.5 million
. Niagara Escarpment - $13 million
2. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of the project which is proposed to be carried out over a 4 year period is to acquire
within the Rouge River watershed, including the City of Toronto, and the Regional Municipalities
of York and Durham, natural areas which are not presently in public ownership and which meets
one or more of the following requirements. The site:
J. conforms to the Authority's goal, and objectives as identified in the Land Acquisition
Program of the Authority's 1980 Watershed Plan and as updated in 1996 and conforms to
the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996-2000.
II. is within the Rouge River watershed.
Hi. is consistent with the following Rouge Park Land Securement Criteria adopted Meeting
#2/98, April 6, 1998 of The Rouge Park Alliance:
Securement of property will occur, with the priorities based on park values. The park
value priorities in order, are:
1. Provincially significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest and Pr.ovincially
significant cultural heritage sites;
2. Valley and stream corridors;
3. Primary natural areas outside the ANSls;
4. Restoration, enhancement or linkage areas;
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 09
5. Other cultural heritage sites;
6. Key recreation and interpretation sites;
7. Incompatible land use.
The following factors will also be considered in the development of land securement
strategies:
. alternatives to fee simple acquisition such as easements and dedication;
. type and immediacy of threats to the lands;
. possible willingness to sell;
. cost effectiveness;
. specific program interests potential funding partners;
. alternative protection approaches (ie. Municipal planning).
3. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The potential sites for acquisition are located within the Rouge River watershed, and within; the
City of Toronto (former City of Scarborough), the Towns of Markham, Richmond Hill and
Whitchurch-Stouffville in the Regional Municipality of York and the Town of Pickering in the
Regional Municipality of Durham.
The Rouge North Park Plan has identified the protection of the Little Rouge Corridor between
Steeles Avenue and Major MacKenzie Drive as a major ecological and public use link between
Rouge Park South and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Assuming both the Federal lands and the
Provincial lands within the Little Rouge Corridor remain in public ownership, it is felt the priority
lor expenditure of the Natural Areas Protection Funds within the Rouge River watershed should
primarily be focused on filling in the gaps in public ownership within the Little Rouge Corridor,
together with acquisition of critical linkages and consolidation of public ownership in other areas
of the watershed.
To implement the project a list of active sites or pool of priority sites for acquisition was
developed, based on the criteria established in the Rouge Park Land Securement Strategy,
approved at Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #2/98 dated April 6, 1998 together with the criteria
and terms of Natural Areas Protection Fund. The pool of priorities list will be used to guide the
acquisition of sites. These candidate sites are identified on the attached Figure entitled Rouge
Park Planning Area and shall be updated on a regular basis in order to keep abreast of changing
conditions.
010 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
4. COSTS AND FINANCING
The $2.5 'million will be allocated to the Rouge River watershed from the Province over the next
four years provided that the Rouge Park Alliance and partners can match this amount, thereby
increasing the total Project to $5 million. The Province has agreed to provide $1.0 million of the
funding immediately, on the condition it is spent by March 31, 1999. Although this amount does
not have to be matched initially, it is understood that there will be an agreement to match these
funds over the four years. All reasonable costs such as legal, survey, appraisal and
environmental audit expenses, taxes and other ancillary costs associated with the purchase of
properties will be funded by the project. Up to 10% of the funding can be used for capital
expenditures such as signage, trail improvements, and regeneration of the properties.
The acquisition of the properties in this project are within the Rouge River watershed and in the
applicable area within the City of Toronto (former City of Scarborough), the Towns of Markham,
Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville in the Regional Municipality of York and the Town of
Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham.
Therefore, the Authority is requesting that the City of Toronto, the Regional Municipality of York
and the Regional Municipality of Durham be designated, the Benefiting Municipalities for
implementing this project.
The financing for this project will be on the following basis:
a. The Province of Ontario contribute a total of $2,500,000.00 over 4 years including an
upfront amount of $1 ,000,000.00 to be spent by March 31,1999, on the understanding
that the Authority use its best efforts to obtain the matching funding to complete the total
the project to a total of $5,000,000.00.
$2,500,000.00
b. It is proposed that the Authority seek additional funding from its Member Municipalities
within the Rouge Watershed on the basis as listed below and any other potential sources
that may come available for a total amount of $2,500,000.00 during the 4 year term of the
project:
I. The City of Toronto, The Regional Municipality of Durham and The Regional
Municipality of York be requested to be the benefitting municipalities for
properties within their area of jurisdiction;
II. The City of Toronto, be requested to approve the project and advise the Authority
of its estimated financial contribution over the next four years subject to annual
budget allocations;
III. The Regional Municipality of York, be requested to approve the project and
advise the Authority of its estimated financial contribution over the next four years
subject to annual budget allocations.
IV. The Regional Municipality of Durham be requested to approve the project and
advise the Authority of its estimated financial contribution over the next four years
subject to annual budget allocations;
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 011
V. Financial contributions may include surplus public lands being made available to
the Authority for utilization in land trades or for other Authority purposes;
Amount of benefitting municipality funding to be raised
during the 4 year term of the project $2.500.000.00
TOTAL $5,000,000.00
It is proposed to phase this project over a 4 year period as follows:
1-999 2000 2001 2002 Total
Province of 1,000,000 750,000_ 500,000 250,000 2,500,000
Ontario
Benefitting 0 500,000 750,000 1,250,000 2,500,000
Municipality
Total 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 5,000,000
Given the complexity of closing real estate transactions, it must be recognized that annual
funding amount shown may required to be increased or decreased to reflect the timing of
closings.
The amount required from each municipality will be determined by the location of properties to
be acquired i.e. each municipality will be required to fund 50% of the cost of properties acquired
in that municipality.
Authority staff will seek other sources of funding which could augment the Project.
t: \1 a \ron24S\pubhc\roug prl
- - ..----- --
012 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
Attachment 2
_~!cc.. '.,l_-L \
I - nl' ,-. 0 1-0'
,,'" ,#"> ,.' -
o LJ ,>. '-,_ ~ ~
I ;E"1l;:;u';u;u ~
mCCO:C:'O
_ _-~:JC)Il)C ~ 0
~ n5:a.....~
;~~ :2 .... . C
0.5.01 ~ ~
CD 0 ::l (Jq CJ
0 " :;
" ::l <0
::l C.
~ ~ w ~ ~ C'I1
~ ;;;
i -< w
;
(t)
~
f~
~
I
I
I
"""".
I
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 013
RES.#D6/99 - WATERFRONT 2001 - MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON THE PICKERING
WATERFRONT - FINAL REPORT - JUNE 1998
Town of Pickering - Region of Durham. To report on Pickering Council's
actions on the Waterfront 2001 - Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering
Waterfront Final Report - June, 1998.
Moved by: Ita Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Waterfront 2001
- Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront Final Report - June 1998 as actioned by
Pickering Council in Report to CouncillDT 80-98 be received;
THAT the Authority support the establishment of a 'Waterfront Co-ordinating Committee and
confirm Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist and an appropriate alternate, as the Authority's
representative on the Committee;
THAT staff continue to acquire key properties within the Master Plan of Acquisition along the
Pickering waterfront in accordance with the Authority's priorities and in conjunction with the
Town of Pickering;
THA T staff be directed to work with the Town of Pickering and their departments, and the
Waterfront Co-ordinating Committee on the implementation of the various waterfront initiatives
on a priority basis;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Pickering be so advised .................. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 27, 1997, Pickering's Mayor Wayne Arthur officially launched Waterfront 2001 - Task Force
on the Pickering Waterfront. The Task Force was established to develop a comprehensive vision
and strategy on how Pickering's waterfront should evolve in the future. A critical element to the Task
Force's work was to integrate the public's ideas and vision.
At Meeting #7/97, held on August 22, 1997, the Authority adopted Resolution # A 177 /97:
"THA T the staff report on Waterfront 2001 - Task Force on the Pickering Waterfro"nt be
received;
THAT the Authority indicate its support for Pickering's Waterfront 2001 - Task Force, and
confirm Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist as the Authority representative on the Task Force;
AND FURTHER THAT Mayor Wayne Arthurs and Task Force Chair David Steele be so
advised. "
The Mayor's Task Force presented an interim report to Council in October 1997. At Meeting
#10/97, held on November 28,1997, in consideration of the Interim Report of the Task Force, the
Authority adopted the following Resolution #A281 /97:
D14 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
'THAT The MetropoNtan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority indicate its endorsement
of the Interim Report's vision and recommendations as being consistent with an integrated
watershed management approach and the program initiatives of The Metropolitan Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority;
THA T staff be directed to work with the Task Force to finalize the report for submission to
Pickering Council in early 1998;
THAT upon acceptance of the Final Report by Pickering Council, the Waterfront 2001 vision
and recommendations will provide the basis for subsequent multi-year capital projects for the
Region of Durham waterfront within the jurisdiction of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority;
AND FURTHER THAT the Mayor's Task Force, the Town of Pickering, the Regional Municipality
of Durham and the. Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised."
The Final Report was received by Council in June 1998 and forwarded to staff for comment.
The Authority is in receipt of correspondence from the Town Clerk indicating that Council of the
Town of Pickering passed the following motion at its regular meeting of October 19, 1998.
1. That Town Council thank all the members of the Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering
Waterfront and commend them for their hard work and valuable contribution to
establishing a vision for the Town's waterfront, as described in the Task Force's Final
Report of June, 1998.
2. a) That Town Council receive Report to CouncillDT 08-98.
b) That three Members of Council and appropriate staff initiate the
establishment of a "Waterfront Coordinating Committee".
3. That a copy of Report to CouncillDT 08-98 be forwarded to Mr. David Steele, chair
of the Mayor's Task Force on the Waterfront, The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ontario Hydro, the Pickering Harbour
Company, and any others that may have an interest in this matter.
A significant portion of the Pickering waterfront is today in public ownership as the result of a
coordinated effort with the public agencies and the Town of Pickering over the last twenty years
through the Greenspace Acquisition Project.
The Authority-, under ,the..Greenspace. Acquisition Project,' has 'acquired' with the partners key
properties in the Frenchman's Bay, Rodd Avenue and Fairport Beach sections of the waterfront.
One of the critical land ownership areas to resolve has been with the Pickering Harbour Company
on the east peninsula of Frenchman's Bay.
At its Meeting #8/98 held on September 25, 1998, the Authority adopted the following resolution
related to the above-noted Harbour Company lands.
February 19, 1999 WATERS,HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 015
Res. #A 185/98
"WHEREAS the Authority and the Town of Pickering have expended substantial public funds
on the acquisition of residential properties on the east peninsula at Frenchman's Bay in the
Town of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham;
AND WHEREAS it is extremely difficult to effectively utilize the Authority holdings for park
purposes until suitable arrangements are completed with Pickering Harbour Co. Ltd., the last
remaining private land owner on the east peninsula;
AND THAT Authority staff be directed to give high priority, in conjunction with officials of the
Town of Pickering, to attempt to negotiate a suitable exchange of lands with Pickering
Harbour Co. Ltd. at the earliest possible date."
The Task Force's Waterfront Vision
In its Final Report, the Task Force suggests a "vision" for the Pickering waterfront as follows:
The Pickering Waterfront should create a distinct sense of Place.
This sense must be nurtured by not only our heritage and unique
natural setting, but also by what the waterfront represents to
Pickering residents and visitors of all ages and abilities.
In support of this vision, the Task Force suggests that the Town's waterfront must become:
. A Place where public access is maximized and opportunities exist for visitors to choose safe
waterfront activities, compatible with the natural environment and adjacent neighbourhoods.
. A Place that is effectively linked to commercial areas by special design themes along
connector roads.
. A Place where the waterfront trail harmonizes with the environment and links the different
landscapes in a way that minimizes automobile use.
. A Place where residents can study nature and contribute to its enhancement, as well as learn
about the early settlement of our community and Port Pickering's historic role.
. A Place where economic activities are encouraged to enhance the waterfront landscape and
promote the waterfront experience.
. A Place where development maintains a pedestrian scale that reinforces the waterfront
experience, protects waterfront vistas, supports the ecosystem and remain compatible with
the adjacent neighbourhood.
016 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
. A Place that makes an important contribution to the development of a Town-wide tourism
strategy and helps attract future businesses and residents.
. . A Place where landscaping, public art, and other enhancements work together to mitigate
the impact of existing land use.
. A Place that recognizes and celebrates Pickering's multicultural mosaic.
. Above all, a Place that fosters a healthy ecosystem, sustainable for the enjoyment of future
generations.
The key elements of the Task Force's waterfront vision are outlined in the Final Report as:
~ Promoting Tourism on the Waterfront
~ Linking the East and West Spits of Frenchman's Bay
~ Improving the Entrance to Frenchman's Bay and Addressing the Problem of Sedimentation
~ Improving Waterfront Recreational Opportunities
~ Completing the Pickering Waterfront Trail
~ Celebrating History, Heritage and the Arts
~ Ensuring an Ecologically Sustainable Waterfront and Bay
A brief description of each element is outlined in Attachment 1 - Town of Pickering Report to
Council, Pg. 4-7. Appendix III of Attachment 1 to this report outlines in detail the Task Force
recommendations and Pickering staff's comments.
Through TRCA's participation on the Task Force and through our watershed initiatives in
cooperation with the Town of Pickering, future initiatives can build on the earlier accomplishments.
These accomplishments include the following which are completed or are currently underway.
. The recent hiring of an "environmental coordinator" for the Frenchman's Bay Rehabilitation
Project under a federal program (EcoAction 2000) with the support of the Town, the TRCA
and Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation.
. Partnership in extending the waterfront trail ie. Town/Ontario Hydro to connect to the
completed Duffin's Creek portion of the trail.
. Continuation of TRCA's Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program as well as community
outreach activities and partnership with Ontario Hydro's biodiversity initiatives.
. On-going -waterfront land acquisition by the TRCA and/or the Town '(subject to funding
availability).
. Participation in annual waterfront events and waterfront planting and clean-up days.
. Completion in 1996 by TRCA of an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan between Tommy
Thompson Park and Frenchman's Bay in Pickering.
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 017
. The construction in 1995/96 of a trail, boardwalk and bridge over Duffin's Creek linking the
Town's waterfront trail with the waterfront trail in Ajax.
. The purchase in 1992 of the "Sandbury" property adjacent to Frenchman's Bay, north of
Browning Avenue, to protect sensitive wetlands, and for the future development of a
waterfront trail link through this area.
In Appendix I of the Council's report (see Attachment 1) a preliminary work program for waterfront
projects that may commence in 1999 is outlined.
The program, as proposed by Pickering includes the following:
Waterfront Trail Projects
. Western Entrance - Rouge River
. Park Crescent
Waterfront Park Projects
. Petticoat Creek - joint with TRCA
Other Projects
. On-going Frenchman's Bay Rehabilitation - joint with TRCA (EcoAction 2000);
. Baseline stormwater management data collection and stormwater management
retrofit strategy - joint with TRCA;
. On-going community outreach programs - joint with TRCA;
. On-going environmental monitoring - joint with TRCA and community;
. On-going waterfront clean-up, planting days and regeneration projects - joint With
community, Ontario Hydro and TRCA.
Council's resolution also directed staff to initiate the formation of a "Waterfront Coordinating
Committee". The proposed mandate and committee composition is included in Appendix II to
Attachment 1 of this report. It is proposed that The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be
a member of the Committee.
RATIONALE
The Waterfront 2001 - Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront Final Report, June 1998 made
a valuable contribution to establishing a vision for the Town's waterfront. The waterfront vision and
recommendations reflect the TRCA watershed policies, programs and approach.
The Authority and staff have continued to work with Pickering on many waterfront initiatives
including acquisition, .establishing the Frenchman's Bay Project, monitoring efforts, working with
Hydro on its biodiversity program, undertaking stormwater management data collection and analysis
for a retrofit strategy, waterfront trail funding, conservation seminars and community
monitoring/planting/c1ean-up events.
To achieve the waterfront vision, it is critical to focus the acquisition efforts under the Greenspace
Acquisition Project on the remaining private lands in certain key sections of the Pickering waterfront.
018 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
The Authority staff also supports the direction of Council to establish a "Waterfront Coordinating
Committee".
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority should continue to actively work with the Town in implementing the 1999 priorities.
It is recommended that the Authority's participation on the Waterfront Coordinating Committee be
through the Waterfront Specialist, Larry Field or an alternate as deemed appropriate.
The Authority should continue on-going initiatives with the Town in terms of land acquisition,
community-based regeneration projects, environmental monitoring and stormwater management
data collection and analysis to assist the Town in formulating a Stormwater Management Retrofit
Strategy.
To achieve the land acquisition in a timely fashion, it is recommended to develop in conjunction with
the Town of Pickering a "land acquisition strategy" (including a funding partnership) for the entire
Pickering waterfront under the Greenspace Acquisition Project.
The Final Report and the Report to CouncillDT 08-98 will also provide the basis for multi-year capital
projects for the Durham Waterfront within the jurisdiction of TRCA.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Authority will continue to be a funding partner and provide technical staff support on these
comprehensive watershed initiatives within the annual budget priorities. TRCA will continue to work
with the Town of Pickering, the Region of Durham, the Province of Ontario and other partners to
explore various funding partnership opportunities to achieve Pickering's waterfront vision.
For information contact: Larry Field, extension 243
Date: February 8, 1999
Attachments (1)
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 019
Attachment 1
.;'. \ 2 ",,, OP PIC'
.....0 t-~
~lI~
" z
>- 0 REPORT TO COUNCIL
~
FROM: Interdepartmental Development Team DATE: October 30, 1998
REPORT NUMBER: IDT 08-98
SUBJECT: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report
Staff Conunents and Recommendations
RECOMMENDA llONS:
1. That Town Council thank all the members of the Mayor's Task Force on the
"- Pickering Waterfront and commend them for their hard work and valuable
,
, contribution to establishing a viSIOn for the Town's waterfront, as described in the
, Task Force's Final Report of June 1998.
,
" 2. 111at Town Council receive Report to Council IDT 08-98 and direct staff to initiate
the establishment of a "Waterfront Coordinating ComlOlltee" as set out in that Report,
3. That a copy of Report to Council lOT 08-98 be forwarded to Mr. David Steele, chair
of the Mayor's Task Force on the Waterfront, the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authonty, the Waterrront Regeneration Trust. Ontario Hydro, the Pickering Harbour
Company, and any others that may have alllllterest in this matter
ORlGIN:
Cowlcil Resolution #134/98 passed on June 29, 1998, receiving the Final Report of the
Mayor's 2001 Waterfront Task Force and rcfernng it to staff for comment.
AUTHORlTY:
The Planning Act
The Municipal Act
FINANCrAL IMPLlCA TrONS:
This Report docs not make specific recommendations on undertaking waterfront projects.
Consequently, there are no immediate finanCial implications aSSOCiated with the receipt of the
Report, and the adoption of the recommendations. Waterfront projects will be brought forward
for Council's consideration either through separate reports to Council, or through the Town',
budget process in 1999 and subsequent years.
\.
,
020 WATERS~ED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99
February 19. 1999
,
Report to Council lOT 08-98 Date: October 3D, 1998 3, .
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In June 1998, following more than a year of dedicated work involving hundreds of people from
the community as well as representatives /Tom various agencies. the Mayor's Task Force on the
Pickenng Waterfront completed its mandate, and released its Final Report. On Jwu: 29, 1998,
Town Council received the Final Report and referred it to staff for comments.
Staff would like to commend the Task Force for an excellent report. It contains a clear and
thoughtful vision and action plan for the waterfront, and provides many valuable
recommendatIOns that can form the basis for future work and diSCUSSion. The Final Report IS
particularly strong in ItS analYSIS of the important environmental issues facing lhe Frenclunan's
Bay watershed, and in its suggestions on possible corrective actions that should be taken.
Clearly, a great many things need to be done to maintain and enhance Pickering's waterfront, and
in this regard, the Task Force's report helps establish an appropriate directIOn and focus. We are
also fortunate that a number of significant waterfTont projects have been undertaken over the past
few years by the Town and others, and we need to build on these successes. However, on-gomg
cooperation and coonJinatlOn is needed. as is a substanttal funding comnlllment from all levels of
government, as well as the private sector and volunteer funding
To this end (and building on a recommendation made by the Task Force), staff recommend that
Town Counct! authOrIze the establishment of a "Waterfront Courdinatlng Committee" made up
of key stakeholders involved in the waterfront, including the Town, the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authonty, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ontario Hydro, the Pickenng
- Harbour Company, and including three or four community representatives from key groups and
I organizations with a strong interest in waterfront projects An Important functIOn of the
i Waterfront Coordinating Committee would be to coordlllate the implementatllJn of approved
waterfront projects. as well as assist in providing technical adVise and assistance on waterfront
issues, priorities and programs. The Waterfront Coordinatmg Comnuttee would also help
provide a forum for two-way communicatIOn Wilh the comlllunity, to Infonn and educate peuple
on waterfront issues and involve them In on-going work.
BACKGROUND:
In May 1997, the Mayor's Task Force on Pickering's Waterfront was estabhshed, with Mr.
David Steele appointed as chair, and Mr. Craig Bamford and Mr. Nick Eyles as co-chairs. The
mandate of the Task Force was to develop "an in-depth vision for the evolution of the Town's
I waterfront." To carry out thiS mandate, a steering committee was established, with wide-spread
representation from community associations, service clubs, the Pickenng Harbour Company,
Ontario Hydro, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Waterfront Regeneration
Trust and the Town of Pickering, Over 100 people participated on various subcommittees
established by the Steering Committee, Including subcommtttees on the environment, trails, park
deSIgn, marinas, and hentage/h.story/arts.
I
The Mayor's Task Force presented an interim report to Council In October 1997. In early 1998,
staff held a series of meetings with Task Force members to discuss the interim report, fOCUSing
on environment and slormwater management issues; parks, trails and public art; and planning
and economic development. The meetings were very useful In proViding input to the Task
Force's Final Report. They also showed that staff and the Task Force shared a similar
understanding of the waterfront issues and priorities facing the Town.
. The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force was received by Council in JWle 1998 and
forwarded to staff for comment. Staff comments on the Final Report are provided later in this
I Report, following a summary of the Task Force's findings.
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 021
~
Report to COWlcil lOT 08-98 Date: October 3D, 1998
4 Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page 3
SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE'S FINDINGS
1. The Task Force's Waterfrnnt Vision
In its Final Report, the Task Force suggests a "vision" for the Pickering waterfront as follows:
The Pickering Wuterfront should creule a distmct sense of Place. ThIs
I sense musl be nurtured by nol only our herotage and unique nalural
! seuing, but alsu by whulthe walerfronl represents to Pickering residents
and visilorS of all ages and abilities.
In support of this vision, the Task Force suggests that the Town's waterfront must become:
"
'" . A Place were public access is maximized and opportunities exist for visitors to
"- choose safe waterfront actiVitIes, compallble wilh the nalural environment and
"-
adjacent nelghbourhoods
'.
. A Place that is effectively linked to commercial areas by special design themes along
connector roads
. A Place where the waterfront trail harmonizes with the environment and links the
different landscapes in a way that minimizes automobile use.
. A Place where reSIdents can study nalure and contnbute to ils enhancement, us well
as learn aboutlhe early seltlemenl of ollr community und Port Plckenng's hlsloric
role.
. A Place where economic activities are encouraged to enhance, the wllterfront
landscape nno promote: tilt: w3h::rfront expenence.
,
, A Place where development mainlains a pedestrian scale that remforces the
I .
r waterfront experience, protects waterfront vistas, supports [he ecosystem and
I remains compallble with Ihe adjacenl nelghbourhood.
. A Place that makes un important contribution to the development of a Town-WIde
tourism strategy and helps attract future busmesses and residents.
I . A Place where landscaping, public an, and other cnlwncemenlS work together to
miligate the impact of eXISting land use.
I . A Place lhat recognIzes and celebrales Pickering's multicultural mosaic.
. Above all, a Place thaI fosters a healthy ecosystem. sustamable for Ihe enjoyment of
fulure generations.
TIle key elements of the Task Force's waterfront vision are outliued in the Final Report as;
. Promoting Tourism on the Walerfront
. Linking the East and Wost SpllS of Frenchman's Bay
. Improving the Entrance to Frenchman's Bay and Addressing the
Problem of SedlmentallOn
. Improving Walerfront Recreational OpportunitIes
. Complellllg the PIckering Walerfront Trail
. Celebrallng History, Heritage and lhe Arts
. Ensuring all Ecologically Suslalllable Waterfront and Bay
A brief descnption of each element follows. Attachment No. I to this Report is a reduced copy
of the concept map for the waterfront vision that was included in the Task Force's Final Report.
I
I
022 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
Report to Council IDT 08-98 Date: October )0, 1998
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page 4 5"
Promoting Tourism on the Waterfront
0 A "commercial I tourism node" should be developed at the foot of Liverpool Road, following a
planning and design exercise. In developing the node, considerallon should be given to a various
issues including traffic and parking, slgnage. Liverpool Road slreelscape and closure south of Ihe t
bridge, transient boal docking and winter boat storage, integrating lhe node with the tratl system,
publiC access 10 the water. and developing a pedestrian square and "landmark" near the foot of
Liverpool Road.
0 A tourism promotion strategy should be established. including a "tourism booth" near Highway 40 I,
improved highway slgnage, a waterfront logo, and tourism brochures and promotIOnal kits.
0 A wide variety of activllles should be available along the walerfront. including entertainment
fac.lities. commercial facliitles, feslivals and speCial events, etc. 13amers to boating should be
removed, and Improvements should be made 10 the channet enlrance, public IranSIl and available off-
street parking.
v;'
Linking the East and West Spits of Frenchman's Bay
0 A seasonal "pontoon boat" should be provided to ferry pedestrians and cyclists between lhe east and
west spits of Frenchman's Bay. The boat should be capable ofholdulg 1210 15 passengers. as well
as bicycles. and be wheel-chair accessible. The service should operate from May 10 October (on
weekends and holidays in May, September and October, and seven days a week In June, July and
August). Ponloon boat drivers could be seasonal employees of Ihe Town, and a volulllary user fee
could be use to delray costs,
0 In the longer lerm, consideration should be given to replacing the ferry service with a "lift-bridge"
between Ihe east and west SpitS ,
I ,
I
1 Improving the Entrance to Frenchman's Bay and
I Addreosing the Prohlem of Sedimentation
0 A working groop shonld be eSlablished to coordinate Ihe reconstruction of Pickerlng's harbonr The
Task Force recommends (suhject to confirmation ofa qualified consullantthrough appropriate three-
dimensional model testing):
0 Widenmg the entrance channd to at least 80 to 100 feet (it is currently between 30 and 50 feet WIde)
0 Raismg the height of the breakwater and relocating Ihe navlgallon lights.
0 Controlling Slltallon at the entrance channel, and from watercourses Oowlng IOta the Bay's nonh end
(focusmg on Amberlea. Dunbarlon and Pine Creeks)
Improving Waterfront Recreational Opp()rtunitle~
I 0 Petticoat Creek Park should continue to serve as n regional recreation and conservalJon node,
I offenng family-orienledaclivllies. TIle role of lhe Park should be reViewed by TRCA in association
I with reSidents, community asSOCiations and [he Town.
I 0 The Frenchman's Bay West Park should be developed in a way that encourages family use ofthe
, waterfront yet preserves the nalural environment. The sand Spit and wetlands should be regenerated
I and preserved, and forest cover should be improved An arboretum could be crealed east of "
Buenavista, and demonstration nower I perennial gardens could be establtshed west of Buenavisla.
I Sa.lboarding should be accommodated. but vehicle access to lhe Sp'IS should be limiled 10 Ihe spring
and fall. The TRCA's 1991 concept plan for the Frenchman's Bay West Park is generally
acceplable, although considerallon should be given 10 locating lhe proposed educational cenlre at the
head of Ihe Bay, near the West Shore Communily Cenlre. The TRCA should establish a communlly
I workmg group to coordinate future park development.
I
,
I I
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 023
Report to Council lOT 08-98 Date: October 3D, 1998
.Hi}., 6Subjc:ct: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page 5
, ,
....
"
"" "
" , 0 Bruce HlII1dscombe Memorial Park should be naturalized along the shoreline to discourage a large
"'- " goose population from using the park.
'\.
''\ 0 The West Shore Community Centre and surrounding area has the opportunity of becoming the hub of
a Frenchman's Bay Interpretive Trail. A major wetland restoration project should be consIdered at
the mouth of the Amberlea and Dunbarton Creeks. and a series of boardwalks could be Integrated
into this project. A small historic building could also be relocaled to the area, and a Town of
Pickenng tourism booth and display could be located here.
0 The Begley Street park should conlinue to allow panoramic public views of the waterfront.
a Douglas Park should be re-exllI1l1ned to 'mprove safety (e,g. additional lighting near Radom Street,
opening vIews Into the park from the street) and a park on the fomler Sandbury lands should be
designed to allow the waterfront trail to connect to Begley Street and 10 Browning Avenue. ~
a 'Ille Front Road park (fanner McKellI1 property) should be designed to accommodate small crafts.
such as canoes, but nol motonzed boals (tradiClonal boal launching should be provided at the fooc of
Sandy Beach Road). ConSIderation should be given to having a'canoe-c1ub building constructed at
the north end of the park.
a Public space at the foot of Liverpool Road should be extensively landscaped to provide a waterfront
gateway and tourist node. A pedestrian promenade and publiC square adjacent to the water are
desirable.
0 Areas within Alex Robertson Park should be regenerated to complement the existing hydro marsh
On remaining lands, new recrealionaluses should develop to complement activllies at the adjacent
Kinsmen Park (e,g. a football field souch orthe existing cricket area). A change room and washroom
should be established at the south end of the park. when this area is Improved as an access pointlD
the beach. A public boatlaunclnng facility should a/so be built in thIS area, althe west end of the
Pickering Nuclear StatIOn site.
I
I 0 TIle concept ofa "Fisheml3n's Walk" in front of the Pickering Nuclear Slation should be discussed
j
, further with Olltarlo Hydro (lIydro currently restricts pubhc use ill this area because of safery
j conSiderations).
0 AllY expansion to the York Durham Sewage Treatment Plan should illcorporate a substantial
greenspuce buffer between the plant, the waterfront trad and the lake. The potentiul development of
a public beach in the area east orllle trealmenl plant (as suggested lJy the Town's Director of Parks
and Facilities) would requIre close coordination with Ajax.
Completing the Pickering Waterfront Trail
0 Certain sections of the waterfront lrail require attention to improve pedestrian now and safety,
I including:
, 0 Trail head, and entrance sign, .lthe Rouge River and the Ajax border
I
0 A bridge across Pellleoal Creek about 100 yard, upslI'eam of the mouth.
0 Stain 10 allow better aeceS! to Park Crescenl from Petticoat Creek.
0 A connection from Breezy Drive to the watcrfront through Frcnchman'3 Bay West Park
0 A ponloon boat link across the east and west Spits of Frenchman's Bay.
0 A Frenchman's Bay Interprelive Trail atong Ihe perimeter of the Oay. including an off-road trail adJacenllO
Bayly Street and a boardwalk through the former Sandbuty lands
0 An elevated boardwalk from Liverpool Road to Alex Robenson Park.
0 A trail from Brock Road to Montgomery Road.
0 In designing the waterfront trail existing trail manuals (such as those produced by Ihe Waterfront
Regenerntion Trust) should be apphed on a site-specific baSIS. These manuals address various
024 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
!
Report to Council lOT 08-98 Date: October 30, 1998 I
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page 6 7
pertinent aspects of trail design including, surface materials, signage, lighting, and access for the
disabled.
0 To assist the implementation of the ultimate trail design. property acquisition should continue to be
pursued by the TRCA and/or lhe Town (e.g. south Rosebank area, Fairport Beach area, and selective
properties on the east Side of Frenchman's Bay).
~' Celebrating History, Heritage and tbe Arb
0 Visual and perfonning ans should be incorporated into the waterfront plannmg process in an
accessible manner. Public partiCIpation in the ans should 'be an integral pan of the waterfront
0 The waterfrontlrail concept offers the Town a myriad of opponunlties to explore and celebrate
Pickering's culture. Given its proximity to Toronto, the Town is in an enviable poSItion to promote
ilselfas a "must-see" ponion of the waterfront trail. A living, accessible walerfront enhances
people's lifestyle and presents the a marketable commodIty in the tourist trade.
Ensuring an F.cologically Sustainable Waterfront and Bay \'
0 Land use changes should not impair (and ideally should enhance) eXisting hydrogeological
conditiolls, mcludillg Ihe quality alld quallllty of water discharging to local headwaters, especially in
the upper headwater zone of Frenchmall's Bay (i.e. the Lake Iroquois Shoreline area). TIle
hydrogeologIcal nmction of the Iroquois Shoreline and associated beach depOSits should be studied,
0 The appropriatelless alld deSIrability ofhavlllg effluent from Coldwater Fanns (one of Canada's
largest fish fannmg operallons) entering Frenchman's Bay needs to be delemllned,
i
0 Sources of air. water and ground cOI1(aminatlon surrounding Fn:nchI11JII's Bay from tilt: Pickering
I Nlielear Stallon should be evalualed and auuresseu. Onlario Hyuro shuulu be encouraged to
I naturalize pan ions of lis site and surroundmg lanus,
\ 0 A comprehensive environmenlal monitOring program is reqUIred for the Pickering waterfront to
1
I idenlify the success or otherwise of remedial actions and the need for further action.
I
0 Various specific rehabihlalion actions should be taken inlhe Frenchman's Bay watershed, mcluding:
0 The establishment of quality and quantity off-line ponds m Amber/ea Creek and Dunbanon Creek, and the
restoration ora wetland In Frenchman's Bay at the mouth of Amberlea and Dunbarton Creeks.
0 The creation of two ofT-line wetland quality/quantity ponds, one adjacent to Pine Creek Immediately north
of Highway 40 I (on and around property where the MiDlstry ofTransportallon placeu substanllal fill
durmg the WIdening of HIghway 40 I). and in Douglas Park
0 Ensunng "environmentally appropnate" development In the Whites Road acca north and east of Finch ;
\ A"'l;;nu'" ~!be upper heedw;:tter zone for Dunbarton and Pmc Creeks)
i 0 The removal oreulvem on Pine Creek and Amberlca Creeks, and their replacemen' with open span
I footbndges budt on pdes,
0 Stream channel naruralization and planting along a number of erosion slles along creek channels
Ihroughout the Frenchm.m's Bay walershed,
0 The installallon of oil/grit separators at the oulfall of small sewersheds that drain the immediate margins of
the west and east Bay
0 Establishmg a program to infonn the commercial/muustrial seclor of the need 10 use good managemenl
practices concerning the storage and diSposal of chemIcals.
I 0 The establishment of a community ourreach program incluuing a downspout disconnection program, stonn
I dram markIng program. auopl-a-stream programs. garbage clean-ups along creeks. reduction of
lawn/garuen chemicals, reuuCllon In roau salt applicalion. pellgoose control, planllng and naturalizalion of
parks, vehicle maintenance, chemical swrnge and unproved ywd mamtenance by area bUSinesses.
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 025
R~port to Council lOT 08-98 i
Date: October 30, 1998
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront- Final Report Page 7
"
0 Reducing the use of pesticides and road sail by the Town, and encouraging the Town and RegIon 10 collect
howehold hll2aCdous waste and re-establish a facllily U1 Pickenng
2. The Task Force's Action Plan
,
,
! The Task Force did not recommend a specific multi-year "action plan" for Council's
consideration. Ralher, it provided a list of priorities that would need to be pursued by the Town
and others, in order to implement the Task Force's Vision of Pickering's waterfront. These
priorities are sununanzed below.
CD Reversing environmental damage to reslOre the long-lernl health of Frenchman's Oay
and ils tribulanes.
<%> Improving access 10 the walerfront. particularly in regards to: improviog access to Ihe
water's edge, prOViding signs to clearly mark north-soUlh vehicle roules to the
waterfront, Improving east-west vehicle connections along [he waterfront. establiShing
bus connections 10 U,e waterfront, and ensuring tho disabled safe access to Ihe waler
(j) Improving the channel entrance 10 Frenchman's Oay.
@ Developing an economic and tourism strategy, focusmg on a well-designed commercial
node at the foot of LIverpool Road with a distinctive "promenade" along the waterfront.
lID Mitigaling the impact of certain existing waterfront uses, including the York-Durham
Sewage Trealment Facility and the Plckenng Nuclear Gener'lIng Slallon.
<ID Establishing guidelines for Ihe developmenl of the waterfront, including Ihe commerCIal
node at the fool of LIverpool Road, and the varIous parks and Irails along llie waterfronl.
j <1.J Establishing an equilibrium belween competing uses to aVOid the pOlenlial impact of
I over.devcloprnent on both the sensitive natural habu3t 311d the 1lI1mediate
; nelghbourhoods. \.
j
<ID Maintaining public particlpalion through Ihe implementation process.
-
<ID Eliminating potential junsdictional conflicts, especially belween Ihe Town and the
conservation aUlhonly, and dealing with government fundmg cuts.
@ Capturing Ihe uniqueness ofPickenng's waterfront and providing attraclions that
produce the critical mass necessary to both serve the needs of Pickenng residents and
make Pickering a tourist deslinallon.
STAFF COMMENTS:
i The Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront should be congratulated and commended
! for the excellent work they have done III bnnging forward Ule communily's VISIOn. pnonlles and
issues concerning the watcrfront. Particular thanks should be extended to the chair, Mr. David
Sleele, and the co-chairs, tvlr. Craig Bamford and Mr. Nick Eyles, for their lime and effort, and
fur seeking and oblaining broad commWlity involvement in, and support for the process.
In general, staff concur with the overall vision the Task Force recommends for the waterfront,
including the importance of rehabilitating the Frenchman's Bay wetlands and other significant
natural areas, providing a continuous waterfront trail, developing acceSSIble waterfront parks,
and creating a commercial! tourist node at the south end of Liverpool Road. Staff agree wilh lhe
Task Force that Pickering has a Wlique opportWlity to create a dislInctive and exciting waterfront
that serves the needs of the Town's residents and to some extent the broader community,
including boaters and tourists, while remaining ecologically sustalllable as well as socially
\ supportive and compalible.
,
026 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
i
Report to Council lOT 08-98 Date: October 3D, 1998
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page 8'- 9
.
Staffs specific comments on each of the Task Force's recommendations are provided in
! Appendix 1I1 to this Report.
I There is a great deal of work to be done along the waterfront, and the Task Force's report is
I
extremely helpful In providing focus and direction. Future initiatives will build on earlier
i accomplishments, including the following projects and e!Torts that have recently been completed,
or are currenlly underway.
. The recent hiring of an "environmental coordinator" under a federal grant program
(EcoAcllon 2000), wuh the support of the Town, the Toronto and Region Conservation
AuthorilY (TRCA) and Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation. This two-
year commu~ity-based program Will actively focus on rehabilitating the Frenchman's
Bay watershed through various means, including nalive vegetation plantmgs, riparian
habitat enhancements, purple loosestrife removal, community educatIOn and awareness,
community clean-up-days and environmental monitoring programs.
~
. The recent agreement between Ontario Hydro and lhe Town to enter into a 25-year lease
to exlend the Town's walerfront trail approximately I kllometre east from Brock Road
through Ontario Ilydro property to the Montgomery Park Road cul-de-sac. where II wlil
connect wllh the compleled Duffin's Creek portion of the trail.
. TRCA's Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program, which examined lhe
environmental couditions along selected areas of the Lake Ontario shoreline, mcluding
Frenchman's Bay. Baseline momtorlng typically includes invesllgatlous IntO sedimeut
quallly, waler qualtty. sediment deposition rales. fish habitat assessment. fish and
i wildlife community assessment, and benthic InvcnebrU1C collections. Community
oulreach aClivilles are also included in lhls program, as IS work In association wuh
Onlario Hydro's bIOdiversity project.
i .
, . On-going waterfront land acquiSition in Pickering by th~ TRCA and/or th~ Town
(subject to fuuding availability).
. Annual waterfront events (including lhe Frenchman's Bay Festival and dragon boal
races) and annual waterfront clean-up days.
. On-going commulllly discussions concerning lhe submission of an application for
millennium funding assistance to construct a mIllennium tratl and millennium square
near the foot of Liverpool Road
. On-going discussions between the Town and the Pickering Harbour Company
concerning the potenlLal red~velopment of Port Pickermg Manna and other Harbour
Company lands.
. On-going discussions between the Town and TRCA concerning the potential ~
redevelopment of the PoUlcoat Creek Conservation Are".
!
. On-going IOvolvement in tourism and support of till:: Tuurl~t Association of Durham
Region (T ADR), as well as participation In regular tourism events and programs.
including the Annual Durham Region ViSitor's GUide, the Durham Group Tour Manual.
the Durham Fishing Map. and the AlLraCllons Canada Web Site.
. The replacement of the Vistula ravine bridge along the Frenchman's Bay waterfront
trail.
. The purchase in 1997 of the "McKean" property on Front Slreet for the purpose of
establishing a waterfront park, followed by an Imtial sile clean-up and a preliminary park
design exercise.
,
,
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 027
'.
j:.1 ~ fa Date: October 30, 1998
Report to Council IDT 08-98
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickenng Waterfront - Final Report Page 9
. Improvements to the bridge at the foot of Liverpool Road in 1997, and on-goong
planning and design work on the adjacent waterfront boardwalk and trail.
. The construction in 1997 of a waterfronttmlllink along Montgomery Park Road, nonh
and east of the Pickering Nuclear Station.
. The completion in 1996 by the TRCA of an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan
between Tommy Thompson Park In Toronto. and Frenchman's Bay in Pickering.
. The construction in 1995/96 ofa trail, boardwalk and bridge over Duffin's Creek linkmg
Ihe Town's walerfronttrnil with the walerfroutlrad In AJU-~.
. The purchase in 1992 of the "Sandbury" property adjacent to Frenchman's Bay, nonh of
Brownmg Ave ,to protect sensitive wetlands, and for Ihe future development of.
waterfront trail link through thiS area.
A preliminary staff work program for waterfront projects that may commence in 1999 is
provided in Appendix l. Staff are currently reviewing lhe program, and deternlining finanCial
Implications. A final 1999 waterfront work program WIll be provided for Council's
consideration through the Town's budget review process.
With the submission of its Final Report, the mandate of the Mayor's Waterfront Task Force is
complcted, To ensure waterfront activities and projects remain a high priority with the Town,
and to facilitate coordinated Implementation, It IS reconunended that Council initiate the
establisrunent of a "Waterfront Coordinating Comllllttee" (WCC),
The WCC would provide a forum for the commumty and the major stakeholders along Ihe
i Town's waterfront to coordinate waterfront activities and projects. Suggested iniual partiCipants
I
j on the WCC should Include:
1
! . lhe Town of Pickering
. the Toronto and RegIOn Conservation Authority
1 . the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
. Ontario Hydro
I . the Pickering Harbour Company
. community representation
The composition of the Waterfront Coordinating Committee could change over time as new
\ waterfront agencies and groups are established, or as organizational mandates change. The
\ representatives from the community could be appOinted by Town Council from existing
community organiZlltions and groups having a strong interest in addressing waterfront tssues and
implementing waterfront projects.
Furthermore (and similar to the way the Waterfront Task Force organized itself) the WCC could
establish ad hoc subconumttees to address specific waterfront Issues III greater dewd
Representation on the subcommittees could be drawn from the member organizations of the
wce as well as from the bronder community, so that other interested groups, agencies,
businesses, individuals, and technical experts, could be brought inw the process.
The wce primarily could function as a forum for the waterfront stakeholder groups to discuss ~
and coordinate waterfront implementation projects and initiatives. When requested, the wce
could also provide technical advtse and assistance to Council and others on waterfront issues,
projects and prioriltes. It could also help investigate alternative funding sources and grant
programs and get involved in fundraising effot1s as required. In additIon, the WCC could help
communicate information on the waterfront to the general public, bUSinesses and others, and if
requested, provide advise and assistance concerning special waterfront events and programs,
The proposed initial composition and mandate of the Waterfront Coordinating CommIttee is
I swnmarized in Appendix II to this Report.
028 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
Report to Council lOT 08-98 Date: October 30. 1998
Subject: Mayor's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront - Final Report Page LO 11 .
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, stafT recommend that Council thank all the members of the Mayor's Task Force
on the Pickering Waterfront for their contnbution and hard work over the past many months. As
well, to ensure that on-going consideration is given to the Task Force's vision and action plan for
the waterfront, it is recommended that Council direct staff to initiate the eSlablisrunent of a
Waterfront Coordinal1ng Committee, 10 facilitate diSCUSSion and coordinate the activities of the
various stakeholders Involved in implementing waterfront projects and programs in Pickering,
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Attachment No. I: Concept Plan of Task Force's Waterfront Vision
2. Appendix I: Preliminary Staff Recommendations, 1999 Work Program, Waterfront Projects
3. Appendix Il: Waterfront Coordinating Committee, Proposed Mandate and CompOSition
4. Appendix Ill: Plckenng Waterfront 2000, Task Force Recommendations and StaiTComments
Submitted By:
~" \
:
! Everett Buntsma
, Director of Parks and Faciliues
i
j
I
i ~"
i ..7
j
I
i -y:.t"JS'~<~/
Uoan Alfrey-O'Grady", //
I Manager 0 f Economic D~opmant
TM:
Attacrunents
Copy: General Manager
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering Town Co cil
.:::..
\:
1
i
I !
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 029
^111'\l..11MC."" l-.u. I
I I
.- 1~' I 1111 I
l~ il ! I d 'I::
h 1m
IIIi II ';:i
: I"~e:l~ Iii
+iIIL! III
I
~ I I :<8e:l1IJ
'<:
J I "
.'"
z j III Ill!
0 ~ l~n-4i=](s
(f)
>
I-
Z
0
a:
u.
a:
w
l-
e:(
~
(f)
[u
0
a:
0
u.
! ~
(f)
i <(
l l- I
w
I ~
I-
u.
0
z
::i
a..
I-
a..
w
I 0
Z
I 0
i 0
I
\ I
030 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
13' i
I
APPENDIX I TO lOT REPORT 08-98 t
PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS \
1999 WORK PROGRAM
WATERFRONT PROJECTS
(, ~h~;;;i1t{:J ;<i>j::::"1\'~:~'0~Y;!~W~ fen!i5~ f;'I' ~f.Pro J~~>",:;i -!.h'if,"'.:0'1l (tt:.'{(",\,:,;0f~\!",~ f
. Montgomery Park Road to Hydro Landfill
. Alex Robenson Park (asphalt path)
. western entrance - Rouge River area (design and possible construction)
. Pack Crescent area (asphalt path)
. Liverpool Road nllllcnnium boardwalk (design and submit for grant approval)
.. :\?,<~< ~~j~.:;~~;j1-~~,S1%'~?i'\:~1:;':~:?!Wiitc'rfroij f-r~r~ ~ro j~~ti1rl,~~,~21\~~qh~t~~:~~n~~~}~~~\~~t,
. Front Road Park
. Penicoat Creek - joint with TRCA -
~ ~~ '~fJ:~~;;?3:t:>,F~n)~~~~b,,:j~~-7~T' :,%~~t~} O'tIierYfQj ects'r: rJ'?;: ltTI3~]!Kt-;\'\~~': ~}\i!:~ ~;~;J01 ~
. Liverpool Road millennium square
. On-going Frenchman's Bay rehabilitation - joint with TRCA (EcoAction 2000 program)
. OIl/grit separators (various locatIons -- to be detemlined)
. Douglas Park culven removal ~
. LIverpool Road Node planmngldeslgn study
. Subwatershed study for Pme Creek / Douglas Ravine, including clarifying with the
Ministry of Transportation the avatlabtlity of Mllnslry lands near Higllway 40 I and
LIverpool Road for storm water management purposes
. Baseline stamlwater management data collection - joint WIth TRCA
! . On-going commumty outreach programs - joint Wllh TRCA
. On-going environmental mOlllloring - Joint wllh TRCA
! . On-going waterfront clean-up Jays - jomt WIth commulllty and TRCA
I
I
I
\
:
,
I
Februa 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99
031
:
I
I
14 I
- APPENDiX II TO lOT REPORT 08-98
WATERFRONT COORDINATING COMMITTEE
PROPOSED MANDATE AND INITIAL COMPOSITION
\.
Waterfront Coordinating Committee - Proposed Initial Composition
. Mayor (as council liaison)
. Town Departments (General Manager's Office, Parks & Facilities. Public Works, and Planning)
. Toronto Region Conservallon Authority
. Waterfront Regeneration Trust
. Ontario Hydro
. Pickermg Harbour Company
. Community Representation (3 or 4 individuals appoinred by Town Council)
Waterfront Coordioating Commillee - Proposed Mandate -
. To provide a forum for on-going discussion an10ngst (he various groups, agencies,
interests and individuals involved in projects and initiatives along the Pickenng
waterfront.
. To help coordinate the Implementation of approved waterfront projects, particularly
those involving more than one group, organization or interest.
. To provide technical advise and assistance on waterfront issues, projects and
priorities to the member organizations and others. If requested,
I
I . To help investigate allematlve funding sources and grant programs for watcrfront
projects, and provide assIstance m waterfrunt fundraislJlg effurts.
i To assist In providing inlonnation about PIckering's warel front to Ihe general
I .
public, businesses and others, and ifre'luested, 10 provide adVIse and assislance 10
others concerning special events and programs involVing Pickering's waterfront.
I
I
I
\
032 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
,
! !
i I
,
15'
.-
~ ~ E -'" ~
",- >-.9 ~ o u, :;j ~
>- u 'f .a"
,s ",-", ! ;q 0 ""
:< 6
~~~ - u ~ ~ ti g.;:a 0 a
;.,. .s ti" ~ ~ 8 :r 0 9 ~ lI\ "'0 3 "" t'
i Q.9&. t ~.9 g c .... '- ;t ~ ""C g tl il
~ _ u :; g tE~g-;; ~ o '" ""
u u ~ ~ 3: ~ :;j.a ;0
~ ~ c ~ 0 '" ~~ ~g3~~a. E
~~.; .= a C OX" ~ ('t _ b"'C Ii 8
~~ ""~ .e u . u 9 0 ';ig:Ee~:;j S
.9 u ~ ~ 5 ~ .~ u oU u
;~ '" > .- ~ 0.. -0 .~ Q >
~ :a ~ e g] e" ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ '0
t~ ~ .,:, :;j g~ >
0.. ~ .9 19"g ]~ :u 0 ....- U-o .5
:ft. 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ UJ.2 El::'a 'l:~::;:-
o ~:::: U ~ -~ il ,g ~ 8 c
~ d. 8 o ~ a U u .::l ': t: Ip::;;; ~ ~
10 u ~ Q:.a '8 u U
c .u .9 (/] 0 :;f-:3 ;j [:q ~~flu6~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ \.
'" It:: ~_ u i5.~6 :g -5 ~ -'" u -:3 ~ .- o 0 "
Ei ~ :a ,9 q ~ ~ o a.
, " ~ ~ ;2 SOlo.. ;t u..o "'0 3: u ""
Ei ;~~ en ..2.a] ~ 1; ::l :;j 8 ! ~ 9
u 0 u c..:; .9 ..s:oo..c-o ~ 0.. 5 .2-;j ,
0 ~<,;~ = ?:: ~ 1< lE~~ .~.~ ~ _ ,-;>"oJ ~ ,s ~ ~ ~
u ~5 ~ r.~ ~ ~ ~.~ !~9ai9o
l:: u B .... u '" ~ 0-;\,0 ~ 0
~f- .~ ;;! :;j ~ ~ ~ ~ "'0 9 "'>'a. ~~i .;; 9
.:: "~li' o ...!! '2 ":;j 0.. ~ :> '"
.s1r uS- O~~ a. ~~ 3] : '" u
(J] ~ .9 .~ !-- 0 co ""0 o u 0 ~~
.tf.;\ .s~~:; u-5a. 1 o~ ~
'0 ~ :;j 8 ,- ~ 0,[1 ~~ tU g.D~
C o..-~ o a.g~ '--=~~~~ '"~ ~-:3
C1 u 7; g 8 ~ Ej e ~ ,," ;.,:;j o u ._ u.. ::t -:::l ~ ~ ::l U .~ ~
'" ~i~ ~ ci" u -5]E1~ ~ g u 1; '; ~ SO -~ ~ .9.J:l ~
C u ;0- ~ il ~
9-:3 " OIl '" 0. '->0 0- o-;\,
0 ~X~ ~ 0 u I- "'.J:l ~~~o!--tie
o u 0 o " " !3 U"O ~6
fir: u "0 0 6~8
- ~~] ~ & ~ 8 ~"'-'" Uj '[ 2- S .s 6 ~ 0-5
., ..!! '"
'0 . . .
c . . .
'" ;=;
e ~ :;j l:l .9
00 e
0'\ 0.. 'u .9 >- ....
00 0 i .. ~] ~ @> "
u ,s
<=> '" .~. IE '" e ~
i _0:< ;d 005 ""0 ~-9~
... (~: 0 9 ;;' 9 e- ..c
.. .s '51 ~ U E: :1 ] ~ ;; ~ e Q a.
j 0 u .~; ~ 2.[ -;;;
a. ... :J 9 9 U - u 0
I '" 0 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~Bu,€ ,5
C:;L.<.. ~ ~ eJ "'0 :1 e
~ ~ ~ =: "0 u il
~~a. 2 c] : ~
I E-<~ " '" ~-a~ ~ 0 8~~ >
I o ~ :~. 'tl :.= 0 0
::-- c 'iii g ";j "3 c 'E ""0 II) Vi ~ "U 0. IV 5
......E-< r: 8 ;;; 0: 9' ~ ~ g :;j -5 :0 ~ :;j e 2
.8'- 5] ~ ~ OIl 2 ;.,
:5' 8 -5-o~ u u o ~ (':J ~
0 ~ :; E ..D u ~
.... - : 0 "0 > ~ E ~ ~ ~~-~'o ~
j .... VI - , u ~ -'" 0 '"50~
.... .- i:o! .. " .. U ~:;a o :5 u ~ g ~ S
.~ ...l :~~ ~ u O..c ol:lc.J:l u
"0 \J :< '" a c _ u ~ 3~ga. .J:l
1 '0 I ~.. 'S ~. ~ ~..c. fib "0
'"'' u [<La ~ a ~ ~ 'S
c: '" ~"', r... ~].a :J C'- 0
OJ U ';9 0 ::J U o 0 ti o 0.0 u u ..c ;
a. ... ....:~ =B~~ o 0 OIl ~ - "0 ~ o"'C.~ ;00
~ ell '" u ~ g t! :; ~
a.o t2;~ !3 - ~ ~- :;j .c:Co ,_ 5
<L.<.. i:~ 8 ~ ~ 5 :5 E ~~-= ~ ~ ~ ~ 3-a
~ ~ c ~ g-f.l~ t:: I.n 0 ;..... 6 6
_ u ~ ~ -0" ~ :;
VI OIl 8 5 e g '" ..c u E C'
~ ~ -0
., 2 8 ,9 "0 0 :< ~ ~ ;j 8 ~ ~ ~ o 0
E-< u -
~ ~ ~ .z ~ ~ @ 0_ u eJ
- "', <.:Jsg a~~8" ~~
0 c::Jl:a ...: 5 Vi "0 0 ~
0 ~' .... M
t"l i-. ~ ~l ~~ .... M
- -,
C tel. -
0 ow ....
..:: ~: ~]~ 0
... ;~; c ~ :;
~ a 0
~~ '" cEB " ..c
., a. ,~ i
~ o 0 ~ E ~
. : ]'~ ] u a.
0.0 ~ tIIf ~ (;i ....-7ii !3:;j _
C 'J:lJ g.8" ~ ~ 2 -s ~ B
~
.;: c : ~ ~ u ~ u a.-
-5 ~ ::J ~.~ ~ u
'" ~ ; ',C llj2 u u
'0;;-0
~ , " " = - - :;j g-c.(Qe.o
.~ : . 4J
:E' :i u tU 0"0 U-O~ ~
p... o -:3 "0 u U] ..J ::9 :a.a E
0 {j OIl :;j [g a ::J .... u ..c
.J:l 5 ~ ~.s~~ o c'-_
~ -3 ~ {j0~~
~ >._A ~ :; t :I
~.9 .E ~~~~ -~-Bc
'" 00'5 -5 tJ >. 0.0 a.~ -"0
~ ~ ,'51 ~-a.2 E :< 5
.9 > u U ~ ,@~]
E- 8 if . a ~-5~ ~~~-
o c 0 ;g 'B ~ 1 ~
~ .9 i:: .9 :l l::! 0 ~
'" - -5 c...!::I u
.!a u.~ ~.s3g
... ~ ';i u =:l ....
~ :<-!.j -< 8 0
~ '7
-
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 033
i
I
16
St.9 .. - u g ~..s 9 '-
" u ~~
.g ; .0
~~:S oo.s :;a .~ ~ u ~ e
.,g ~ :l ;;; ~ ~::;~ s"
~~'- .9 . 0 1l ~ ~ :ii
u c a l~-s ~ 0 il ~ ~ 9.9
-90~ :l - ~~ u ~
o ~ ~ -5 5
~~';; - :ii..... "" - ~ ~ '" z~~g
g a 0 ~ 0 S E
~ :J - ~ ,.. '" u u a u U 0..
_o.,g_ ~~~ .!! e 3 ~ > -5~8~ c.S!
3 .s ~ ,- ." 0 * ~~ o u
~il~~ 0..... 0.. a - 1;~~~ '- >
" " ~ ~" u..,g. . ;; u
I '1:);j_ " u ~ -9 u - :t ~ ;i ~ u"O
~ 0 . .g u 0 u .....-"'0 .~ 2 .d g .2 ~
i tlI~-9~ ~ Q. g .e -
~ ~ '^ o 0 .,. ?; 'U u ~ u
~ ... (.0 . U . 5 ~ ~ :J e
I ~ u"'5 Q , < ~ il .g ~ ~ 8.~ SO .2 5
~ o u 0 ~ ~ ~~ 0." ~ :. ., e
= g03il'2 ~:::- 0 ~ :;j~~ !! ,!'i.." OJ);:;. > ~ 0
.. .S: 8 0 8.. o ..:. .~ ~ '* :. o - ~":ii~-= 5 : :;
!!.." "0 u :I: -E..~u~u
S ""Ool:C..;.oj e.A5~ ~ ~ c u ~a~ "0 - '"
S ~~1]~ ] - !! 0 a ~ ~~ .:2 ~.~ ~ ~ ~~~
e ~ ~ u ~]~~ :a 3 -:: ~ ;;; u"@ ~~:iil2
0 :ii ~ ., -8 0 .~ i:;' 5
U >..:':: C~II'I u fl~ ".....c OOLo ~g:a
E~8J3 ~ E (50 "0 - ~~~
\~. t:: u - ~ ~ ~ ..e 3 ii\ ~ .M~~
..., u 0 u .0 u :9 ~ ~
E tl ,.. ~:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1':-8 "" u i~ ~ ~ go -o~c
u c _ Cl ;j 0 ~ "'-8 :J " ., "'5;:;i.a
rJj j~]] 053]:: " u ii..... ~ 8 ~ o 0. u >.. "" " > '"
~ :ii u :~.;3 u~~~~ u '" u
"t:l ] :;:!:! ~ a " ~ SO;
c o~-:-a u "" ~ trl ~~~ [ ~ i ~-~ ~ .~ ~ "E ~ ~
.a~-98 ~ ~ 0 ~] if
01 . u '" ~ u _ u - ~~.s:~
x'" 0 0 ~u u ~ ~ "" ;i ~ " ~ .~ u..o 0...2 ~
'" .g - "
c o.g~~ 3 1j 1j ] -<.g~ e" u - :I: eJ:l en u :t ~ 9 .!2 ~
9 u ~
.~ 3 -g u -:3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ., u "" g ~ ~ 9 OIl o-5.asg .::: .... en
~ 0.-8 ~~ ~ ~2.:~U ~ ~~
'" 8 2 ,- 00" ~~ o ': ~
"t:l u 0.. " U)UU~ <~e ~~u; auuou (5 ~ it
o 9 ,9 Z .g
= . . . . . .
.. .
5 0'"
00 E .a :J ...~.5 ~g ..... -5 "" .. S
0\ ;.-.] " " OIl ~ E .'E ~,
0 "
J, ::r:~1=' go;;fto.t! @, 0 5 e :J =:: '^
<J :~ E ~ ~ '"0 ::, ~ 0. 1: \1"1 '" :J
o .. 0..... .... 'tt2-5~.!! ,- "
3 g !! ;g ~ ;J .s :J - 0 ~ u e 0 u ~ "
_0::: uof-Cl_(tl ~ ~r- ,--cO-ao " u
... " - ~ ;= ~aoc"tj~3 - '" -o~::E ~~ ~~] g;,
.. o g u f c ~J g ~ ~'~ ~~ ~
0 <J a " '" ~ ~ a ~~ ~ ; ~
Q. ... 'o~~ sa~""~E e <-5~
OJ 0 o ~.~ -5 ' ,~ -E C"s 0.0'- fr::J.2
c::~ ~35ggo o :ii u"'O';::
o ;::l c : . 0 ~~ .= v ~ ~ :;; u '"0 ~ U 0 .... 'l co i:
..-. ~ 0 ~ ~~] ~~ -5-= u: C
~,;.c: ~.s ~ :::u = .... c::
'~ " ~ ., r;:-] -5 g~~~a Oil==.!":
8 ~ l ,-e ~]':3~~ 2:! ~ ;:;: ~ ~
.!!" ii ' c -S-agVl~'"O i:;'5 0-", e 0......... >-'::1
~ U: .; '= :. 0 o = Cl..
~ .~ ~ il ~lf 8 _0... ScC",:r:"E ..... ~ -
0.... - _ 0 ..... U'1: ;; - :;j " 5 u ~] eo..."O ~ " - o u ~
- 0 ;ff e o~~~5""3 [ ~ ~ o 0 :U . ..c ~VI -.... e > u
., 0 ~ ~~%~ !!:;j u.. is ~ o S u
=:- :~~ .tl. :;........""0..0 O'"e
'Q' 3 t1 0 .... ~ 5.~ fi " " 11 :;j =:: '" ~]~o~ '= 1:1 e
i ~ .~ l~"='6.!! ,g :;j E
H.....l ~~~ ; :~ <':l u ij ii ;; l-4..t;:::'=l VI u C':J _ oll ~ ~ 8
I ~-So-ue<:J ~ ~ ~ ' .0 ~o,-;:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ?3 --
:; I ~ ~ 01 0- .. 0 0 :t Co ~a~:@. 5 5 -a
,.. ~~0=-~?; - :l
OJ ~a.a go o u.. 0 ~ u " e
= OJ ~'5 ~ ... atlt:~~~ o u u V1 .~ * 2: <II '"C U u 5 Ci a.. to
\ .. <J ;0 0:: S u 0'"" .!! 3 " -5 '" ~ u ~
Q. ... 0..-,,< o. ... ~ ~-B _ u S ~ 5 0 u OJ) e i
Co 0 ~c:8 , ..>: 'E .,g i::" s;. 5.. ':;j - '" " ~~ :2-5~13 ]~~g~ :g ~ E
~~ :;.s~ 'S' '" il ~ :s e !!] '" fij - S .0 -9g-MB ~ '"0 g -t1 ~ ~ ~ g.
~ , ~ ~] ~t:: u co ! 8 :g ~~
,;.c: , 'f- o ~ u -5E~~ 9]~8.~ 5"'0 U
'" ~g~ l o ~ ~ 0 0 e E o.u ~ 8 0..... - - >
01 -< ' ~~ ~~~u ;;; 0 u "0 C/i ..., U ~ ., u
!3 :::' U ~~g.g .5 ~ a ~ ~ a.r5--O ,
1-< ii ,9 . ' ~b~ ~~n - :< > 5l,il .2 3: ::t I
~ @ e ~ 0 ~ ~
..... c...<J ~ fa' OJ ~ ~'~ ~ -5 ii: - '" - "0 - -u-uu ~ E ~
~ * ~ '" u o ~ <:j t.I t; ... u._._
0 <]I!. ~z~;::ao!3 u..... o ~ :l ..:: ..c u ,,_
Cl " 3_~.g u s ;z: ~ s o<;;~
! 0
N ~ ~ "'f '" I
d f 'i'
0 - M N N M C-:, N
...
.... ""
... .9
~ ." OIl "
01 "0 ~ ,g ~ ~
~ ~ 9~ e<S
0 ~o:~~
0.0 il u u ;;j
c
.;: ] ~ -:l .9 ~ I
.
.. ~ti ~ ~ ~ ~
.:.: g ~ !~~~~
<J
ii; ~,W :: ~ '5 ~ 2
; '8 o u if 0 E
-5 ; Z ~ ~
.s'O fi a.~u
'" u"
.iJij ..Q tel (l:I -S '-'
uco:a~a
:9 a. ;S .'" -5 :: .E
:l !l ~ ii..8 ".....
8.., '-] "0
--5 ~ui~a
~ ~ ~!i~ i
e OIl
u .'" ~ u "
3 's ~ ~ ~ ] 'ff
"f \
"" N
034 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
!
17 :
J
~~::J ~ 3 ~~ -
. 0 ~ c ~ ""0 ;>. ~ 'u - ~
C ";;j Q., ...... :!J 3: . eo - ..0 " e: ti _ IlJ -6
~ _ ,g - t: 0 -< 0 -. !5 ::::) u co l:E > c -0 0
~ 3~u ~u~.~ ~3 ~~ ~ o~~~~
8. tIl~~ ~t:u--= -oE ~~ ~> ~oo~c.
go ~ ~ ::: 9 E u -5 ~ ; u e ~ ,; [ C :;E e ~ ""0
- u '" ~ ~ U..c 8.- u ~ a. > 9 CI;I CQ...s u c
~~ ~ ....t-OCl;l >-,::s Coca ::t""Clkd
u~ ..2 -g ""0 o.l::~ .~u (<104 9'~ ..auuun
'0 '0 . &." a _ U '" -5 .... '0 9'" 3 ~ -'> ,-
~ ~ ~:; g. ~ u 15 u .S .... ~ fa ~ ~.a ~ ~ ; ~ ~
o;;I..Q _ e1 OO,b~""O u u 9 co 0 u Cl 0
I ~u ~&~ e~~s ~::J ~~;~ ~e,o~~
~ oS .f' a g ~ ~ V1 .t: u 0'0 .- 9 0 U u a. B E '0
g ,S t: u e . $ ::J 9 ~ g Go ~!j ~ b ~ 1) g, :l -
-::i "'E ~ ~ u ~ ~." ~ U ~ Cl ~ ~.g, U en 'g 9 ~ 5
\ r.t:l c"'O :.a.g Ce4;SU -gu.D....'O ~- Eo';::Ie
.....~:; 9-a~ g@ ~E -:;:;-5~ ~~ -09 ta.~~g.
. ~ 2] fi~ g~~! ~~~ ~i]~ ~~~~]
8 ~ ~ It:: U :;: ~ J: u ~ ~ ~ ~ u .g ~ ~ ~:~ e ~
! 8 ~ 9' -l3 -'> -'" .g 9 .2 .g $ 0 ~ "2:: t ;:t 'B ~ ..., 11 ~
I 0 eo co ~ ~ U "'CI .~ 2 t! ~ 9 u 0 ....... ::J ..." ell -g ]
U .S II ~ " - ;; i;J.g ..., u _..: 11 '<l 0 0 )j >:l -
..M .a ~ ~ u 9 ~ ~ ;: u 0 :i ~ a g ,S c g ~
~ ~~ o.~g "E....~~ G~: ~r! ~~ gg.B~Ji
z: .... a~o g!3't:~ ~....~"'Ou ~vt "'a.:l8.=
(J) .!1 <2 ia ~ ~ ~ :3 t:t g ~ 5.g g ~ .2 ~ g fJ- 2 aa 0
~ ~ 1~ ..,~~ ;~9..., uc..., ~~ 5~ 1~~~~
c .., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -0 g- ~ = ~- c > :t: Q ::J '3 .::: -5
'", ~ ~ E >.. -a :: c s ~ 1: "E ~s ~ E l::f ~ ~ g ~ 5 :a ~
V1!:1o. ';r: CI:lEo.u ...c ~;3 ~o ~E u
C g. .. 0 '" ~ .e! a " c>. ~ ~ s u..., '^ .>:l ::J a 8 ~
> "'tJ' C'" '- DO 0 00
o ~ 0 c; ~ >. ~ g 0 ~ 0:1 0 Fl 0; ~ -.!:l15 0
" 0;:: u a. ~ 1.1 ::r: u '> t1 = 0 ';;' u >:t 5h U 0 ~ > 0 n
.g ~g. O~g ~~~~ ~8g o'!~ <.a F=c..~5.-5
c. . . ....
Q.l
8 ~ 0
006 ~Go ,:::;j :J all
O"l U ~ .~ 'C 0 .0 0 .9.... ~ 'E3
I 0 > '- 0. 9 ~ )( ~ 5 'C:; iU oS u ..c .!::3 0
00 u .~ a 9 :J ,- u > r3 ~ .- b ~ >< VI U
o ~ :; B '0 ~ ] :( ~ "0 ~ C ~ ~, ~ ~ 0 ~ -5 ~
t 8->U -'>A-.!2 :;J 0"'8 -"" ..':l S~ oS-u
iU 3 ~ ~ -B t:l ~ CI:l ~ ~"'C S 2 U u ~ '0 0 :t fd ~
o u U -0 0.0 0 ,- ;u -a ..a 9 ~ "2 0 0 ~ tJ e- C u -B 0
fr ; u ~ ~ 9 * a ~ 4- 13 ~ ~ ~ 0: u ClQ ~ 5b '~ 0 a..
O::~ -B..oo... _0_ o9ua.o s~ Q fdo 1-o~9
ouc~..t 0..(3-;; 0..0<'1:10::.....0 ,-= ...S! ~o::: 9"...,
r-...:.t 5-9-~" e",= SEI-o:;i ;oU .. U U"
Vl Eg.Bn~ 8-:~ "gtiw~-5 E-e g ~-5 ~'O~
Q ~ ~_iU""'~ 0-:; VI o.~WJ~- ~< ... 0.0-0 t:;J~
-~ ~fl:;2-5 ~<fI.g ~.oo~;t G'- ~ ~~ g,~-g
.8 ~ 9 2. e ~ ~ ~.g ~ '0 ~ :E 5 5 ~ ~ ~ 'E ~ ~ ,Q a
::: _ -6' ~ -0 fi J=: :r: () ~ ~ '0 .5 g;"2 .s g ~ ~ ~ ~ &. ]
- o~ 2 ~ @ g, SO ~ 5 ~ '2 c] ~ ~ ,5 E u d ~ '5 '~ ell VI
jloolj ~ '" "'0 12 ..9 ';;; ::9 -B @' 0 S! u c: ~ U u -s 0 9- .... g 5 ~
1 '_ 0 "tJ u 0 5 f:: - a... ~ ... 5 ~ VI -5 ..... VI u -5 u U
I ""0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ell 0 ~ E g ~ VI U U 9 ~ t2 E ~ - .S E -g
1 ~ ~ E 9. c; -o'~ '0. - ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ a E ~ VI ~ 8 .; E ~ e-
I c.'" AuS>:l~ ;of's _Sb" e 5u ~u '0- \:
c. 5 ~ ':: a... -5 ~ a ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ fd 2] ti ~ ~ ~ =5 ~ c --
< ~ 8 ~ ~ e ~ it 2 "'tJ' ~ ~ E'~ 9: c.. ~ 2 '- ,~~ 0 VI g.
~ 8~~~c; ~p.~ p..i;c~E-o ~~ ~g~:.o -t;~o..E
Vl CI:l '0 g 3 C -5,~ g (OS E ~ ~ B 3 ~ c.. fi M '9 ~ ~ e- ~ ~
c.:-: ]- ~ ~ ~ ~ a'O E" ]- ~ E 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ 5 :2 ~ ~ 9 0
I r u~...co=, o.~U~ oEu-d-~ _o.ll -~:::J ;;3~
~ ~o..3aCT g.~~~ ~c..~;""E~ 0.6 o..~ 0] u'Og~
o Cl .5 Cl $ Ci CIJ ~ 0: U Cl 5 ",:I: u..o ..5 Cl ..5 c>. ~..., ~ ~ u u
o 0 - t"l
N r- 00 0"\
I .... .' '"~
~ N ("I r:l ~l ("I N N
I .::
t j
.... ~~
~ 0 ~
~ ~~~
~ o~~u
C ~~~ ~
'i: .a ~ ] ~
Q.l S 'C: 0
..:.t :s g.~i!
.~ .~ 5. c. :l
Q., ~ g..S ~
u-~.g
1] ~ :l 1i
~ 3 - VI
$ :g,g ~
~u8.g
-6 "U :J) "'0
o il 9 :l
:l ao.~ e ~
.!!.~ ~ 8 .c
~ u ~ u e
I ~~-o~9
~ 0: a ,5 ~
I ~
I N
o
February 19.1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 D35
I
IS .
_ _ :b ~ 1~~H~ >
u " U - 8 w!~":i! <...-
Clo(I.~ .0 i5 "0 fl \{4tk1 ~ t'U 0
!::l. u _ 0 u u 3': ~'~;..:::j.A ~ C ....
~ If 0 i:: > 0 Co !! ,~"f~2"1' u > 0 u i1
;; "g 'I S ~ g i; '1",;70.\1 -S & ~ u '8 E
-S9~ C;u us:z. ...--g ~~~"tj1; ...-...Cl~O ~c.
>.~!"C~~ ~a.a ~cd :rt~ ~:g!t:Eg ~~s
~ 0 ~ 9 ~ ct 0 QO .~ g :S~,~'t-~ ~ ~ ~ .~ tl ~ ;; ~
c.. ~ 0 c....!:! ~ c::l u_ ~ E .;:: ~~~~&I 0 0 5 "0 C ""0 g
" " ~ " 0 S 0 :::l " a.. ~ 7l'i!:I: 0 u,- :;j 0 00 0
, u 0. 0 ... ..., .: u tU 0 - ~~t\':; - U !:J 5 <..;;;,
~~-;;l;),~~ ~:<~ :;;;; '''I'' 00~E~5 tou
u a @ C :::1 ~ -: < ti c: ;3 ~~" '" .9 8 =,"0 Q (CI ~-5
b ~ a - g ~ ~!I ~ ~ 'i>;}~" c ~ ~ : ~ a ~ g 9
'Q u ~:;j 0 ~ il u g u 5 ~:W" 3 u > ~ a .s u u
:j 5 ~ s ^ C i;; 0:: a '0 ; U :: t~ 8 0.. 0 ~ ..9 .g '-" -5 ~
~ 6:I:66,.!:!:!2;o, -o~> -5 ,,'$"8 -e-5-1l> o-5.g
i C S . CIS 8 0. g:g ~ .~ -s ~ ~ ~!iI<~/~ Q 0 ~ g u. 5 5 i V1
I \1J 8'i:'lI'I~B-5i~ ~.s:; ='0 ,..,ttU :l....V15"O ::;-ou
u_ u...,;> 0- ,,,,. UU U (CI-
8 0 .8 u 00 ~ .: u ;;;", u -5 -a '.' ,,~., l::l ,~-s 0 E - u :;j ~
i 8 ~ g 1l ~ iJ ~ ~ a:.1j So:' ~~4\l .:! E 'il -0 u ~ B u- ~
o ~o<l1'-C~- ,,-oc:.: -d~ -ei'l~CI) sr"O~-s"U ~u>
U 0 "C e a :3 0 C lQ ~ 5 >. ~ \~;~l.S = 0 ..g 0 ~ .q ";;I c ~
;g " ~ u .e ~ W""" U :I: 5 '';:''1;&" '" - f-o ... J .:J ... ~
~ 0 o;d U -( 0 ..... '" $" 0 ..!' ",:6"-... c; > v'- - ~ ~
, ~ c.. _ -5 ..; 'ff .,g .1:; _ 0 II,) .~\;l9; 0 0 e ..g u ~ ~ '" 8
c:a '" CO" fJ U cd ,-., "0 .; u . ^''''~ ~ .g c.. U II,) 0 ~
_ F' c. 'C !l u b 5 B u": u '" c; ; '(t', u ~ E -5 15 ~ I- II
(f} ;?i: -< S ....;: a .a on d ~ 'ati;~ a ..0 9 u "tl u U ...,
~ .9 1:= ~ a ] 3 g t: ~ 0 ;;; 1 ~ tl v; lIS '" ~ u t: oS ~
] u ':: j oS $" ~ ~ ~ u 3 =- ~ >~ jv. ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ 8 E 3
c:a oS a \It iU a 0 -5 ~.g c: ~ 0 0 ~5:&jJJ ~ "'0 .9 oS (Q - 2:- -0 a
U) cf ~ c ~ .g ~ '0 A E ~ <It g .g :1"1~~ ~ g ~ .2 =u g ~ ~ ~
c ~ ~ ,g ..Q :q a. u r-"'O ~ < <11 ~ ' ~l .E $" g- t] ~ ~ g fi ::1
'" ~ ~ ::I lIS . 0 VI U - ,~-r,'^ . -
.~ :! :. (_ CI ~::l u.... c.. u ~ .- , ~'...;.. ;>-.. u ~ u r: ~ ~ e .-
..... a. ;>- u..o lU ~ (0 {I ~ :J 0 :> ..0 . ~,:4 t: ~ .9 :3 -9 >-. E g
c:a ;:~g-~~o~ bh:::g tbo~ ~~~ ~~~~tt::-;;; tt::o
"'0 .....o;;IVlUOU'O <9~ -<a.~ '~<~ <(oE3u..::l~ z!~-5
c. . . : ~~~ . <11 1..0 : U) ...
8 ~!;N'
~ -~~0 ~
_ E -; ,~J"~~ c.. ~ 0 0
'",.n 0 c.... _ 1.0-. ., >Q7~~ In ~ - -5 ~ ;:g-5
, ". cO ~ 0 J3 ~ ~ ~ .9 '0 ~ .,; ]O,1~~!2 ~ 8" g ~ 2 ] ~ ~
ION P 0 ::J .... ... u "" ...J u:: , ~:~~~ :. 0 e- ~'" ..c 0 ~ c .....
~ :t-o Cl 0... .3 f>......<, OJ-UUQilur-- _uV\
t Ol ~ :!2 ~ .!a ~ ~ & ~ "g ~ ~.o <<j<~! ] ":J 2 ;;: oJ ~ ~ ~
o e.J 0 0 u C s. : 9 VI :: 5 5 ,~'Y:t~\ ... ~ u ~ on 9 t- g c ~
I 0.. '- -5 J e C .... ..9 -s s 9 15 ~ ~ ;'4ft, lfi ~ ;;: -s u 5 3 c:: > 0
~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ E ~ n ~ $ a: ~ ~~~1t a ~ ~ u t ~ ~ 0 8 e
! '-" ~ ~ ~ :'0 _ E u a ~ :q g u :3 "d~<.i",' 'E -5,.; ~ 0 ~ 15 ii ;:; ~
: r'" Vl U u_ to ~ ~ ~ < d "0 t -5 ~ VI >;c~";;'::.'r cs c ~ g '::: u..b Cii ~ ~
\ s ~ IX -g 0 = ~ ~ U VI fJ ~ ~ 0 g ~lf': r~ "0 ~;; u 2 ~ 3 ~ :3 l.l
~ t- 0 "0 0 3: g ~.~ .... u 0 ~"O Y't~,~':.~' ~ ! ~ "C E C ]' ~ g ;:::::
o 4-. >-. 3" ~ (lJ ~ VI U 0 .... -;;; > "$=[ ;,...':(~ 8 u ~ ;; ~ .0 ~ -=: c C
,:; 0 ~:f~~:;9 E~E ::il~] ;;':i;{a ~~i:;';j:S:I: ~~.g
. ~ __ 0 U C ~ ~ -s "1:] ""C ~ 0 @ ~ .B VI "CI"~~i'l 0 ~ 0 co 3: co tJ ~ -5 ti
I ~ .~ ~ ~ .g <<(. 6 ~ g. 2 ~ t g. 0 -g ~~:::~,~ ~ ~ ~ .VI U ~ -5 a.. .J; ~
~ ~ :L) ~ t: .... ~ >. ~ u co f 0. ~ u ~ - s'1 0:: :0 c fa -5 E -E u ::: 3::
._ !9 a. ~ c p.. tl4 ;> Q a 0 U oS ~ ,!!:, ~"h .!:3 ... E 9 ... :t -5 ;t 1.)
_ _ "0 I ~ go 3" ~ .... .q 8 ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ -s .0 ~t;\r:".~1 ~ 0 n ...a \) ti ~ '0 c -=
C OJ 0 ~ U 1: ~ ~ ~ u:::l \'<J U C ~ ~ '~~:<:: l-o u 3: g -g ~ VI .... 2 ""C
Olo.. C.J A ~ -s ~ :;t .:..4 0 ..c -g .J:: ~ 9 J ~ ~l.;'~:;//, r~ .0 ~ ~ Z ...2. ~ "B e f3 ;a
L.. "Uo (l3 ~..c \:JtJrI'l cu~c: ~'l~~- ""Ocol.L, "l.o~-
0..0 :isg:tf;E.::9 :i9~ 1J.f10] ~//~~ ]U\:J~.s~~ g.~jg
~ ~ ] ~ J:l ~ ~ 0 5 ] ~ ;3 -0 :0 '€ VI ..:~,;, ~ ..c ~ 3 l.o Q cl Vl U 0 ~ ""0
"'l -;::;J VI ... V1 X]" - E3 u 0.0 lD''''>:'> V1 U 0 U - U C ;>> u t- Il.J
~ ~ 9 :a ~ ~a e ii [g, g E Vl ~:g ,'i:.<-::J ~ ~ M ~ 8 ~ g 8 u 5 \.l ~
(fl t:1il..c g 8 8 VI OJ) t! .;:: ..c: u :$ -, ;'i~ ~ ~ 0.. 8 c U 0 't:I ~..c u
~ @ 2 - ..a u ~ @ 0 ~ ~ 5 0 ~ ,'. '" =' 0 0 0 - .0 00 u - ""
~ 0 u .... ~ u.=: 0 U - .- ~ ~ - ~ .,': ~ f g ..S! u 't ~ "0 S g ..n tIl
..... ~ u ..cJ C 0 1..0 ~ ~ - U ... ~ v " ",~,..., 0 C _ "C 1J -:3 "5 0 = g. ~
;; a..~ -5 ;i ~ > 2 0. ~ u ~ ~ ~ C ~ '~;7!~\ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ g 2 ~I g 0 ~
o ..:( Q.. 0 _ u.. .5 c. ..:( Co.. ~ VI J--. V1 0 10.0 .a.;.) ..:( ... b .cG 3: 0 Vi 0 u 01 ~
r\ ~l ~;t5
...... M rA ..;. '~,~:.,.::'; r-;
Cl' . ' JO'-f,\
o N l"l f"'l 's" ".:.< M M
i <t JO :;;~~ :A :=::
'l1J ] ,~, ",~1 ..9 ~ ~ \.
~ 0 on c \;<:i~ u.s.!:! e
~ g 9 v 0 'fl,l.~>\ .5 >. ..!:!..B ~
,., .~ u S := 'fi :-,~r: "':: .0 "5 g- ... ~
OJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ::)-'~~i{y ~ ] ;, g ~ ;f
.:: "::; c..., ~ un'. :?l..... Ci 8 ~ (l:I a.B
L.. g 0 Vl ~ ~ >Et:~}..,~>' ~ 0 e -; u 8 0
lU .,g oS 5 l.o ~ J:t~-::1~~ 'e '€ ~ L: "E "'Q ....
~ u ~ ~ a "C ,zr,\~~ ~ ; a. r:; ~ fJ ~
._ -5.2 e;:o;j -'''i.,.~ '" 15 > a.;o,g
~ ~ '" ~ :q ~ '~')J:l.J:l .. u = - " -
t.9 iJ oLl - ~ ~ :'0 0 "'l ~::3 ":: OJ "" ...
e a. ~ ~~: IU g ~ ~ ~ ~Vl ~ g
s11 a..~~ ,..'t1tU "!98-!a;jU,a
b1- ~ .0 ,.....,{s""" Sc:1J~8Ei""
e :: ~ ~ ~ ,a;~i' ~ g ~.5 -B g ~
~ ~ E :E ~ ~e}:' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ii ~ ~
... 0 _ 3: 00 .Q.4,!.., CIl ... ....l lIJ co Lt cU c:
~ .~ e r::.a ::~~'>. b ~ 0 _VI -'" ""C ~ E
e := E S 0 ~ ,"ILji! 6 ; :;j :;j g - ""
~ - 0 ~ ~ :Li ~;,<$'i' ~ - ~ E 0 g !::!
a.. e 't: g- ~ l3 '0:':':; c. s i1 -B :. e- ':;
.s il ~ " := ~ ""'lil,;c .E1 >< " " c. U"
tIS r:l .0 0 ~~_.,:n 0 U U 0 ~ ";I
all", 0l31. '1#<" o~-~o-<...
l--o...~ ~"'..... E--o.~u.._-Jo I
M l' ~~\l '
N ("'l. rn.~ M
036 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
1.9
>
.,,- ,g .s~ ?; t' ~."
-,,-
]~f <all o "" " "" III :,< :J :J
,5 ~ .;
~:;::'" ~ .g ~ -g ~ ~~ G .. ." 0
;:*g ."." - u
o os : S a.g~ c'o~ g ] ~] ~ :a 0 ~ :J
u " ~ " ." ,-"9
],0';; 0 9 Q 0 o c 5 > o u 0 Ii. ';; " "
-S :> :.0 ~ girl ~g~~~ :f';; " OIl ';; e ~;'
~ .-: e a o ... ~ 9 o 0..
~ _ 0.. 0.0 ~ _ 0 ;;; ~ fl.... .- ,,"- ~ ~ll o t:
~ ~ 3g. 0 U C U '0' ~ ~ c :a g ]~- _ 0 .
.to ~ 6 S ti- s:: .s~fo
.~ ~ ~ ." u ... 0 a.. fJ ~ g; '- ~
:; u ~ Po. u -se-tft;;." .; ~ fi
, " 0 - 0.. u -5 ~-5;~ ~ e?a.s o _
-:; ~.9-s." - " :0;;"'0
o 0 0=_0- o 0
.~ ~ ~ u &.u]~ 'B; ~ ~ ~ ~ ]~~.s ~ ~ 'u; e:-::
~~o OIl &.~ ~ c. S
." o uCI3-
~ ""3 ~ S c ~ ~ on~ c. -s - VI:= u ~ e 0 e-f;;~
::l - " .to ~ ... S .c "0 -0 '- aVl g g- S ~ " 8 9 j ~ e
CI ~~~ .s d ~]~~~ o 0
.. ~ ~~-o 6h@~.s ~1 ~ ~ :5:
e "'0-0"'9 '- .f! ~~ 0.. ;a <( :; .2 ] 9
o - !?aUil ~ t- ~
e :;~~ _ t: a ~i1~ ~gHg9
~ ~ a " u gj 8..F ,9 ~ ~ ~ ~"-
u"", U lit U ... ,2 e:-
o '" -0 C E 'a :a:a;; ~ s~~~] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Co '2 5
u ~ ~ ~ g
~ ~ Q "'" 8 ] g g. 8 ~ g .9~ :a ~ .~ E 0. .= ~-B
l::: "" ~
~-@,1l :J- ,~.:2 ~ S ,~ ~ ~ :; ~ a
~ g ~ .5 .J ~ e ~ cO ct:.t u ~ ~ g
,,'" := u !:i 'oa-E,o
C/J ~ 0 Vi -< ~.tJ ~ ':f2o..~~ - 0 ~
"'" :. 2 .~ ~ E ~ ~ 3 !l 0.. u .0 E ~
~~ :d - 0.."'"
"0 :a "" f- o 0 'g ~ ~ -5 a a'9 (q 0 ~ 0 ~ ::S! O...c
CI ,g~Q - :. ':.se~ o " >:3 -:;j g 'I: :;
~ '- 9 0 u :> ~.~ n ~ g ~ ~.~
'S 0 z 0' ~ ijll.tO
III o '@ g'o :: ~ fI:l E"'O g ~ '" u
p.~u~ u u ~ ~ ~ "- ..el ~ u
CI 0"", g~~.s:3 ~ ~ ~
~ c.u ~.g~~ .9 g.g t1 e u >
CiJ5s:h ~'" u ::J.E g S ~.~ -:: a - ~-!l f--s'il
u-o ODVj u !l ~ fl-[~ o..~
~ ~ u U t) ~~ F= 0 " 0.. >~~b8
"0 .Q~'" 6 ~ ~
CI . . . . . . .
..
S l;; "'" '-
2 '"' 0 ;;:
S "2"2 u'-a -0 :;J
00 0.5 5-5 ~~.tO~:J u ~ E
0\ 0 f- o " :1 _
r 13 g a E :3...... ;d ~;- " u '- -= Ei ~
00 <J 0 a EE~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ 2
o .. .o_g g;.tj ~ III " 6 ;j g
" _0:: ] ~ ~ ~ rJ a rQ ~13Q9 ..''''.~ u ..... u <==..2~ ;!U1- ~f-
~ .., :.a ^:I u ~ .;; u ;j:;-5~.g u e ~ M "
" 0 -< ..... .... c:: -5 fr;i-5 ]Clo~~ ~f-~~ ..2......u ;"0
<J 't:J ; a ~ ~g~ -5 0 "'" -= -
'\ Co~ ..l:l-~ o '- a. 0 u " 0 - .tJ :. a~
'" .., 0 :a 9 0 u -- Co. u ... ~ -t1.~ ~ ~ CI1 ~ 8. g
O::~ "'" :. a: .ebG ~ ~ ~ E ~ tJ...8
-0->- -;; ~ u u C ..... ~ V> g ~ u u u u o 0
M ;;.. C t:: U:"Cg5~(';j_ .2 u ~ u g ~ j 0.. ""
E-.:t: o 0 tJ 0 o "-5 Qa.g~
~ a.;j ~ '"9'- ~ ~ ~ ~ o u
"- ~ ~ ~ >< 0 5 C.L: ... ~ t~ fl 5 u -:: -5 "'~ ~':
'0 ~ s;;; '" 0 VI U 5~-5 ~~ ~
"'"'E- '0 e -5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.s g-] .to " ~ u "
, e... 0"" -- 9 ~ -= 0
;;'- u C. " -5-53':"'-5 ~g~ ~'t:
, u ~.;, ~ c. 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
j 0 .~ ] ~ .5 ~ d. e =;; rf fl ~ ~9~~-59 "0 u
- - lIl_u ." u li~
I ~.2io u ~ u a:l > .... ~ ~ _~ !l :. ~.~ -0.
- '" ~ ::-S E~~~ t:: ] .~ ~ s] 0:$
I - .- _rtJ ~ 5..z::: u " 0 U u
.~ ....J ~ -0 l..l c::; Q..u~ o 0 ~ v gilJ~_~.a:::l :] ~ ~ E 0 :n 1;-5
~ ~ ~ 9 ~ c l,) -9 ~ 9 ~
"0 I 8 iU u :=92ta <E:iu~-o~ "'" ;.,
~e~.H o ~ -5u06
c .., ~ 'S ~ S i'l Vl 0 ~~~~~9 ........ c ,tI u e9~ ~.tO
.., <J -" 1:1 M l.l ~ 9 VI o~>-9 ~ ~ ~ "'"
g 00.>:3 tJ C t.i.a ~u..ii "'" u
I Co~ 9 -5 :;l u u 0 .;3 u 0 '^ ~c;a.a9~ - :>
00"- - u ,9 :> 0
--- Co 0 u :l ;a u -g ::! :a o ~ a E .- -5~~~]* -;~.:@ -= -0 'Vi ~ o ~ - -
~~ S:J E~ -= c.
~"'S-5.g .to 0 0 -a.:::uM ~ c.
(<:'I t <II 2g":~2 ~u8~~6 ...... 0 0 0 ~ :
.:t: ~1ac1i = c c..~
III ~~]~ o.Q lU -s- u ,..:.,: u u g~~-~~ ~ 0 U...c g.tO
<': gaS ~ 5'U:J E] :a :5:-'.j 'E g,~ ~ -5i g ,g 0. E 0.. '- ,=..g l-
E- ~~6 o l"j ~ U "'"
U ~ l"j a:: ~~~ ~ 51e-~~ u -
~ ~ 2 ~ ~ :>
e.$j ~ -5 .S o..'c ~;...,.<( = o 0
.... o.uoo- ~g~~ E'" E "C U ~ _ ~ Cl) I- ~-o;
c E.Q 8 tl .g ] ~ ] ~ o ~ ::::: u .x:.- e u ~ C g ~~]
c o 0 u u uc..aJ-5f-~ S -S 5 ;; 0.. a
N u 0::: "0 c.. U to 0 Ion ': 0.0
- -;0 e u c:!. u -; Vi I
c ~ ::;~
0
~
't
~
I ~
i :::
llll
c
.;:
..,
.:t:
<J
i:l:
-c
,
I
I I,
February 19.1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 037
\ ' i
i \ 20
I ~ .-
I 0 '" ~ >
I ;t S'<l ii ,q
, u uO .u _::
'I g-5 S-5~ a~ 2 ~ ~e
""l u~ ... 1)- ... u ~ c.. Q... ~
~~ ~_" "'.. >,-;;1 "
I 9 -a .5 -a -5 ;; ..... -@, ';:: ~ !d "",
~ ~ 'E ~ -0 :! :.0 g g 0. -:3 .~
, 88:'. 8sii 8:'. .s3-5 S~
I ~ ,;! ~ ~ :;! g- ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ .:
g 4.., ._ Q '- ..... > C '-:a ~ ~ \t\
i: 0 : ~ 0 B 'B .- ~ c ;J; "0 'f
M5! o5~ ~3 ~~g >!
iU 0. U ;; a. u u 8 'U 04 0 .9
~<~ ~<,g ,;;@ iic:!~ 1:
~ :2~ _ B ~~ ^ ~ 3 SJ ~ "C ~ -S E
c lo... _ .9 '- _ 0.. "'0 ~'" 0 fa A 0 0
4J E -+ '0 :: -:- '0 ~ ~p : ~ ~ ~ i;;
8 u "2 ~ e '^ ~ .~ ~ -s 0 .S! ] ~
8 J~~ ]~.B ~~ ~~~ ~1
o ~3" ..:!3"" Jl-B ",-BO <u
U oS _ oS .Q _ -5 ! '" 0" c U ,5
'- i;\;J::; !;1;J::l i:;'g ~-"l8 ~"
.... "8" "5" 800 S<,a' f-:<
3 ~8~ ~s~e u3 <l ,~; ~~
. CJ'} 8~ S~~ gp-g ~E::ca::: dtJ
\ ~ .;gu"C -a""':;j ::!"U 0,,:3-5 ~oS
c e.;-g 5~g~ 89_ ~e~~ o~
~ El: u E _ u;l. ...,.~ M co t- lJ
S f. u S -u u cQ .!:1 >-..... .~ t: -.:J..... U 0
a ~ .~ E 8 ~ g 1 ~ ~ R ~ ~ 9'~ ~ ~
o ... E 8 ~ 's E u :; ti u (Q'~ g. . VI
''';: l:t:S8 h::aE~ ug~ u~::IVl tlg
~ 5 0 0 :3 0 0 0 bll i;l u bll '" ~" 6;, ';;:J
~ ~uu ~UUr ~>o <e~~ <~
~ . . ...
a '" ~-
00 8 .5 u e .::..: -, c; ~
'" _ S -<- :;J 0.
,0 ~ 0.. S. ~u.;: ~"'d ClJ e
~ ~ 0 t::- e- 0 e 1) -5 ~ ~;t ~ ~vt ~ ~ ] u
u ~.d""u 0.. Z""C ""COti'~o.o <o:J ...~ -s
t:(:G ~_~~"':U-el -~ ~",:--cc -:3 ~u
o~ o-B'3~@~:~ gos.~~f~E ~o ~~ S
0. J... ~ 0 coo ~- <t ~ c:: :3 - 0 1.1 -t1 OLI 9 $ ;a 0
~ 0 0 ~ l..I l--- ... '" .0 0.0 u >. 0 - :::l .!1 ~"- c::; u U'\ C
,..." ~ z ~ ~ otl u U ~ 9 rtI :; ::r: :::: E .,g <u .b 0.. "\: eQ ~ n u
~ ~~O,~A.~~~~ ~o~~~~ 9 ~~ ~= ~
E-~ ,g!,:"u:91i.'J,ij.c ,",~-6u;<;:;t'", u-B"l i;l2 ~
8 ~ tg~~]~(Q~,-~ gc:~'o~~~~ t~].a~ ~
I. ~ (;iZoc..VI~:!l.~6 ~O_fa'2~a.-;n o~ti UU c~
~ ell ... lJ lit _ C1l 0 U --4' a. lJ ,_ :::l on U ~.....:.; u :j c:
1 0 '- ;> ~ "'C -9 b ,5 'in u 0 - ....... 0 8 ::: 0 ~ u C ~.::s ~ -5 E U
, _ 0 CDC::2"'O-5uu3-a A-.Ut:jlJ..5bDu": u':::lO 0.... E:E
:= t; '1] ~.o :;J ~] ~ ~ ::c .s r= ~ ~ ~ el -:l :. ~ ~ ~ ';;.s. 8 *' ,
j )000oi ._ ..:..t _ ~ u ~ ~ ':::J ~ u '- U ~ a !! ~ ""C u ....;j 0 u S OLI ~
\ .~ ....:l J: ':; B;5 < a .8 ~ -B ~ -B :; ~ E .:..: ~.z =;; ~ ,~ ~ 3 0 '~ E
"C I u -B () ..( U 0 lJ VI .9 t: 5"Cl 0 a. u ::t ""C 0 ""C - -5 d.a e "t:I
c \U -S a 1i...J ~ .~ ~ g, s.. "s .g ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ fa :: ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~gd~~lIt~.e Et]4.0E~o..o~~ ~~fJ ~fJB €is
0.. 0 u"2 \'-t gel.., 6h u 3 :: 0 .;.: -SU 0.9- c ~ - 0. "" -= VI ;.. ~ iO
:1"",CI.Q:juoVid'C. l....."ClU 6..ct'd>. ~~::t ..cUe:: O;t !
~ ~ _ ~ "5 0 "0 ~ 0 Q -d' ::l ~ ia 0:: Q ~ F -fi ..c u ii\ 0 5.. ~ 8 0. 4.. I
~ ~eQ~ua:.....~rsti :~ci5s~o:'-o'2 ~~:: uu..g ~~
~~ {/] 0 @ 8 rq ~ rtI U C ~ ..c ~ oA VI ~ .... 9 e E U ..0 ~ -5 ~ '; c u
~ u~a<u.Q-UVl ~o.c;~~coJ}Eu m~rtI u-'" uS
t-< .0 -;j 0 u 'C: :E.a 8 " - e c: b ~ u 9 E U - ",;t ;;;::l '" Ei e
I -" o..q~u.Q .0 ,,~"U~ k "-" uo.p "
~ a 0.. >~~ ~ <I1c..~ ;3-5-ti.a 5 ~~ 8<2 ~~ & -a~;a 0.8-
, g -< '0 ~ i:2 =: :: .ij ,~ u U1 ~ ,;: 5 ;;; -g j e ~ G;t;;; UJ "C g .s ,9
It'" ('-,I M ,.
_ N M M M M
C ' . .,.
o M M M M M
...
....
... [ r; 3
'" '" 0
_ o.c
~ >, So
$ ~m u~
0.0 ~ ..VI ~ ~
c 5. :;j 0 ,>
'C ';;; II s::3 ..
~ UU ~~
(,J .; ~ "Os -5 '\
flu.. '
~ ~ '" '" E
Eo :;j :;j ,g
.~ g ~ hg
ii'f g,~
c ~ ~ :;
e~ !l~-i3
u u ~ ~ u
o.~~ ~~~
,!j " ';;I u r;; !l
o 0 \:: 0 ~ tQ
!-'<If- f-o;t
~ '"
'" '"
(
038 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19,1999
\ 21 '
] ~U~ .~
a~ o~~~~ ... ~
u 08 on~d"'::1U -S u
""-5 E! $"" "".. a. -5
.~ ~..2 ~ 0 'j; .; ~ ~ (; ~ .s 0
~~_ ~u !3~~-~ U "C
~~a. Iu "C"C5].~ ~ ~
~ g ~ ';\ e 0 fa .... ~ ~ ~
g e g ea ~ ~. 0 E ~ ~ .~ - ~ ~
U~u g '::~u~E9 ... 0
Q ._ ~ = ~ t:l '- a ~ 0 "0 ~ i-
o'--;:J U 0 00""-0..:2 - u
i: 0 Oi g a 't:; ;; g-u n -5
uS,.:.., "'de..... u5u..8.....9 '0 -5
a~g g~~ ~~~u~~ ~ 'i
~<- o"~ ~<_.=:Ou .0 <:
CI) =<<1::; 0 U ~ :~ ~ ~ ] 5.. ~
... '- ::::' 0 _ .9 0.0 '- -::: 0 a. u c.. ca a..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ .:.. ~ ~ a ~ ~ .~
S ii";~ ~a.~ [;";5-:l~J! 8 ~
e 9 ~ '8 .; " 3" ~ ] ~ 9 ~ -5,g ~ a ~
o :el <: S b a. . " .~ 3 " u 5 ~ a. ~ ~
u ~:joc go;:;!":D a . "'eEl 0 )(
~5~~ uu~ ~~~~~go € ~
l::: u!isg -s:;l,., u".9S~-51U iJ ~
l ~ -Ba~B' ~~~ -B~~::::-B~3 ~ 3
I rJJ -a u ,9 => '" ,,-'" .;g u '" '" " " .& i'l "
""0 5 & ~ ] E -9 ~ fi ~ ~ ~ ~ :G ~ .~ ~ ~
I CI e~u"" p-", Ei~Ei""'.;;!"" < <
~ s. ~ ~o..a E~ "'0"0 que U
"1 0 .~ c 9' 0 :. n Q -~ ~ -E ~ -B fi ~ .g ~
I c ~ .5..g c.. ~ ~ ~ t: .E ;;:: 0 ~ 3.:.J - ~
o .....8.....2 uS:$~ '-a6r::o~~ vh 4..1
".;:: l:t: E ~ u . .J:J ,;;a It: e: 6 .!9 _ .... c.. U E U
~ 5o~t g~~ ~oo~g~~ b40 ~
"0 V'lU;>"O COXA U1UUO......'O-;::l '<( (",l '<(
C. .. . .
..
5 OQ l:I "'0 -u -O~ 0
00 S s,-a~ Oil:;; uo ~ ..cu
0\ 'v; 0 '= 2 :a .e 0.. -;;; ~ ~ 9 '- ~ ';; :::::! -5
~ ~ ';a q t ~ SO ~ ~ ~ O'~.c ~ ~ - :;; ~ ,g ~ g c.Q
o ~ ::: 17 ~ ~ ~ 'w ~ 0: 9 -g ~ E g .d ~ E ~ ] "3 (ii ~ ii 'fi ~
_C::: ~~u~.E ~B '-~~::9~~ :;;~<~ 8~ ;;~.g
J... 4.l 0 c 0:: u _ E 4- 0 U t: ~ u .... U 'U U - I.L.; .- \11 0\ - a..
o u ~:JE~~ ::,., oQ6et::..o~~~~2go ~~ -e:u
~ 5 u _~ g 5 -0 0 .S S ~ ..:::l 3 0 :2 .D ~.... ~ !il = ~ 0.. ~ 5 0 -S
Z-=:I't:;..5 .".~ Vii-~~Ei:g('j~~Vlcu~ ug "CC"C
0:: (:;., Q c~ ~ a -0 ?:i' d Vi u '- "t:l 0 .c 0 Vl ~ VI 0 E -B -S ~ ~ s ~
~ ~ ~ ~3-2:a E~ g-5_~;J cJJ~~'o.5 ~-5 g ~ ~ ~ fr~ ~
o c: ~g~$fr r~ ~tJs~s<g]c~c~-5 ~~ 5.-:sg
-E-- ~~=~~g ~g ~o::Ei311,-r1~~~o~0 ~5 a-~
. 0,,-;> <.00 ol':l Vl.....;jUUOO""U....:1"'Vl 0;> _~u
" - 0 ao'ouau -oS ~o~e-';;O:c-;;~5"C..28c a-o ~~~
" = tn 5 ~ t: .5 ~ n ~ ~ ii e. ~ '0 ~ ] 5 g- ~ SO u .~ :2 .5 ~ r- ~
" ,..... ._ ..:..c a 0 u 0 u >. ...., c r- u ::I .... -d ~ -5 C :::l 0. '- c-
. ~~ uo.5'o'U tiU o:::]u:tu,c~U~rluO" ,.g= Vice:
'\ ._ c: m VI ~ U ~ ~ .D 0 3:.r:i 0 oS l--' u ..0 _ 0.. g ..c VI 2 u C ~
" "'0 I u.s~~"C ..0 ~ $ :9 ~c." ~f--s _-5~o Q/)"C!. ~-s ~ E E
~ ~ ;: '- ::3 - 9 3 u ~ g d .... ~ 0 ~ d co g ~ ~ ~ ttJ 13 .~ ~ ~ 1.) g
__ " c.. ~ 0 0 ~ g c 0 c:i ~ -t:i 2 ~ :: ~ u ..c: "C :g :r: ~ .9 .~ ..2 ~ d CD ~ ~ - --
" c.. 0 g.. E 1: ~ ~ u ~ 8 ~' ~ 0 u ;g ;; ~ ~ ~ g .e ~ ~ ~ u u ~ _VI:;. fj
~ f;l;.. p.- rl ~ ,- b a 'E co ;; ~ ~ .0 u :: 0." :< " " 3 ;;.,g 6i, -<; a .5 .s
6:b 5 CIl 0..J:l ~ ob .u u1 ~ > -:;j ~ B a. i1 ..a ~ u U 11'I .- C B...t:: ~
~ all c .... ~ e U v; Q.. .a . = "0 0 ::; ~..c: >. 5 0 ~ ~:.s ~ ~ .~ ...a.::.:.o
CIl sU(Q"'Cao ~orl g~~~-50.0::I:g, u U "1;J_ u:t-=
~ ~ ~ s ~ _ ~ 9 ; ] :3 e ~ c cD .... ..c 0 g .i.o c; t1 .~ ~ Z -6 U
E- oa.g...8M ti~u .D~:J~suoc;ro~.L:):::::!"B~ :Ou Lt~(->
_ ;t~""2V1.....~ u a ::I...O:::1J"'dS-5'~Vli:i~~Q :Jill Mfa
r-'l '-0.....- ~ 0 \l\O'~"'OS~uflS-VlO:::l:; a..C 1.1"'0....
g -< of-I-- fJ"E Q g~ < ~o... Q~ o...gO'\I\ ti 8..~.2.2 <8 ~ 5'~
t"l
I . ("'~
C;" V( ~ c-;- ~
o t""l f""'l ~ M M
1 ~ UU . Q/)
~ "'" ~:g ~ "'0 ..c -0 .... C 5
_ ~S::l :g u~~~C-B -sg ~
C1 Q 0 Co .- C u c: 9 c 0 =
':>- ouO _~ :taJ-8o....::l ..orJ u
~ ~ 6-5 ~'C'- 0 >.~'E Co,.:! 50 -
"""IrI .5 "C ~ ::l ~ E 4:1 "C - H ~ rq . ~ - :;
...... ....;jra....J 0",:,0 ~;jo<':l-O V1~ E
.~ .g ~ ~ g -5 ~ ] -; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c _ 8-
<U cQ::.1uJe aol):Q oo'-..s~~ cg..~g-
) ~ iQ g -; ~ ~ B ~ .q -g ~ 9:2 6 .~ a E ~
.~ ~ .... -s ~ t) ~ ] G U ~ ..., S "C U g. ~ ~
~ fl]~~ C;;00.., ~5eEii~ Erq~ti-o
u go ~g6 ..Qs:~gtiS ~~-5..Q~
c ~ "C 8 3 .... 0 ~ u u u u 0 0 = _.:! 0.
.g u U 0 ~ B ::I -S ~:= a 0.. c- a :r.c ~
ri ~ '5 ~ g'~ ~ -= r; ~ .g a. ~ q .u ~ ~ ~ :0
-6 ~ ~.~ n 9 g g ~ -5 6" .E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ]
~ ~~.- ~ ~ ~-B ~ >.~;t- ~~ CQ.~ a-43 u
~-t3~u ~~'O u::i:5cc-5ti ~~og-5
l .2:a:~ f;~c: E:oOoagg.e- ~"O~~]
I uUuo; ~uu ..,c;~"" a. ""~,,
>--c c..:>e c~ >uc u(ljllJ.o""
I ~ g :~ ~ .g ~ tl B <5 -.g ~ .2 g. g fi ~ ] ~ ~
I o-fltic Od~ o>.o-~oo o..g...r:::lu-
i- lI'I ttJ rd f- ::i 0. f-o ..0 0::: .5 ..s _ _ E--o 0.. S c:-;:
J. ~ ~ ~
I
i
February 19.1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 039
22
~~ e
~ 0 u >-. ~ '-
~~ to -5 ] E >-
~! E "g~ .9 ~ g
i'~; ;!l 0 ~ Cl;I u
'''''l' :J ~ u " ;j u
~ ~~ .~~~
.,,': 9 0 - 04'- F'
~ ~ ~.9 ~ ~ ~
~ !.~~ ~~~
,~, -1 _ ..c 0 0
fz~~ ~g~ ~~'o
1~c ~;-6'c ':~a
0\ :..:~~ SbgaE U",ec
0.. ~ 8 ';;; t..;. .., ~ ~ <. ~
~ ~ ~.~' 8 ~ ~ .~ E =0 .-. u
Q :3 . A~'~ U "0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C5 oS
aJ .9 i:' :~t:} a u ~ ~ ..E: <: '"
8 u ..::: ~0-t:: Q,Q~t:rrIU ~r-~
8 ~ ~ ~J!! .~ -8 ~ -W 5 ';; ~
o c '; rtt,> CIl ~ a 0.0 '1 U 0
U 8 ~ ~ c c..::;~~ ~-[~
l::: :;; 04 ~~ "-9u~ lts~>::i
~;t .a ~,".. f- ~ :::! ~ ~rn 111 c: 5 ;:;
cii .~ 9 i~3' :;; ~ ~ '5 : ~ ~ 5
~ t:3 ,;t.".g ~.........~
"'C)( 9 ~~ >..<c~ "'tJgoQ.
~ ~ ~ ~ a-:-,':o. ~~B~
VI :a :0 ~. -~ -6' ~ 0 0 ,s..2 ~
c t- a ~'-. -5 a >.. Q.O c 5 - E
O ,_ ,0.; _ ~ .. s .~ 0 s '"
u u u u ,lit'. u 6h 3: . ... 2 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"1:l <( <<: <<: <<: ~t <<: ~ ::: ;;: ~ ~ 5 ~
~ .. . . :Si;. .
a"O lU ('(I 0 ~ti u "C
~ E ] .5 (5 -g SO.s ~ ~] :: ~, ~ ~ ... ~ ~:q
,ou '" -" ..... u- ~ t: VI 0 U UI g. ,.~.. S vt:J 111 S -= ~
00 .... u..:..:.-.o :dC;...2 ....0 ..;::1 -a <110_\.12 ..c.....l"i
o~ ~ 3tu~cDg; E-o>.. ~~ ~. u-o:1.z;->&. ~.3e
1: ~ ~ .; ~ ~ ~ a ;; ~ ] 0 e t~' ~ ~ ~ :Q ~ g ~ .5 ::
o c.J a 0.08u~o -5 g i: -a c; :.- o..oOJ));; r.1 ~ .!:) o.-g
c.. "- 0 5 0:: ~ ,_ 1) U - a... 0 -; ..0 I,,) ;:;1.9 "'0 0 :9 c.Q ":I
-uo u: --B_cuc..}i ~~e -flu ::tc 5V;S3~f;' as:::
~ ~ 0 ~ g ~ ~ it "&:2 ft 3 ] ;~ .~ ~ ~.rg a3 -B ~ ~ 11 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ u: g to ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~a ~ :9 ~ ~ ~ jj ~ ~ t
9 ci ~ s.sr:'E~ :a~oc: .o~ ~"O g-o~];-..Q Cie:r;
~ _ e ..... -a JJ 0 ~ ~ E.~ :2 _~ ~,~ ~ E 5. c.. "0 == ~ ~ ~
. 0 '- S 'C 0 ~ ~ 0 .~ := ~ 'iii g ~ '8"'" ~ cu ~ ~ ;t ~ -2 ..c
\ ~o 'R ~[58~ ~~~G" ~5 ;tOe ~9~6E~ f-~-5
~ ""'" ~ u ~ 0 '"'0 u = t:: c: ~ d 0 .5 "'0 :3 0 0 0 e1l.~ 0
~ V) !3 ..t: :a VI - ~ - ~.- id 0.0 _ U ~ ~ 0 ..b'" c: 5.!:) -- -
._ VI f'J -0 ~ ~ g ~ :: 0. ;; g Q ~ a. 0 .s VI ~ ~ 0 U 9 tJl
~ H a u U'\ -B ~ of: U u 0.. > ~ _ u ~ -0.0 u u 'f ,.:.: u s
:0 I u t; ~ 0 'it. ..a 1II $ cu..:: ~ fi 111 ,,~ 0 -0 ...!! '2 ~ -5 u ~ ;;; "C
U (i:i:.......s~3: !t:ui;i..g u ~ u o.oo..oUUU~ E"C..:!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :t 8 ~ 9 ~ ~ 0.0 ~ 5- ~:; 5 ~ ~ ~ ~.5 ~ E :a 5
0.. L. lW ~ ~ -fl ~ ~ nO 5 -0 :2 .~ ~ a ; 2' ~ ~ .:: ~ O:"t:l <n~ -5 C ; E
~o ~ ~~ar--~ ~.$j;a-B e~~ ~~ a::;gE-5~9 g-5C
. ~ ~ -d .... "CI lI'\ a. ~ ..:..: 0 C. ;: ~ ::J - ::.c ~ ~ -.C .- "'0 .5 ;;.. VI !- ;: ::J
~ ~ o-CO\u U 0;;0. 50U !;;Jr-. t:-:;l.....u UVI nn;>Oo
V) P.. 41 ~ 5 9 - 0 ~ Ii: ~ 't v. ti: :; ~ ' u .:"' ~ t; 8 '"5 ~ 5 -= t-
C'::t -r-:: c.. c..c:rl 5 "'d -:: lo-.2 0 ... u..c V'l 'S .....: ~ U 0.. ~ 0 U .... g::./l t
L... ;; 8 :.:: c."I S .a ell 1'3 0 0. (;i ~ :..:: "C ~ '... ~ 13 E E ..g ro t'3 ~ ::l E
") L"' 0. 0 u "C:;; !::! ~ ~ ~ J2 ~ ~ -g '"5 a ':.e c.. ~.1:! ~ c ~ 5 ~ 0 ~
f""'l ~~ ~E~3g~ o~u] 0..]9 ~, ]eg.5~]~ o..~~
o 1--'.0 <<( e 0 _ l;:;.D t- a. -5 .u -< In t;:; ,C; f- c...::: u u en e < .0 0..
o ~~
r: ..,. 1.'( ~ ,
_ ~ r; "'";' 00 ...a.. l ~
C M M M M ,8 "1" v
e ~
~ ~ ~
QJ ~.a >.QS. 1II
C'I: ~ c "'5 ~!, '0 -~......
> -:-. 0 U :;:j 0 .5 0
;> ~ ~ g ~. t" 3 a
~ :~i3 ffi'.J J:~
OL: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ u ~ ~
OJ E '- .; .- -- .:; ~
..:.: ~ 0 ,. '8, U 0 ;j E
.::! g ] .2 :~ _~ t.=; C. -0
~ 9 .9- ~ "c..Q u ~ ~
. u ~u 0 u - c.O
f' 2 g ~~_ ~ '2 u }1 -2
30.,- ~f:~] a~
E -5 ~ ;0' 0 S 'Z 6 .~
E" a~ 9- F''"-
o C :: ~e ~ ~ -~ ::;; ~ a
~ 8 ~ ~'~ 0. t ~ 2 ~
anuu ,,~t.- clj~ 0 0
~-1II <""r... -J_
3 0. ~ ,u ~ co t: Ol.l
8,g; ~~ ~ e8 .2~'2
E~~E i -3.~ ~;~
~ ~ ;j ~:c. ,g ~ Q ~ ~
~~. ~
e<"\ ~. V ~
040 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
1 23 t
!
i ::l .!S
I ~g] ~ 5 <;4 '- .~ u
-fiou~-S
u ':I ",,, oll.B~~~~9
- ~ :ii 8 "
I ~ g ,9 0." .9 ~ u ~ c..",,-=, ~
I S ~ n~e -flEu ]~~
! ~ ~ 8 o ~ ~~~&.g8~
u 0. ",,>-0.
.~ ': .s 3~ :; :ii 2 !l ,- ;., ~ 2l~!'!
E g c o u oEo. ~:ii0" I) U ::c
~ ~ ':: ,:1 ~ .s ;: "" t! .2 c :>
i :2 't: 0 15'00-5 ~~ ~ o~o.
:l ~ ~ :en '; ~ ~
""u 'l: ~ - " " ><
" oj 0. ); ~-Su" if t2 -S
, ~~g.-- .@ ..J ~c..-5~g2~ ~ ~ E ~
, :.s ~~ " 0 f<!ig:!!1g
-'" u :;a-S;"
: ~ .9 =;f] ~ ~ ~ ~_ u S!-a.g @ " 0
C1. " . 'o'"774~~~~ o i ~
C 0. :l: :l: " Ell "
I .. ~ < c ~ .s cd .~ a '7.9 ..., l: ..Q -0 ~ ..8
I a ] c ~ u"'"'E.t:J ~ ~-
~ o.~ :g ].ggasVl] ~ -
E " 13 ,~ ] " !
0 &. ~ * Ii ~ "." ~;io.~uri~
U o -a t ~Q~~s..-B~~ - ;;l
,5 !j ~ g I--~~ " >
I::: :a <::,~ ~ " " g ~ u -:; -s 5 ~ .g 'u i.l: ~
0: u-sn -5-5~ u~;;9u...cuu ..g
Ui '~ ;';;l ~ fi "" " -s ~. -s ,!,!.Q 5 Ii " ;
u .~ g ~ :3'~ ~ OJ) ~ ~ ~ t:; .~
i 't:l .2''S;r: ~ " 8 fi ~ ~ < .~ ~ 8 ~ >::J 0-
C <<I ~ 'C u }l~.s ~:-Bu-o"O;;~ " ~ 0
0: DO~~-9 ~:1 u g ~.s -5 ~ ~ \0.0 5-
a 3 ClO ~ 8 ~
: II> Suu-o 9 ~ c 3t::~~>' o.ou
C 'c. c a ~ ~ s 0 u--u;:::C19,- o "
.!2 '0: -- ~~~.D<2ouo 0_
.~ ~ ~ ~ ".2.D
~ :: ~ a Q:: >. u U""O -.:l - ~ ~ ~
c5 g ~ !3 a 0 to ~ ;: 0 U
0: O.5~;;; CIluu8u..:::::l81.C < ;t a
't:l
c . . . .
..
6 u~o c ~ .~ c >. a -.:.. ::i
00 E ;;l .D 9 13 ~ ~ ii~
0\ 0 ~ -0 ~ oue.s~~9:ii ~ ~]'~
ob <J >- _ U -5oat-c'U .:!~c
at) 0. ~ 9 ::i u- .~ .~ -g- ~ g g ~ ~ e ::
c .. a.~~
_0:: @ u 11 oj -c~u u u"';j u"-.2 B ~'O~8
~.E~:aE E..c u
.... .. u~-5 0<.l_"!'!-g-S05E 5 C g..9
0 <J :a - S u ~C:-5-5:D E c: g ~ ~
c.. .... e"E"U-,,-5 1..".8 ti z~~~~~~:~~ 0. :; u: -5
.. 0 E .@> ~ 2 ~ g ca"O o of: 0 ~
o:::~ III '" u f-o 0 ~ ~ ~ E g ~:.a Q 6.~ -5 a ~ .;; ~ -5 ."
f-o~ ~".cc- 0~"'5'a8'OC&T;l u ~...... u
, '0 0 u :r: ::i !,! ~ ~ ~ ~
! o ~ =. .M ~.~ 9 cDS-=:: 'E .'" 6 ~ 8 "5 0 Q ;;
-f-o .c:EB~ca ~ <:: :D ~ 3 ::i ~ ,~ ~ ~ ] 0 ~ o ~ 0...:1
"" ~ .... c 0 9 u ~ ;;; ~oD]-3U~ 00 g 0 :a-o
, .,::'- E] 5.~~.2 -'" ~ " 9 "0 o.ct:iu~:t u ~ _ U
1 0 U 0 " ~;;;:q~t;~~~..Ji;
I - - ~~~':~8 a:g.~ u.....C;:o
..... '" -S ~ u 'u .,g ~ o..c 8 ...e ...c -.;:t u ~ ~ ~ ~
- .- cQ ~:;: g -"'0 o.~ -G~~,:;~~~~S-5u
.~ ...l i -0 :::J - 0 U u
\ c.D;:::.,.gi:..8 0 3 :;J ;; C::O{j.c-g ~-5-:3 ~'o 2 5 e ~~
't:l I E:a~~ ~~ u "" :a &)5..o::::9;>;e co'Qa:l g ~ ca 5';
C OJ _ c.. c ~ '" 0 u 5..c -5 u f- :5 ::i 0. ,5 U .~ ;j E ~.~ ~
OJ OJ ~ 5,~ ~ ~ a ~~.5 ~~ ~-5i-o~~~ fa ~~
c.. .... F tl u "E
c..o 5<J~ f-o g "'~ ;:t ~ ~ g, ~ ::i 5 ':0 -5 ~ 'H 5 5 2...s s
~... ~ oj - ~ ~ :ii j C'CI III ~
fr ;t.-f5V1 ~ .~ g Q ~ fr -B ~ ii 5 ~ ~ :loa OJ) >
~ :~-';'.~'tg. ca.~.... 9 C u
'" (;;iU_E::i\.cgu:o-c . 0 ~
o .'1 t: C E~~..M
" ~~2~~~ Vi..... v u ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ::;; s ~ ~ ~ E
f-o ~ ~ 6 ~ .on2uE~B.=::u..oE u 0 0.0"C
l'Q ~ ~.... ~ ~ 'i;"05-
- u ... 5. v a e.E-eJ g~~ ~ E~ ~ > .... .... :J
<~ci:~5:5 6 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ g ~
0 <...._;i. u.l:l.o~... ..c.Q~
0
M N 3
.... N 'C "i
c ..
0 ..,. ...
'''::
l- s u ,9 .s
~ .8; -s "
" '~ ::;
~ :a :;J "
:e t: Ei~
ell ~;j
C .g ~o
.;: ~.8
OJ J:~B ;;; ,9 ~
~ ..8-5..J
.::! " c ~ c g 9
c.. -s~
9 il !! J3 :3
J!l u 3 ~]~
" > 0
U e ~ ~'Oo::
~ ~ n ..B~.c
e~.s 11 u
:E & ~
g.a ~ '0 VI >..
'CJ ~ u ~~;j ~
~:i~ 3]~
- ...
o ~ u .D u 0
~UJg: ~ il."
UJ tot e
'C :t
...
February 19.1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 041
, !
('--_ 24
I ~ '"
, "".... ~ >'\ x
I " .::! 0 'C :l ~ ;:
" tW)~] ~ g- ~ ~ ~ 6 .
, l'l ,,! ~ sa..... 8 U " ~ 15
1" 9 ': c ~ g- 8 .~ r: .~ s ~
'0-9'" E"l8 :ilu""2~
.... .."'0 8 - e ..c - C U 0
, 80~ 8-~ tl~g"'O=
I u~..J' o@o 8:::u..:;je
E=2 u~~ CG~gc~ \.
" ~!I- ie~ 1~~~~
u;9 C ~ ~-= c:: I-. ~ CG
I ~ 8'~ __ ~ .9"~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
'" f ~.. g '0 g'~ 0 "'d ~ 8 3 -E
.... "uu3 U~El- 3'l:uu
= ~~~o ..."'Ou ~V1~-55
8 Et-~U g]~ u tl--o n
~~"gE tfE~ ~~~.;~
g ] ~ 't ] ~ ~ {:l. 'S ~ ~ ~ ~
u ,Q U ~ .9 ~ .!l .. i:' -fi u 3 -c ~
; ~ ~:s ~ .s ; ~ 'g ~ a.s ~ ~
1 c:J U :; U ~ u" .., € 8 ~:a ~ .- .;:
. - ~2~G ~~@8 .~~~~~
I rJ) ..ac..;>"..o 0",8 aoc-5-o
I "C" 8 :::i 8 :::is I- ""9 U U ';1 .:1 '0 :;j
I c uBo..u u. -a :::::cuc
I ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ -a ~ -c or;.g ~ e ~
V1 0 ~ u .f' ~ ~ ~:a p .!! ~ ~ ~
c o:::3~ O'Ca"'OVl :t..c..:::r-Vl
I 0 ~ El .& ~ U ]; ~ ~:J ~ 'fi::! ~ ~
I .... '3 8 U co.....s ~..o ~ ......
_ ~ oa!ill 0;'" U";3U""
~.... 0 o::l u'" ......
"C '" UlU:!:u -< <u-5.o ~"tloo
c ~',. . ..
OJ ( ~ ~
s }llr& ~ "" i:' " .<J
00 5 ~t~ ~ .. as'" 1l ~:il g,
~o ~it:~ gE~o::lur; ffQl):: :0 ~ cu
00 ~ ' :... ~ .- c. u <b -5 ~ c:G c ~..g 0...;;;._
:: c:: i ;1 ~ 9 ~ ~ j 9 ~ ~ E ~ ~ .~ 9" 1i 'E g ~ ~
.... ~.<~~~ cco=~u -FU~(U ~..::;"o::I<.9
o OJ ':"!i'% u 'C ,'" ~ t: > "" 3 ,- '" fJ " C! 0.5 .g"
c.. t ~~~~b ~ 0 n ~ ~ 'B 5 0 ~ ~ E :: -0 ~ "0 3 -9 ]
OJO 'ij,,'_;,c O::-5~~'l:"':< --5" os-fa odM
c:r. ~ ~=~~tY ,:: ~ < -; ~.g 9 g ~ g S] ~ -: ~. ~ ~; ~
E-' ~ 1j~~,~ ~ 'f 9 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ :2 u g- Q1J :; -0 g 3 ~ s ~
8 ~ 'I-:.">.~ ~ lJ;; ~ ~ -' ~ 0 1; ;;; 2 ~ ~ U t: S <'l "
~ ~~t~~ S -;. r: ~.: B ~ '(Q '~ ~ ~ g fo 2 ~ e. ..c E ~
2- "'~\~8 o~~s~Ci"fl cd9a ~~"O8 ~ai3
o ,~~~w E oS 0 (IJ "0 ~ >. < 0 9 ~ E (5 E ~ c t; E-=
::: {i; 1d~pi ~ ,~ u ~ g in ~ ..; g- < ~ ~ en ~ -5 ~ ~ 0 -= ~ :t.
~ ._ ~d}<,~ ~ ;> 5 ::: ;t ...: "'0 r::: 0 U - ~ ,5 ;a (Q 0 ~.a 'u a Co
.~ ~ ;g ~ik~ 0:: .5 0:0 v 0.. ~ ~. ~ tih ~ ~ s :2 :; g ~ a. 9- we -5 ~
"0 I ;~:,~r~ ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ E ~ -5 on 0 E 5 ~ -g ~ .: ~ ~ ~ 9-:::
c: OJ ~4>\~~ L. 0 0 ~ 6h u ..:! ~ 5 2 c ~ V'l ';;:j 0 u ::l 0 s;; ~ ~
~ CJ '";i%}1 ~ {l c .D ~ ~ ~ u ' 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e- d ~....:i 3-
c.. ""' '~m~"t :-::: e :3 -5 'r: ..c -s ~ ~ E "Q '= VI .... _ ..c 0 -a 0 5 0
l c.. 0 ~J;~k.~~ ~ u ~ ~ 0 c. ~ '- 3= ci: e -; ~ ..::- ~ ~"'O 5r :; ~ 0 u
~ ~ ~~-a~ ~ ~ t.l 0 U >.. 0 E ....... ~ ] :E' ~ 0 E! :; "'0 0 0 -5 ~
~ ~~1{: r-. 8 .s -:3 ,0.. -s 'ff coo ~ VI 0 c r::: 0 ,.g ~ ~ ~ 9 "'0
rn ;={('~:, ,5 :.a u. 0 g t.t:I ,c::: I-.. t: ~ iU tt:..t:I V'l F r::: VI C
os 'o:I,'~ ~ -g U t: :.= = '" ,., :< U 0 0:; ~ :'l '" ~ o:g ;$.g c 0
.. .,....<.,-'~ '\: ~ __ 0 ..c (Q '- :=:. 0 -5 ~ _ VI -0 0 0 1::
Eo- ~~1;,~ u .... e.o s. u g ~ ~ 0 b -fi g F ~ ~ l- ~.~ b
~ ~~~,Z~ -n2i7eo~~S u-a;;lQ~ 5<.-eg u-ggr;
o '~::Sf9; C:1-",,2-5~~:a ~a:<8u 1-00." ~o.,,'l:
o 1,,:
r' ~ rt
... !~*.t!' N ,;,,;,
g : -~ .;, .;, .;,.;,
~ ~
~ )ffl~ 9 Uo
~ l'bli; 6" """..@-5.s" 2; e
-; lai! u~ 2:;jii~~;j" oo,g
~ ,;,\j~ ~g ~l:1-5i~~gu2 E~
I .~~. ;:.= s ci: ~ -g :J ." ol:J 5 0 -'" 5
OJ) ~tl1.,,*,~l 0 !'q '- <:d u ~ I.. - 4,,1 !::! <i::
c:: ic'J~'\ ~ !::!;::; , 0 C VI U . ~ ~ on , a.. '0 I..
._ ...."'~_.. U ~ ~ ~ F " '" "" l:1 ~ 1l :;j" -;;; 9
L.. \-ID1f.~>:";" :ZOJ):.o~ ~~~~~ Vl...i::~ sflt
~ ~ ~~''::; i5 6 e 0.. 0 e __ '4,,1 c..;;;"'tJ ~ ~ I,;; ~ Vl
~ ~~'h~t.I oVlQ..a I-S:a~;....o~uo u::lU
.~ ; .<~'~';.~ <t: g cD g u 8 ~ ~ :: ~ V'l ;J ~ -5 ~ ~
~ ,;:r;L, ' ..:l u c: ~ u -5 M 0.. 3 .. u" ~ .c 'C
~fi_~ 0 cu ca " -< ~ 5 a '0 ~ ~ 6 ;;; u t.E ... c..
~~t~~",:.-;' a:>~-o us"" E...c~..c VlEu
I'"... .... U - 9" "l~" U,,~
, ;.~~ c.J c.D 0 0 a 0 ~ .5 :: 0 0 l.::; U'I - C;; -0 ~
~ ~li'; ,9 ~ 8 0 ~ 5 0 ~ .... u ~ g g .,; "0
. "~ ~ ii:::::: 0' "0 -5 lQ ~ i- OJ)'~ "= O...c .... r::: ~
i~-:' ij;;~lQ >--E~Ucd~:O~~ 43Clic
<A'" .:.: .- '= 8 ;j -" e':: a ~ -:: - U - ;j U
~~t ~ c.. ~ 2 OD @ ;; 8 ~..J a (3 - E
~;~~i~~ .s o~ 3 ~ co,s g 9;;8 "1- e..!! ~ ~E
"':iit,... -9" 5 <( ,- " 8 " 9 C U
j ~'"t0' -5i 0 ~ u ii c.. U 5 ~ .Vl ] u t: ,,g 6
~;~: ~r;:!] ~~~::5<E~-7 5~0lJ
<g.,~t ~ ,5 > c.. ~;> ..c c.. U .... ~ 0.0 .... (g -5
;iJ;~~ UJ ] ~ ,g w ~ .s ~ ~ ~ ~ 8.9 0 ~ ~
;~~ N M
,t:L I
'W 'l"'\ "'" '^
I
042 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
-
I I
I 25
i . ;
I s 'x
o.. ~ 1
0 ..:!
, 1i ] 'I-~
!
1 ~ ~ '" Q.. OJ
'" ,,~ 0
'" 0-( ~
~ ]8- - '3 u
.s8o~ " -.
t ,!j :l ':: 8 ~ ~
> :il :E g -E. -5 "
~.8 . 0
.~ 't:.1l a "
~~~ l!
11]:il Q. ~ . '"
u ~ :! 5 :il
o ~ 8 .~ u >.-9 ...
~ ]- ~-~ 2 -:l ..; 0 >
~~ ~~ 0
c ~ .~ a.
... Q.
8 ~ 0- ..
'tl 1i. ~ ~]~ s
8 ] ~8 * Q..!;l ~ il
0 il "" ~2s8 ::l
u .s.l :1 '0 ~-d' ~ II.
l::: 8
~8'tl ].8~~ 0
1 ~ u
I t98 III ;>._,- o .
CIl ell to ~ 0 " 5
! "0 :;;u ,9 8 :l " ."l oS
C il - ~~~.j '" 0
t'Il ~.~ ~ ~ a
1 '" ~.::: 4.l
'a~ ;j 'tl ~ .- 8~
I c: -d .- OJ
0 ].~ ~ ~ g ~ 8
'C ~ '"
t'Il ~ Q.,3 r5l j 8,3 0.0
"C I- ::
1 c: . . .
...
8 'tl
co a ~'" :il :; "
0'\ 0 ..:! :il ~ co.. 9
I U ~~ " fr~.800 13
co ... ~:. Il "
~~ '"" ~ "t:I 0\ ...
" 0 " ~
u.o 0 ~ " _ 0\
l.. ... '5'8 'E fia5=
o u 0.1'
0.... Q..o " .S ~ ~ ~ ,9 M
<U 0 -g:.lil OJ :;j.!! " :..),
~"'" E-5.s o 11 ~ ~ U :J
E-.:c g:E U .g ':''tl ;
S~ e-~ 0 ~ 0 ,gj ~ ~ 3
u ~ .... ~ 'C ; .2 ""
'tl
.8'tl~ Q. 0 U ~ 11
o '- 'tl ;J " 8 ii 3 ~ ~B
.... 0 -a .2
e:I'" o.!;l i ~ ~ II > ~.o
~ .~ {l 0 u 0 8 e ... "
> ~
>'I....J ~ " -5~-E.g: 2,3
I .e. ~ '"
I :; I ~ U !3 ~ 8;Q.
C ... es; ~'~ ~ ~ '" "" \.
'tl 9
- ... u t:a e -;; u '--
0. ... "'-e !l o Iii
0.0 ~~t "3 '8 ~~
<"'" o Co g
,.:c il 8'~ "0 ~
'" 'c ~~ ~ ~ B ~ !l Iii
(': 0. ... - o u
. > ~ u-
E- .:: 8 !O "
.... ~ :i.~ ~ 8.!! 8 ~1l
~ u " ~ ~ ~~ 0'"
0 -:l:l I- :,{
0
N ::.: l' ..,
... M M
c: ..; ..; ..,
0
't:
~
t'Il
~
~
C1
'r:
...
.:c
u
i:i:
I
I
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 043
RES.#D7/99 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEKS WATERSHED STRATEGY
INITIATION
Direction to inftiate development of a watershed management strategy for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds.
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
initiation of a watershed strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, including
meeting with community groups, municipalities, elected representatives, and watershed
residents to seek their input into the strategy development and task force initiation process;
THAT staff report by the Spring of 1999 on the proposed process for the development of an
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, including such issues as the formation of
a task force and its terms of reference;
THAT staff be directed to circulate the State of the Watershed Report: Etobicoke and Mimico
Creeks (December, 1998) to community groups, municipalities, other agencies, and elected
representatives in the watersheds;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to apply for provincial funding to support the development
of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1989, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommended the Greenspace Strategy
to address the conservation of the Lake Ontario waterfront, the river valleys, and the Oak Ridges
Moraine. The Greenspace Strategy proposed that the Authority:
. assume the coordinating role between the Province and municipalities; and
. establish planning task forces for each major river 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 first watershed
management strategy, The Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge 'River
Watershed, was produced. In 1994, Forty Steps to a New Don, was completed by the Don Watershed
Task Force. In 1997, Legacy: A Strategy fDr a Healthy Humber and its companion document titled,
A Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, were produced by the
Humber Watershed Task Force as an integrated watershed management strategy for the Humber
River. Each of these,documents has'been adopted by the Authority,
In 1997, TRCA entered into an agreement with Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust regarding the implementation of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. In accordance with this agreement, the
TRCA is responsible for focusing RAP implementation on a watershed by watershed basis, using
such mechanisms as watershed task forces. New task forces are to be initiated as appropriate.
Under this agreement, the Authority will:
,
044 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
. Identify policies and facilitate projects which will contribute to successful Remedial Action
Plan implementation;
. Initiate or encourage the necessary monitoring, planning, design, and construction of
projects in association with municipalities and community groups; and
. Use the mechanism of watershed report cards to document results and encourage
participants,
The watershed task forces will be responsible for the planning, and development and initiation of
initiatives that are complementary to, and support, the RAP goals.
The State of the Watershed Report: Etobicake and Mimico Creek Watersheds (1998) was developed
by staff as part of this agreement. This report was designed to contribute to the production of a
management strategy for the watersheds using an ecosystem-based approach. The report's
purpose is to provide information on the state of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds to the
future task force and others to help focus and coordinate planning, management, consultation,
regeneration, and monitoring efforts.
To fulfill this purpose, the report describes environmental, social, and economic conditions and
issues in the watersheds. The report also provides some direction for the future management of the
watersheds to be considered by the task force. This report was prepared in consultation with
municipalities, other agencies, elected representatives, and community groups. Copies of the report
will be available at the meeting for interested members.
RATIONALE
The establishment of a planning task force and the initiation of a watershed strategy process for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds is integral to the Authority's goals as outlined in the
Greenspace Strategy, and to the commitment that it has with Environment Canada, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
Although the watersheds are distinct areas, characterized by the movement of water, a joint
watershed strategy development process is recommended for the following reasons:
. The key environmental, social, and economic issues in, and characteristics of, the
watersheds are similar;
. The municipalities in which they are located are the same, other than the Etobicoke Creek
which also extends into the Town of Caledon; and
. Due to the small size of the watersheds in comparison to others within the TRCA's
jurisdiction (e.g., the Humber, Don, or Rouge River watersheds), it is more cost effective to
undertake a joint strategy development process.
The triangle of land between the Etobiooke and Mimico Cfeek-watersheds, bordering Lake Ontario,
which does not drain into either the Etobicoke or Mimico Creeks is referred to as the Lake Ontario
Drainage Area and is not a part of the study area. This land will be considered. if an integrated
shoreline management plan is developed in the future.
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 045
The State of the Watershed Report was developed as a direct result of the development process for
the Humber Watershed Strategy. In the Humber process, detailed technical background reports
were developed by staff and task force members as part of the strategy development process. As
funding was available for the development of background information in the 1997-1998 budgets for
the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds, staff developed the State of the Watershed document.
As a result of this background work being completed in advance of the task force initiation, it is
anticipated that the Mure task force will be able to move quickly to develop watershed management
strategies for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks.
Detailed technical reports are also available for water quality, heritage, fisheries management (phase
1), and terrestrial habitats (phase 1),
Peer review of the State of the Watershed Report was sought from municipal and other agency staff,
community groups, and elected representatives in the watershed, as appropriate. Final copies of
the State of the Watershed Report will be circulated to these groups for their information.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Staff has begun to develop contact lists of people interested in the Etobicoke and Mimico
Creek watersheds. Work on developing these lists will continue this Spring. Authority
members are requested to forward contact names to be added to these lists.
. Forward copies of the State of the Watershed Report: Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
Watersheds to municipalities, elected representatives, and community groups in the
watersheds.
. Arrange a workshop with municipal and other agency staff, elected representatives, and
community groups to seek their input into the strategy development and task force initiation
process.
. Develop a terms of reference for the establishment of a task force.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding has been identified in the 1999 budget to begin this process.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 334
For information contact: Beth Williston or Brian Denney, extension 242
Date: February 3, 1999
046 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
RES.#D8/99 - DESIGNATING THE HUMBER RIVER A CANADIAN HERITAGE RIVER
Progress report regarding the designation of the Humber River as a
Canadian Heritage River.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning efforts to
have the East and Main Branches of the Humber River officially designated as a Canadian
Heritage River be received;
THAT if and when the Humber River is designated, staff be directed to establish an organizing
committee to plan a ceremony to officially dedicate the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage
River;
AND FURTHER THAT if and when designated, Authority facilities, other agencies, groups and
municipalities be encouraged to recognize the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River in
their programs, literature and public functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) is a federal-provincial-territorial program aimed at
recognizing Canada's important rivers to ensure their future management such that:
. the natural and human heritage which they represent are conserved and interpreted, and;
. the opportunities they possess for recreation and heritage appreciation are realized by
residents of and visitors to Canada.
To date, approximately twenty rivers have been designated and included in the Canadian Heritage
Rivers System. Examples are the Athabaska, North Saskatchewan, Soper, French, Mattawa and
Grand Rivers.
On February 4, 1998, the nomination of the East and Main Branches of the Humber River as a
Canadian Heritage River was unanimously accepted by the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board based
on the river's outstanding heritage and recreation values and the contribution it has made to the
development of the country.
By December, 1998, both the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Canadian Heritage
formally accepted the Canadian Heritage River Board's recommendation; thereby confirming it as
a candidate Canadian Heritage River.
The final criteria to be satislied is the acceptance of the Humber River management plan as a
suitable framework for the protection and management of the heritage and recreation values the
river possesses.
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 047
The Canadian Heritage Rivers Board held their annual meeting in the Humber River watershed from
January 31, 1999 to February 3, 1999. Members were given a tour of the watershed and the award
winning management plan titled, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber River, was reviewed by
the Board members.
The Humber River management plan was accepted by the Board and they have recommended to
the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Canadian Heritage that they formally accept the
management plan.
We understand the Province has formally accepted Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber for the
Canadian Heritage Rivers System designation and the management plan has been forwarded to the
Federal Government for their approval, We are optimistic that the Federal Government will accept
the management plan; thereby, leading the way to an official ceremony to dedicate the Humber
River as a Canadian Heritage River.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Make the necessary arrangements for an appropriate celebration to formally designate the
Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River.
. Encourage municipalities, agencies, groups and individuals to recognize the designation of
the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River at special events, in programs and literature.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Exact costs for a dedication ceremony have yet to be determined. Some funding is available in the
Humber Watershed management budget to cover costs associated with hosting a Canadian
Heritage Rivers dedication ceremony for the Humber River.
Contributions from external sources will be needed to support various associated activities related
to the dedication ceremony.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: February 10, 1999
RES.#D9/99 - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Implications on watershed management related to potential hydrologic
changes brought on by Global Climate Change.
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the implications
of Climate Change on watershed management programs of the Authority be received;
048 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to encourage the inclusion of adaptive techniques in
our watershed planning initiatives where feasible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The anticipation of changes in the Global climate due to the influence of man has been and
continues to be a controversial and intriguing issue. The current thinking by specialists at
Environment Canada and around the world is that the planet's atmosphere will be altered to include
a doubling of the percentage of C02 by the year 2030-2050. The doubling is based upon the levels
of C02 prior to the Industrial Revolution and the beginning of major usage of fossil fuels. Long term
modelling by Environment Canada shows changes in the climate on a Global and National scale.
Anticipated changes from these models include both areas of warming and areas of cooling. In the
Toronto area, the models are currently predicting an overall warming of the climate. The majority
of controversy surrounded this premise and our ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts of
increasing levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. It is now felt by many experts, that even with
all our best efforts in reducing C02 loadings, we cannot control the process adequately and the
doubling of concentrations will occur. Our efforts in reducing loadings must continue to ensure we
do not increase the levels beyond the anticipated levels.
Given the premise that we will reach two times C02, Environment Canada has been actively
involved in modelling to predict anticipated climate changes, Globally, Nationally and Locally.
Several studies related to Ontario and the Great Lakes Basin have been completed. In addition to
modelling work, Environment Canada has also initiated studies, workshops and seminars related
to the need to adapt to the impacts of a two times C02 scenario.
Doubling the amount of C02 and other Greenhouse Gases, such as nitrogen, will result in the ability
of the atmosphere to trap a higher percentage of the sun's incoming solar radiation within the earth's
atmosphere. This will result in an increase in the overall earth's mean temperature and allow for a
greater amount of water vapour to remain in a gaseous state. The ability for the atmosphere to
contain higher amounts of water vapour will have impacts on the functioning of the Hydrologic Cycle
and directly affect our rivers, streams and the Great Lakes. The general impacts anticipated include
lower base flows, lower lake levels, longer more severe drought periods, milder winters and a
change in precipitation patterns resulting in more intense rainfalls. All of these anticipated changes
will potentially have significant implications on managing our water and associated natural heritage
resources.
Potential implications of climate change would include impacts on the management of our fisheries
due to both temperature changes and lower base flows within our rivers and streams. More intense
rainfalls may result in more frequent flooding events on our rivers and within our urban infrastructure
such as street and basement flooding. Milder winters may result in more mid-winter melts which
have the potential to create more frequent flooding and greater amounts of erosion. The potential
for a significant reduction' in. the levels'of the Great Lakes will impact our shoreline, in particular the
wetlands and recreation facilities,
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 049
While it is essential that major efforts be directed to reversing the trend and potential impacts of
reaching two times C02 in our atmosphere, we also need to adapt to some of the potential impacts,
The Authority, being in the watershed management business, is uniquely in position through the
development of Watershed Management Strategies to ensure that we recognise and incorporate
techniques that allow for adaptive management wherever possible. As our current policies and
regulations recognise the impacts of natural processes, we are already in a position to recognise
and allow for adaption to the response of our rivers and streams to climate change.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority will continue to ensure that the issues of Global Climate change are incorporated into
our watershed planning processes through the implementation of adaptive management
approaches. One example of where adaptive management could be incorporated would be in our
fisheries management programs where overall mean temperature increases may impact the base
flow temperatures in our watercourses. Our programs can be adaptable to recognise areas most
sensitive to these changes and develop mitigative or adaptive management strategies to reflect the
changing nature of our rivers and streams. A second example would be in some of our planting
programs where plant species which are more adaptive or tolerant of the climate extremes could
be integrated into our revegetation activities. Staff of the Authority will continue to liaise with
Environment Canada to keep up to date on the current issues related to Global Climate change as
it will affect our area.
For information contact: Don Haley, extension 226
Date: January 12, 1999
RES.#D10/99 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
83 Burnhamthorpe Road Erosion Control Project
Etobicoke District, City of Toronto. The construction of the erosion control
works at the rear of 83 Burnhamthorpe Road, former City of Etobicoke, in the
Mimico Creek Watershed.
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
construction of the erosion control works at the rear of 83 Burnhamthorpe Road under the
"City of Toronto'Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001" at a total budget of
$100,000 subject to receipt of all necessary approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
,
050 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 1 g, 1999
BACKGROUND
The TRCA was made aware of the river erosion adjacent to 83 Burnhamthorpe Road in 1990. Since
that time, this section of the Mimico Creek has eroded rapidly, In fact, the continuous impacts of
frequent high flows in Mimico Creek have scoured the existing coincident riverbank at the site to the
point that there is an immediate threat to Burnhamthorpe Road and in the future the house at 83
Burnhamthorpe Road.
In the Fall of 1998, Aquafor Beech Limited were retained to carry out the Class Environmental
Assessment and complete the design of the erosion control works at the rear of 83 Burnhamthorpe
. Road. An open house/public meeting was held November 24 ,1998 at which time the consultants
presented an overview of their study findings and alternatives for remedial works. Public input from
this meeting, in addition to questionnaires that were returned by individuals who attended the
meeting, assisted the consultants in the assessment of the preferred option. Meetings were held
with representatives of the City of the Toronto Works Department to discuss the design of the
remedial of works adjacen,t to their storm sewer outfalls from Burnhamthorpe Road.
The valley lands affected by the proposed remedial works are owned by the Islington Golf Club. Staff
have obtained permission from the Golf Club to enter on to their lands to carry out the work. The lot
lines at 83 Burnhamthorpe Road and the adjacent properties do not extend to the base of the slope,
therefore the proposed erosion work will not impact their properties.
RA TI ONALE
The 83 Burnhamthorpe Road site has been identified in the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project" as a priority based on the information gathered through the Authority's
ongoing erosion monitoring program.
The Authority's goal through this project is to:
" minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks,
valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes to.the
valley and lakefront settings"
Several of the key objectives outlined in the Authority's Erosion Control and Lake Ontario Shoreline
Program are:
(1 ) To implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public and
private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion.
(2) To implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect the
natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats
adversely, affected by the erosion,
(3) To design remedial works, on design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach for the
entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access adjacent to the
water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and enhance aquatic and
terrestrial resources.
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 D51
(4) To acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of
remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property.
(5) To secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where
the lands are valuable to green space systems.
(6) To protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated terrestrial
and aquatic habitats.
(7) To comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other
environmental protection legislation.
The design option being recommended addresses and achieves many of the objectives of the Valley
and Shoreline Regeneration Project. Aquafor Beech Limited have completed the Project Plan in
accordance with the Association of Conservation Authorities - Class Environmental Assessment for
Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. This report is being circulated for review by the public.
Staff have forward the construction drawings and a package of pertinent data to the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans for their approval under the Federal Fisheries Act.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The proposed remedial works comprise of an armour stone retaining wall to support the failed
section of slope. The new slopes will be planted with native trees and shrubs. Also proposed is the
placement of river run stone in the creek to enhance the fisheries habitat at the site.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Aquafor Beech Limited, in conjunction with staff, have provided a cost estimate for each component
of the project construction. The total estimated cost of the remedial work at 83 Burnhamthorpe Road
IS $100,000. This work will be carried out under the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001 ",
Account No. 159-01 has been set up for this project.
For information contact: Jim Tucker,extension 247
Date: February 4, 1999
Attachments (9)
-- - , -- ..- --
___A -- -- -... - -
~ 0
::+ Ul
III I\)
n
::r
3
It)
::J
-
....a.
TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERV A TION AUTHORITY t
:E
:t>
-i
rn
JJ
(JJ
I
rn
P"O.JI:ICTJ 0
SLOPE REMEDIAL WORKS s::
:t>
BURNHAMTHORPE ROAD z
:t>
G)
CITY OF TORONTO rn
s::
rn
Z
-i
KEY FLAil HTS :t>
0
LIST OF DRAWINGS ~
(JJ
.. C[..fRAl PLAN '78i:l-A-l 0
JJ
2, [ROSION A><O S[D!W[HT COHrADI. PW 61iU-,l-2 -<
), PW ""0 PROflll 17QQ~-A-l
4, S[C1IONS - SH[ET 1/4 17Q'~-A-' rn
&, SEcrlONl - SH[[f 2/. l7iHI:i-,A-' 0
I. SECllONS - SIl[ET 1/4 a1IHI$-,A-O :t>
7. SECTiONS - 'HHT ./. 61ii:i-).-1 :0
I. CONSTRUCTION 0[f,tJU &7Q'S-A-I 0
Q. IJ.><llSCAP[ PW 17"~-A-' 'ii:
Aquafor ~
CO
Beech CD
Limi led
14 .u...a.J1 AlUO
8lU.lMlTDN. CfjJ..i.IbO LI' 681
106- m-a.Ml/1-IClG-)lI-lW
TI
<D
CJ
2
CD
~
50
~
CD
CD
CD
-- --- - ~_.~ -, .
~ J' .
'\. ........": . J .
--- ....... -;- ~
--- .- -' - _.-
February 1 g, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 053
Attachment 2
! j ! I II - ie' ~ I , l
i I ! ; II ~ f. : ~ il J J ! ti!~ h! l : ~c ~~ I-
i' ~~ i~\
i; d ~ Ii ~;~ ;! 1 lPl q : ~ !g!!! I! ; ~ :1 0::= ~~ ~
, ...
, 0:::> ...J.... ...J
I~ i i n ~~~; ill: ~ :' !H!I ~ I Ii!;1 01! i; : ~-< <~ Q..
, g~ ~i: :<! ~~
rot f. lil' . · "II .. - ~"I li" m
' '2". .!. "I I ., d ~ . i "j~i~ i a~ ~~ ~
. I lllll" ~,. l ! ~l L :1",it I' 11 hI,. i ,.,! I
l !IR!mr~ i~~ ~ !l!~ ~!: lil:i l,!!m! n · , ~> _ z
~li ; " ~....5; ~
:1.... ~o::
n,'. (AU p, , . a ~ ap , ..... : ....S ~~
~:.~~~:l:. l:u~:.~I~ ;;~ti..ti5~~ i I;:: I I
, .
-
'"
"
~....
Uo
g~
z
55Z
_0::
"'< ; ; !
:;a.
~ 1 I I t ~ n
~
i J i i i
, "I 1 n
. lii-. III
! ,<i I i
g IIIO@~u61
~
- \
~
OI-O<!f
, ''ti
\ ~.l(",<<
I'7e
-
!
!
, ~,
!
'"' ,~
~~::-~:'.: .
..'~ -,~..., ..
-- .----- .-. --.- --- -.-------
054 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
Attachment 3
; I( lH !:!I ih H~ J ! r. b 11 t I !. ~~ ~~ i i:
~i ljd; l'i ii~i i:d; !dtf ~ : :;'i II Ii! ~ ~ II ~~ ~~ ~ ~ · ~
~. I - he I D i ~ I I' in ~. J , 0 => .... UJ -' f:
1T3 II, It .. -:1: I'~ I ., .. l!1 i i II. I ; ~ -< ~ 5 U'l a.. ,~
~ ~! ~ ~!rH JUf It m :a.j i. ~!. i .1.1 o~ 8- 0<5 ~
it lU i! lc 'H ~il.~: ih l;!:- ii~ ill U H~ ~~ ~>= ~ e: J~
- l~l: lll~ I~~i I~ :~jl~d ~ i ~:! . ~~ ~~ ~a
ij!mi.h;hlr,;~a:!.IIi;~dl.~~~!i!ll~ I...l!l~ I :~ ~~ ~<.J
~I ~!"'l-lllm'nl' l!1il :41.51 ._!. . IO ~I!l ffi
L ~41':I~.m:~d;. ~8. :..d~; !1S~~ ,~<.l I ,
, -
'"
:J
d~
i - ':l '3
3 8g
aSZ
-ex:
~~ ; ;! .
~ ISH
. III
. Ill.iil
iii" In!
~j I . . j i I III
~ L ~ IIIO@lng
\
\
'\
~OQo ~
'. ~.<qJt)...l,: ~
~'7q I ~ \. 't ~-<fC#'v
- ~~~
~~(f
..' !; ~~
, (~
b.:loi~..:""'.
'J4. .
,
,
I
I
February 19,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 055
Attachment 4
-; ! i II 2 c ~ g : ~
e I ~ i 1~1 . i :i, 1 J ! , I il II : ~ ~ '" I ~
: I : I I~ j':~J Ii : lHJ Ii ~ I ;:'0. II ~ ~ :'\ ~i5 ~"'~
~ ,i II II." If i II', ~ . ~ Ill~i J .' : 1I::r II:
B;~ I I , ,9. ,- i ! 'I II · l~. : ai' F'
,II i '11 ;!i !~!: PI! 1, ;' !i11111 j li!~1 'i~ ;,' i ~; ~~ ,-'
. !, i Ill.., 11 I 'I" ~ r.r. ~JI 00 ....
!'; 'l" ~ii l13' ~~l"li j~ :i~ :l'! .lld I! H~ I i ~~ a~
." 1~1I1JJ 1" l~! Ij '2" d I! 1 lq' i ,... I ' 0> 11:-<
i !. i: mni! l~ig' ll: !j' 'i.ir ill'~ ~;I hi- ~: :;1;:1 ! !H HH I~ g If~ ij ~ ~ ~ ~
~; l-IIAJa:"!J:P,: 3'~'l: AHi. ,.-. ~ Z~ n : ""0 1ilcn
1 ~ :i!!~I~!~a _u~.:u~ :! ~ I;li; ;* ;1&. . !jS~ ~ . i I iEu I
! - - ! -
, I : I " I i I I
I ;1 I I I I I
I I I (I I J I I
~ ~ \ I I ~ I I
;; i : I il I .
: ' : ,I I . j
I 11 I I I .:
II! I I I" :
;" 1 I 1/1 1)1 I I I ...
~g I I I' I I n' I I I
,,~ ! ~~ I
~~ i '. ~i ~
~. L1J 1 ~I I I I :
I I i I I 'I I I :
\ I I i I I I I .:
1,)1 I I I I I :
;; l I I( I I I I I I :
l !! H n I I '\ I I I I I I I .:
Iii' '!In 11'1111 III &
g .iio@mutJ i' I ~
, &
I - - - - -
---+-
!
056 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
Attachment 5
ii d ii d 'DO ·
I 5c '" r
11 ~ I I' "5 ><Q .
I w ~o '
· i ~ I ~ :~! . ! ~ S I "'i= a: .~
!l Iii I Pd I) . I : ~~ ~~ ~~ h
" .I! oj h it ~101 o~ 8 p- ~
o "~ 3' UW
;11, ." 'I I. H~ .. I ~~ a::~ ~~
iH11i i; d ~I ..!! p ~> x
!I'P! ; "d . I' a:: w~
l~ it P ;!!i: ..a -' I ....'co! ~
I ~!! !~!: U'~ l~ ,I wo I'.
1 11.. IlL c !!s. ; , ell. : IF:U I
i 4" ...... ....
I
I
-
'1 - - 9 ; ~ - - -
'1 - , e ; !! - ~ -
I I I I I. "i I
,l I
I I
.
. ~
I '-l I
h I II" I
I I I . I ,
\ I
, -~I \t I
I~ ,<~
~ " ' ','
..... .r
1I
-< ~ R III ~
~ I ~ I ~
.!c. ~ III
~ ~ i- 'II ~ ~
- -; \ F j,
F " I ~ ~
~ ~
I
I
. I
i-V I
I .
J I ,1 ,.-h'
f/
r I
I
- I
I
I 0
~ - 9 9 ; !! - ~ -
~ - - 9 e ~ - ~ -
I
. - ----- --
I
I
I
! February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 057
Attachment 6
i i d i' 11 DO ·
I 13~ U1Q I-
ill.! Ii m n ~ ~ Ii ~5 ~o
IA .' I ""= ""
~ i ~ I ~~ :;i~ Ul~
!~ · I I ::c -5 5'"
. 81 .; h ~i ,Ia D g~ ~. ~t;;
I, f" ~.. i
' ~ i' ., I I i. H~ d I a~ ~~ l}j~
ip! ii, I Ii ,i'! ~ 'U I' . ~cr: w:I:
l ~I iii, !" ! 'i'1 U'<l': m II ...~ \5~
;; n l, I I ~.i ~~~~ ~G~ I w~ I~~
l :~ I: :~ 'ii !1S. ; ~ I l=u
. I,.. i' , I I
J .. ...... .. ..
- 3 ~ , ~ - ~ -
8
I
I,
\\l
- ~ ~ - . . , ~ - - - 1\
',l ~ 1\ ~
I
! . !
1" , ! I ' \\1 : T
z i I ,\\ t I
I
I I ~ \.
I I \~
I ~ x ill . JI .
L ~
\ \ I -rr-~
''':~ ~
\1 ~ ! \ .
. I II
" " 1'1 I 0 :i
'Llj1- -n--' I ~' I
o ~ g
\TI~ ~ s ! 13 1l -
,; .,
~ J.. 5 i= < ~
~ :; ~
2 ~ . Ul \I
'='fff -LJ-L_1i..-U-t-1 13 :;
I i \-! Ii I ~ x (
~ I
I
I I
I
/ \
/ \
~ .
I t
I
I , I)
, ~ ..---1
I --h1
.
I
(
I I 0 ~
I V
I
I ' "
- ! ! ;; . . - ~ - - - 1// /r
.1
0
I - - 9 - ~ - - -
I
I
058 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
Attachment 7
! i d f~ 11 DO ·
I ~~ '" I-
II ,: I' <3[5 ""~ ';'
II ~- ~~ n
a ! d I ~ti ! i; I 05 ~~ ~Z H
qlllll ;h !~ ,I I ~< -:5 ~...,
;',! I ! .j h it ~1;1 000 8."~'
" In:; Iii f. H~ I ....,: ~::I ~~ J I
it U I ! l~ ;, 1 i ,." ~ I ~~ 0::< UlOj I
!j IPl ::; '" , " :50:: "'~
I~ n II i' I" I ~~l ~~~: U1H il, ~~ I~' I I:
1 ~ ~1 ~ ~ HLir !js. .
.. ..
- 3 ~ - ~ - - - - -
\
\
r\J 3
\ I
\l
1\ ~
~ , ~ - - - - - 1\1
I l \1
I \-.,
2 'i~~'
I \ ; .
;
\ 2
I
\ I f""""'"
~ ~,.I
Il_J 11 ; I ~
... -
~ I ~
'" ~ 1-\ ... 8
I -LL--L-hi-t~-1HL ~ 1
'"
2 ~ ~ ,: .
u -
,: . \X ~
u I I I I ; ,I .
w ~
Ul
I 111Jl)P
-.-H{ I I
, I I - -
,"--, I I " I I
. I : I
, j rll
2
!i/ ;
3 , ~ - - - " " 1
/" - I
i
Ul i
.
i
.
I I
- - :1 S :! - - - - -
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 059
Attachment 8
i i d ii II DO '
I ~~ 1II~ J~
n : l I' (3- ~
, I II ~~ ~~ · ~
' 5 ~ i' . I l' ..
.-" Ii IP Ii. ;11 J 5 i i : ~~ ~~ ~~ h
l~ . I
i;~I!:~h 'I ~I;I o~ 8~ 1=>- ~!
o ~" ,. UW ·
· "ii-1'h I, H~ d I ~~ ~~ ~~ g
1m Iljn Ii ,i.!
!j SPI ; .,,!" I' ~~ ...~
11 I' !" 1m m ill is I~. Iii
l ~ i~ Ii 2 ; :Hi I~~!~;~:
; ~. ~ . !: 1 !!5;; ;
~..
~ - :! :! - ~ - - -
u .
I \1
.
1\ ~
\
\ !
! \ I ~
H I J
~ \dil ~ ~
IIJ
SI, ~~y ji~ <.:l ~
~)I ch ~
1 ~ ~ ~
I ! 1= k
i \ ~ ~
~Itl T i i it::
I
i III~ r-- .
.
,
I,..) I
y
Y' 0
:! - - :! . ~ - - -
060 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19, 1999
Attachment 9
.
1-
.+
H
, I~
I
I
I
I
I
I I
. \ I I
~ 'J a
I 0 l p ~
\ ! J' I S
\ J! I ~ l~ !
\ I ~l
\ H i i
~ i
I
v~
hI I, ' I'
I ~ ll\ lOa
I d lil.Q1 \l
I I i~ }
I ! : a -
1 f I
\
I ~ I i
i; i~
. , n1 ;: I
I ;!
II
S
~ \ ~
l
ill HI I I e I: s I
~~,I
-,ill I ~~ ~ ~. 'i
II !
" I' ~ .
Ihl a!i
~ii ~ .~!~
~.. -- ill~ L
. . .
February 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 061
RES.#D11 /99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995.1999
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND
SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Ashbridge's Bay Coatsworth Cut Dredging, City of Toronto. To carry out
maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut navigation channel, Ashbridge's
Bay Waterfront Park, and to complete final designs for shoreline
modifications.
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridge's Bay, City of Toronto, under the "Lake
Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999"; at a total cost of $300,000;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with finalizing plans for shoreline
modifications to minimize the need for annual dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridge's Bay;
in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment process, under the "The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001 ", at a total cost
of $50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Coatsworth Cut has been an on-going navigation problem due to unsafe water depths and
insufficient boating channel widths, all as a result of continuous sediment deposition from various
sources. Dredging of Coatsworth Cut was last carried out by the Authority in 1997 to the extent of
the available funding. Approximately 6,300 m3 of material was dredged and disposed of at a total
cost of $246,000.
At Authority meeting #7/97 held on August 22, 1997, Resolution #A 175/97 was adopted:
"THAT staff be directed to proceed with maintenance dredging, and to commence the
development of a plan for permanent shoreline modifications at Coatsworth Cut, City
of Toronto, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at
a total cost of $250,000;
AND FURTHER THAT staff bring a report back to the Watershed Management Advisory
Board on the status of the shoreline modifications that would eliminate the need for
annual dredging of the Coatsworth Cut."
To investigate options to eliminate the need for annual dredging, staff retained the services of the
Coastal Engineering-Consulting firm. of. Baird & Associates. . Adetailed coastal numerical modelling
analysis of sedimentation, shoreline stability and the wave climate around Ashbridge's Bay
Waterfront Park was completed. In addition, the Consultant developed preliminary designs to
address the need to minimize annual dredging and to improve the long term shoreline stability of
Ashbridge's Bay Park,
Figure 1 shows the limits of the required navigation dredging and options for shoreline modifications
to minimize the need for annual maintenance dredging.
,
062 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 1 g, 1999
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
To achieve minimum navigable standards, up to 8,000 m3 of material will need to be dredged. All
dredging of the navigation channel must be carried out by marine equipment and since it is
expected that the quality of the dredgeate will not meet the "open water" criteria, it is proposed that
this material be transported and disposed of in the endikement cells at Tommy Thompson Park. It
is estimated that the available funding in 1999 may be insufficient to dredge the required volume of
sediment. This will be confirmed once a detailed bathymetric survey (water depths) is completed
in the early Spring. To meet any potential shortfall in funding, staff may need to phase the dredging
work over 1999 and 2000, pursue other funding partners or re-a1locate additional funds from within
the Project. Staff will also pursue options to complete partial dredging using land based equipment
from an area south of the Main Sewage Treatment Plant to reduce the total project cost.
Staff propose to retain the services of Consultants to finalize design details for shoreline
modifications in the vicinity of Coatsworth Cut and Ashbridge's Bay Park to address the need to
minimize annual mainten?flce dredging. The steering committee that was set up in 1998 to assist
in the coastal analysis and preliminary design will continue in 1999 with representation from the
boating community, City of Toronto and any other interested groups. The design will be carried out
in accordance with the Conservation Authorities' Class Environmental Assessment process which
includes a public consultation component.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds to carry out the dredging are available under "The Lake Ontario Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1995-1999", Account No. 211-16.
Funds to complete the final engineering design are available under "The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto and Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001 ", Account 139-03.
Staff will pursue other options through other funding partners or identifying additional funds in the
Project to meet the necessary dredging requirements for safe navigation.
For information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 244
Date: February 9, 1999
Attachments (1)
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 063
Attachment 1
0
.~ >.~
I:-
d CU ~
mCU --
~
~<- ~ CJ)Q.
a - +-' Q)
<1> C
C\) 0>0 L
"'C~
~ . i:: 't: :J
d .0 <1> Q)
'-l ..c+-'
CJ)CU 0-
~~ l.L.
(\) ~
.~ ..c (\) C
.au C 0
u a (\)Q
o (\) 00
om
5: ..c I
I If)c
0
j u.:::,
(\) a
U; (f) U
0 0:"=
lU Q-
U OU
> I- 0
CD ll2
II.> I 0'1
'- C
0
.c: ,-
(f) ___J__ 0'1
U
II.> (\)
-'<: , I-
0 , , 0
-'
U
(\)
(f)
0
Q
0
! II
I
'+-
-+- 0
L
0 U1
--
~-S .-
E
J:2u ---1
)
0 ~
0
I u
.i -+-'
c
(\) a =w=t==
0'1-
all
~-+-' I- C
(\) c 2. ,C2 II.>
If) Q) uQ)-+-, Q
! c E (f)Q)ca 0:::
(f):..::::.U 0'1
. - -+-' cO(\):..= c=
a a o Q I- .- -=- 0
:2 (\) :..::; 0 0 u ,,,?':::
l-
f- QI-'O x::l
.. .':! OllUl:2 lUG
. I
064 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 February 19. 1999
RES.#D12/99 - CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP
Don Watershed Regeneration Council. The changes to membership of the
Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Mr. Craig Mather be appointed as the
Alternate Member to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council for The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA);
THAT Mr. Brendan Flanagan be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as the
Alternate Member for the Friends of the Don East;
THAT Ms. Suzanne Barrett be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as the
Alternate Member for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust;
THAT the resignation of Ms. Elise Wilison, the Member appointed from the Friends of the Don
East be accepted with regret;
THAT the resignation of Mr. Tony Wagner, the Alternate Member appointed from the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust be accepted with regret;
AND FURTHER THAT the resignations of Mr. Mark Robson, Mr. Jim Purves, Mr. Daniel Radin,
and Mr. Stephen Cockle as Associate Members be accepted with regret ....... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On an annual basis the membership of the Don Council, in accordance with the Terms of Reference
-Item 2.5, is reviewed by the Council's Coordinating Committee to ensure the membership records
are up-to-date.
In the course of this review, it was noted that no alternate had been appointed for Mr. O'Brien. At
this point, it was suggested that Mr. Mather be appointed as the Chair's alternate.
Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 305
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: February 8, 1999
February 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/99 D65
RES.#D13/99 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #6/98 and Meeting #1/99. The minutes of Meeting
#6/98 held on November 19, 1998 and Meeting # 1 /99 held on January 28,
1999 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for
inform ation.
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #6/98 held November 19, 1998 and Meeting #1/99 held
January 28, 1999 be received.
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record
of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members
informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty
Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: February 9, 1999
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:48 a.m., on February 19, 1999.
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
/ks
~
, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99
April 23, 1999 Page 066
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/99, was held in the Humber Room, Head
Office, on Friday, April 23, 1999, The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10:07 am.
PRESENT
Milton Berger, , , . , . , . , , , . . . , , , . , , , , . . , . , , , . . , . . , , , , , , , , . . , , , , , , , . , . , , , , , . , , Member
Lorna Bissell ,."..""",."",.".""",...,."""""..""."."""". Chair
Cliff Gyles , , , , , , . . , , , , , . , , . , , , , , . , , , , , , , , . , , , . , , , , , , , . . . , , , , , , , , . , . , , , , " Vice Chair
Irene Jones """"",."."",."""".",.""",...",.""""",..,. Member
Pam McConnell . , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . . , , , , . , , , , , , , . . , , , . , . , , , , . . . , , Member
Jim McMaster "",.".""",."..""".".,."".""",."."",.."", Member
Richard O'Brien , . , , , , , , . , , , . , , . , , . . , , . , , , , , , , , , . . , , . , , . , . , , , . , , . , . . , , Chair, Authority
Mike Tzekas , , , . . . , , , , . , , , . , . , , , , , . , , , , . , . , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , . , , , . , , . , , , , , , . Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon ,.",.,..""..."..".,.""",...".,'...".,.,."""..., Member
David Barrow . , , . . , . . . , . , . , . , , . , , . . , , . , , , . , , . . . , , , , , , , , . . . , . , . , , . , . , , , . . . , . Member
lIa Bossons ...,..,'..,..",.,..,..""""....".,.,.,..,."",.'""..." Member
RES.#D14/99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: I rene Jones
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/99, held on February 19,1999, be approved. . . CARRIED
PRESENT A TI ONS
a) Gord yv'eeden, General Manager, Rouge Park Alliance speaking on Little Rouge Corridor.
b) Patricia Lowe, Project Co-ordinator, Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project,
speaking in regards the project.
,
067 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
RES.#D15/99 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THAT the above-noted presentations (a) & (b) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
RES.#D16/99 - NATURAL HERITAGE RESTORATION PROJECT 1999-2003
Within the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York. Approval of the Natural
Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003 within the Regional Municipalities of
Peel and York, dated April, 1999,
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Natural Heritage Restoration
Project 1999-2003 within the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, dated April, 1999, as
appended, be approved;
THAT the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York be requested to approve the project and
the annual capital expenditures set forth therein;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action
is required in connection with the project, including securing any other approvals which may
be required and the execution of any documents .......................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003 is a partnership between The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, the Regional Municipality of Peel, and the Regional Municipality of
York. The project involves the implementation of regeneration proje~ts within the respective
municipalities, and includes the Etobicoke, Mimico, and Duffins Creek watersheds, and the Humber,
Don, and Rouge River watersheds,
This five year project has been designed to complement The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's mandate to establish and undertake a program designed to further the conservation,
restoration, development, and management of natural resources, The selected regeneration projects
will also meet the goals of the Remedial Action Plan's Clean Water, Clear Choices strategy
document, as well as the more 'detailed management strategy documents that exist (or are
underway) for the respective watersheds. The project also contributes to the protection and
restoration of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
In addition, the project considers the environmental management objectives of the Regional
Municipalities of Peel and York, as outlined in their respective official plans, corporate strategies,
state of the environment reports, and report cards,
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D68
RATIONALE
Currently, a similar project is being implemented in the City of Toronto, The City of Toronto has
committed between $500,000 and $630,000 per year to The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority for the implementation of Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan projects as described
in the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999.
These funds are allotted on an annual basis to the TRCA for project administration, design,
implementation, and monitoring costs, Project priorities for any particular fiscal year are established
by TRCA in consultation with municipalities, community groups, and the appropriate watershed task
forces, alliances, or councils, The selected projects are later confirmed within the City, and all funds
are spent on projects within the City's municipal boundary, As 1999 is the final year of this
agreement, the TRCA will seek its renewal for commencement in 2000.
Projects undertaken within Toronto under Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999
involve funding partnerships with other groups and agencies, Typical funding partnerships include
the provincial and federal governments, local municipalities (prior to the amalgamation of
Metropolitan Toronto), The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, local community groups,
and private funding sources,
Benefits of the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999 to the City of Toronto include
improved water quality, and improved terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Projects that have been
completed under the auspices of this project include alterations to drop structures to provide fish
passage, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, and restoration of natural
stream channels,
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003 has been modelled after the successful
Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999 in the City of Toronto. The Project
complements the Regional official plans, corporate strategies, state of the environment reports, and
report cards, This is outlined in detail in the attached report, Key aspects of each official plan that
are supported by the project are outlined below.
Reqion of Peel Official Plan
Key aspects of Peel's Official Plan that are supported by the project include:
. The Natural Environment Goal "to create and maintain a system of viable, well-functioning
environmental features to ensure a healthy, resilient and self-sustaining natural environment
within Peel Region";
. Two Large Environmental Systems policies: Watershed Policies and Groundwater Policies;
and
. The Restoration of the Natural Environment objective "to seek opportunities to enhance the
Greenlands System in Peel by restoring and enhancing degraded components of the
ecosystem and by extending the network of natural areas where ecologically beneficial",
Region of York Official Plan
Key aspects of York's Official Plan that are supported by the project include:
. The Sustainable Natural Environment Goal "to conserve and improve the natural environment
for this and future generations so that it will sustain life, maintain health, and provide an
improved quality of life" and many of it's objectives and policies.
D69 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
PROJECT DETAILS
Priority projects have been selected within each local and regional municipality, as well as within
each watershed, Projects are consistent with the regional official plans, It should also be noted that
Authority staff has had preliminary discussions with staff at each of the Regions regarding the
implementation of this project. Staff at each municipality has reacted positively to the purpose,
scope, and funding commitments that this project entails,
Generic to each regional municipality is proposed funding of a portion of the monitoring program
which the Authority is currently developing, Work on this program now focuses on surface and
groundwater quality, and aquatic habitat. Future work on terrestrial habitat and groundwater is
planned. Current funding partnerships for the development of this program include Environment
Canada, the Ministry of Environment, and the City of Toronto,
Additional priority projects that have been selected to date are shown on the attached map (Figure
1). They include:
Reaion of Peel
. One project in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds: East Pond 4 in the Uttle
Etobicoke Creek subwatershed, located within the City of Mississauga
. Four projects in the Humber River Watershed: Palgrave Mill Pond, McFall Dam, and
Centreville Creek Pond, located in the Town of Caledon; and Claireville Wetland, located
predominantly in the City of Brampton,
Region of York
. Four projects in the Humber River watershed: Board of Trade Barrier and the William
Granger Greenway, located in the City of Vaughan; Lake Wilcox Weir, located in the Town
of Richmond Hill; and East Humber Riparian Zone Restoration, located in the Township of
King, the Town of Richmond Hill, and the City of Vaughan.
. Three projects in the Don River watershed: Little German Mills Creek, located in the Town
of Markham; Pioneer Park Restoration Project, located in the Town of Richmond Hill; and the
Thornhill Golf Course and Bartley Smith Greenway, located in the City of Vaughan,
. Three projets in the Rouge River watershed: LeGrice Pond, Unionville-Kennedy Road:
Rouge River Rehabilitation, and Bridle Trail Ponds 3, 4, and 5 - Burndenett Creek Stormwater
Management Retrofit, all located in the Town of Markham.
. One project in the Duffins Creek watershed: Stouffville Reservoir, located in the Town of
Wh itchurch-Stouffville,
Other priority projects will be identified over the course of the five year project as new information
and opportunities become available,
Integral to the development of each priority regeneration project are partnerships with the provincial
and federal governments, local municipalities, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, and
other private foundations, local community groups, and private funding sources,
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Meet with staff of the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York to discuss project details,
. Seek other partners and resources to contribute to the implementation of priority projects,
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 070
FUTURE BENEFITS
The Natural Herftage Restorailon Project 1999- 2003 promotes effective environmental management
to ensure environmental sustainability, As such, it recognizes the importance of enriching. the natural
and cultural heritage of the watersheds, and recognizes that through such work there will be societal
and economic gains.
Environmental Benefits
In undertaking the watershed regeneration projects, protection and restoration of the natural
environment will be accomplished, thus furthering the municipal goals of achieving environmental
sustainability.
The direct environmental benefits that will ensue from implementing this Project include:
. Increased fish community health including the reintroduction of some migratory species;
. Increased stream stability and thus reduced erosion and future maintenance;
. More functional terrestrial habitats that support sensitive and diverse wildlife species;
. Diverse riparian communities that support aquatic habitats and link terrestrial habitats;
. Improvements in groundwater quality and discharges to surface waters;
. Increased wetland habitats and associated fish and wildlife species;
. Improved forest cover and groundwater recharges on the Oak Ridges Moraine, thus
enhancing the groundwater resource itself;
. Improved air quality through the forest, wetland, and riparian plantings; and
. Improved surface water quality.
Each of these environmental benefits is directly related to the goals, objectives, and policies stated
in the Regions of Peel and York Official Plans.
Societal Benefits
The natural heritage regeneration projects have direct positive impacts on societal health, and thus
improve the quality of life in the watershed communities, Societal benefits that will ensue from the
implementation of these projects include:
. I ncreased recreational opportunities through the establishment of a healthy greenlands
system;
. Increase awareness of environmental issues;
. Increased opportunities to encourage community-based protection and regeneration of the
environment; and
. Increased opportunities for education through regeneration initiatives that involve the local
schools,
Economic Benefits
There have been numerous studies undertaken on the benefits that a healthy environment has on
the economic prosperity of communities, Three primary benefits that are anticipated from the
implementation of this project are:
. I ncreased values for properties located adjacent to regenerated greenspace areas,
. Increased outdoor recreational opportunities and the associated economic spinoffs to local
businesses; and
071 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23. 1999
. Increased tourism opportunities and the associated economic spinoffs to both existing local
businesses and through the establishment of new business resources, as necessary,
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding commitments from the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York will be devoted to priority
projects on an annual basis regardless of the status of committed funding from other sources,
Regardless of the final share arrangements for each site project, each Regional Municipality's annual
funding contribution begins at $ 200,000 in 1999, and increases to $300,000 by 2003.
The project proposes total annual expenditures of between $800,000 and $1,200,000, as outlined
below:
Reqion of Peel Reqion of York Other Sources* Estimated
Total Annual
1999 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 800,000
2000 200,000 200,000 400,000 800,000
2001 250,000 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
2002 250,000 250,000 500,000 1,000,000
2003 300.000 300.000 600,000 1.200,000
TOTAL $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $2,400,000 $4,800,000
The committed funds will enable TRCA to lever monies from the other sources, as often a source
of committed funding is a prerequisite to establishing such partnerships, Funds received from the
Region of Peel will be used for projects within that Region only, Similarly, funds from the Region of
York will be used only within the Region of York, The TRCA will be responsible for prioritizing
projects on an annual basis in consultation with the municipalities, the Watershed Task Forces,
Alliances, and Councils, and the broader community.
Opportunities to match these funds with funding from other sources such as the provincial and
federal governments, local municipalities, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and
other private foundations, local community groups, and private funding sources, would be sought.
Report prepared by: Seth Williston, extension 334
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 or Brian Denney, extension 242
Date: April 8, 1999
Attachments (1)
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2JOO 072
Attachment 1
NATURAL HERITAGE RESTORATION
PROJECT 1999 - 2003
Within the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York
April 1999
"
~
..~
(~.m' ...,.,~
"~t>:, ~
~.~ . ;~
"',''i.'';'',e~
""~
, TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
,
D73 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part 1 Working Together For Tomorrow's Greenspace. . . , . . , . , , , . . . . , , , , . . . , , , . 1
Part 2 Purpose, Scope, and Outcome. , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . , , . , . , , , . , . . . , . . . . 4
Part 3 Watershed Management Strategies ..,.,.......",.,.,.".".,.,'...., 6
Part 4 Municipal Objectives ..,.,.,...,.,..,."..,.""."..,.,...,..,..,.. 8
Part 5 Watershed Restoration Priorities , , , , , . , , , , . . , , , , , . . . . . . . , . . , , . . , , . . . 12
Part 6 Project Benefits "",.",."",....".,.,.....,..."...,.,..".,.. 27
Part 7 Capital Expenditures and Funding ........"......."...,..,..,...,.. 29
April 23. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 074
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 ~ 2003
PART 1:
WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
In 1996, Fortune 500 listed the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as one of the best places to live in
North America. One of the key reasons for this declaration is the amount of preserved and
connected greens pace that exists within the GT A. Preservation and enhancement of this
greenspace, both now and in the future, is a priority objective of the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA). However, the TRCA's achievements are completely dependant
on partnerships with the regional and local municipalities within its jurisdiction, the Federal and
Provincial governments, community groups, and watershed residents.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION AND
THE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
The International Joint Commission (I.J.C.) identified a number of areas in the Great Lakes
Basin where remedial action plans should be developed to restore water uses, protect water
supplies, and provide recreation and aquatic life. The Toronto waterfront from the Etobicoke
Creek to the Rouge River and all watersheds draining this area was identified as one of the sites
under the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
In 1994, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan released its Stage 2 report:
Clean Water, Clear Choices, This report identified the following:
. Environmental management required an ecosystem approach;
. A number of guiding principles to assist in decision making, and;
. Eight major areas where action is required:
- Storm water
- Combined Sewer Systems
- Sanitary Sewers and the Sewage Treatment Plants
- Fish and Wildlife Habitat
- Public Awareness, Education and Non-Government Organizations
- Laws and Policies
- Land Use Planning
- Monitoring and Research,
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's role as identified in the Stage 2 report
includes monitoring and enforcing appropriate development and agricultural controls,
undertaking erosion and sediment control programs, and increaSing public involvement and
awareness of environmental programs through aesthetic clean-up and rehabilitation projects.
In addition, the TRCA shares a responsibility for fish and wildlife habitat improvement programs,
D75 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
In 1997, TRCA entered into an agreement with Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust regarding the implementation of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, In accordance with this agreement, the
TRCA is responsible for:
. Identifying policies and facilitating projects which will contribute to successful RAP
implementation;
. Initiating or encouraging the necessary monitoring, planning, design, and construction
of projects in association with municipalities and community groups; and
. Using the mechanism of watershed report cards to document results and encourage
participants.
The TRCA is a logical choice for implementing a number of the actions recommended in Clean
Waters, Clear Choices since it is the only government body organized on the basis of
watersheds rather than political boundaries. TRCA's mandate, experience, and proven
successes in many areas that are of concern to the RAP make it a good choice in implementing
specific RAP actions.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Since 1957, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has been responsible for
developing and implementing a program for renewable resource management. A
comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authority in its 1980 Watershed
Plan, and again in 1986 when the Watershed Plan was revised. At that time, the Authority
recognized that it's traditional programs were not keeping pace with the pressure of
development across it's watersheds and that urgent action was required to ensure the future
environmental health ofthe Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace Strategy (1989) was
proposed as the Authority's conservation vision for the future of the Greater Toronto Area,
In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Commission of the Future of Toronto's
Waterfront and Space for All, a report to the Province identifying options for a Greenlands
Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area, made recommendations to conserve and enhance the
natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area.
Since 1990, the TRCA has been preparing and implementing watershed management
strategies using planning task forces comprised of watershed residents, interest groups,
business associations, agencies and elected representatives, Watershed management
strategies have been completed for the Rouge, Don, and Humber River watersheds; will be
initiated for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds in 1999; and will be initiated for the
Duffins Creek watershed in the future.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seeks the support of its partners to continue
"Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace".
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 076
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
THE CITY OF TORONTO
The City of Toronto has committed between $500,000 (1995 to 1997) and $630,000 (1998 and
1999) per year to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the implementation of
Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan projects (known as Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan projects prior to the amalgamation of the City in 1998), as described in
the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999. These funds are allotted on an
annual basis to the TRCA for project administration, design, implementation, and monitoring
costs associated with 'projects that were selected based on TRCA priorities. Project priorities for
any particular fiscal year are later confirmed within the City, and all funds are spent on projects
within the City's municipal boundary. As 1999 is the final year of this agreement, the TRCA will
seek it's renewal commencing in 2000.
Projects undertaken within Toronto under the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project
1995-1999 usually involve funding partnerships with other groups and agencies, Typical funding
partnerships include the provincial and federal governments, local municipalities (prior to the
amalgamation of Metropolitan Toronto), The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, local
community groups, and private funding sources.
While the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999 contributes $500,000
annually to the implementation of restoration projects within the City, the other sources are
estimated to contribute approximately $1,000,000 to the project. This results in a gross
expenditure of at least $1.5 million to restore natural heritage in the City of Toronto.
Benefits of this project to the City of Toronto that have occurred over the past four years of
implementation include improved water quality, and improved terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
Projects that have been completed under the auspices of this project include alterations to drop
structures to provide fish passage, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat
restoration, and restoration of natural stream channels.
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF PEEL AND YORK
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is seeking to develop partnerships for the
implementation of regeneration projects with the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, This
is the purpose of the Natura/ Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003. Similar to the TRCA's
current agreement with the City of Toronto, the Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
is designed as a five year project
Establishing a partnership to implement Remedial Action Plan projects with the Regions of Peel
and York will assist TRCA, local and regional municipalities, and other watershed management
partners, in achieving environmental management greenspace objectives and making a pOSitive
contnbution to the quality of life across the Greater Toronto Area,
D77 WATERS,HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
PART 2:
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND OUTCOME
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003 is a partnership between The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, The Regional Municipality of Peel, and the Regional Municipality
of York.
PURPOSE
To compliment The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's mandate to establish and
undertake a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development, and
management of natural resources. Further, this 'project is designed to achieve the
environmental management objectives of the municipalities.
SCOPE
The project covers a five year period from 1999 - 2003 and involves the implementation of
regeneration projects within the Regional Municipalities of Peel and York, and includes the
Etoblcoke, Mimico, and Duffins Creek watersheds, and the Humber, Don, and Rouge River
watersheds within the respective municipalities (Figure 1).
The selected regeneration projects will meet the goals of the Remedial Action Plan's Clean
Water, Clear Choices strategy document, as well as the more detailed management strategy
documents that exist (or are underway) for the respective watersheds. The prioritization of
implementation projects will be done by TRCA on an annual basis in consultation with the
municipalities, the watershed Task Forces, Alliances, and Councils, and the broader
community.
OUTCOME
Potential implementation sites within each municipality and within each watershed are identified
in Part 6, Watershed Restoration Priorities, of this report, Future benefits that are expected from
the implementation of these projects, and thus the implementation of the Natural Heritage
Restoration Project 1999- 2003, are identified in Part 7: Project Benefits. The benefits include
creating environmental sustainability, as well as gains to both society and the economy.
April 23. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D78
~~
~a
0:;:
O::J
z<
"z
~Q
z~
0"
~ffi
....'"
UJ=:
;::8
.. -J\..
~a-~
~.- . 4 h
... - . .... '~
.~ ":--
~ e
~~
a
CIJ
~
-
0
.-
..j....l
w
()
j
..j....l
()
(l)
"':::")
p
-
p...,
c
0 '"
........ :n
..j....l ~
~
- , s::
0 U'l
..j....l -" / N .
CIJ I
~ ~ I
\.. -
<~
~ ~, A
.........--., \ .,.. , -
~ I
w
..j....l
'r-
[5 U'l<
~:
I"j""' I
I--'-< I
....-- , / I
e
E ~
(/J
Z "B
..c
(/J
I (/J '-U'l
'- Q)
,......... Q) ro
> S I
\U o~
<:{z z 0 ~< '
5b W_1j ~ U 0 I
S3~o..~~
~ ~ <DljDU'l
,
079 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
PART 3:
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Since the adoption of its Greenspace Strategy, the TRCA has completed watershed
management strategies for the Rouge, Don and Humber Rivers. The first strategy, A
Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Basin, was completed in 1989.
This strategy was developed by a stakeholders committee including agency staff and interest
groups. More recently, the Rouge Park Management Plan has also been completed (1994) for
the section of the Park in the City of Toronto. The Rouge Park North Management Plan is
currently being developed for the portion of the watershed in York Region.
In 1994, Forty Steps to a New Don, was prepare'd by the Don Watershed Task Force. In 1997,
Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document, A Call To Action were
completed by the Humber Watershed Task Force. These two strategies were developed
through volunteer task forces. Membership included residents, interest groups, business
associations, municipal and other agency staff and elected representatives. A task force to
develop a watershed management strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds will
be established in 1999. Work on a comprehensive background, or State of the Watershed,
report for the Duffins Creek watershed will commence in 1999. This is the first step to
developing a watershed management strategy.
Watershed management strategies have been very successful in generating public interest and
awareness about the impacts urbanization has had on the natural and cultural heritage
resources contained within the watersheds, The strategies also illustrate the importance of
providing a framework that coordinates the energy, priorities, and resources of many partners
on a watershed basis, The major strength of this planning model is that it fosters continued
ownership and involvement by the community to undertake actions to protect, restore, and
improve the environmental quality of their communities.
THE DON RIVER WATERSHED
In 1992, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority created the Don Watershed Task
Force. The Task Force's primary mandate was to develop a "management strategy" or
regeneration plan for the entire Don River watershed using an ecosystem-based approach. The
plan defined what a healthy, sustainable Don watershed would be like, presented specific
actions to achieve that vision in areas such as water and land resources management, and
outlined regeneration plans for the seven subwatersheds in the Don system.
In 1994, the Don Watershed Council was formed to guide the implementation of the
management strategy, entitled Forty Steps To ANew Don. The Don Watershed Task Force and
Council are proving to be excellent means for planning and implementing regeneration projects
in a large ecosystem and have many of the criteria discussed in Clean Waters, Clear Choices for
effective implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D80
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED
The Humber Watershed Task Force held its first meeting in February, 1995. It's mandate was
"to develop a Humber Watershed Strategy to achieve a sustainable, healthy watershed for the
Humber River using an ecosystem-based approach." In carrying out its mandate, the Task
Force identified the environmental, social, and economic issues facing the Humber as well as
opportunities for regeneration and developed recommendations on how to achieve a healthy
Humber watershed, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document, A
Call to Action: Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, were published in 1997.
In the fall of 1997, the Humber Watershed Alliance was formed to oversee the implementation of
Legacy. Alliance membership includes the TRCA, local and regional municipality elected
representatives, provincial and federal agency staff, community interest groups, and watershed
residents. Together, this group has developed implementation plans and community awareness
initiatives. They have pursued designation of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River,
(official designation is likely to occur in September 1999). As well, the Alliance is currently
developing the Humber Report Card, Each of these actions will contribute to meeting the
objectives of Clean Waters, Clear Choices and ultimately delisting the Humber River watershed
as an Area of Concern in the Great Lakes Region by restoring beneficial uses that are currently
degraded.
THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS
The State of the Watershed Report: Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds was completed in
1998 by TRCA staff. This report describes key environmental, social, and economic conditions
in the watershed, with the primary focus being environmental. In 1999, the report will be used to
facilitate the production of a joint management ~trategy for the watersheds using an ecosystem-
based approach,
The purpose of this report is to provide information on the state of the Etobicoke and Mimico
Creek watersheds to the future task force and others to help focus and coordinate planning,
management, consultation, regeneration, and monitoring efforts, To fulfill this purpose, the
report both describes conditions and issues in the watersheds and provides some direction for
the future management of the watersheds to be considered by the task force.
THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
The Rouge River watershed management strategy, A Comprehensive Basin Management
Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed, was completed by TRCA in 1990. The Rouge Park
Management Plan was completed under Provincial leadership in 1994. The Rouge Park North
Management Plan was completed in draft, through a process led by the Town of Markham for
the Rouge Park Alliance, in 1998. While the TRCA continues to oversee this watershed in terms
of ensuring that it's planning and regulatory objectives are met, implementation projects are
coordinated by the Rouge Park Alliance. The TRCA however, remains an active partner in the
development and implementation of projects within the Rouge River watershed.
D81 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
THE DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED
In 1999, TRCA staff, in conjunction with the regional and local municipalities and various
ministries, will be initiating the development of a Watershed Strategy for the Duffins Creek. The
process will take advantage of the previous studies carried out for Duffins and provide the
framework for dealing with urban development in a primarily rural watershed. The strategy will
also address the opportunity presented by the significant public land holdings in the Duffins to
protect natural heritage features. Establishment of a watershed task force will be undertaken in
2000. The task force will be responsible for developing both the strategic direction and report
card to measure implementation progress for the watershed by 2002,
PART 4:
MUNICIPAL OBJECTIVES
In carrying out this Project, a number of goals and objectives of the participating municipal
partners would be achieved.
REGION OF PEEL
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003 supports many of the goals and objectives
of the Region of Peel's Strategic Plan, Beyond 2000, their Official Plan, and their State of the
Environment (Water, Land, and Atmosphere) Reports.
Region of Peel Strategic Plan: Beyond 2000
The Region of Peel's Strategic Plan is designed to help Council, staff, citizens, and community
partners review Regional services, identify priorities, and plan for the future.
Goal 4
. Preserve, protect, and enhance the Region's natural environment and resources.
Strategic Directions
. Increase awareness of environmental issues and encourage community-based
strategies to protect the environment;
. Promote and advocate for improved air quality; and
. Participate in watershed planning to maintain the quantity and quality of ground and
surface water.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 082
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
Region of Peel State of the Ecosystem Reports - Land, Water, and Atmosphere
The Region of Peel's State of the Ecosystem Reports - Land, Water, and Atmosphere,
developed in support of the 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan, These reports were completed in
January 1988, December 1996, and December 1995, respectively.
The State of the Environment Reports provide comprehensive summaries of the condition of the
environment as related to land, water, and atmosphere. Indictors for measuring change in
environmental condition are provided. However, there are no targets (or objectives) given.
Rather, the information is designed to be used to support the planning policies of the
municipalities and for future reporting on the environmental health of the Region.
Region of Peel Official Plan
The Region of Peel's Official Plan (Office Consolidation, 1998) is a strategy for the long-term
policy framework for guiding growth and development in Peel, while having regard for
protecting the environment, managing resources, and directing growth. The Plan also
recognizes the need for effective environmental protection and management measures to
ensure environmental sustainability and it recognizes the importance of protecting and
enriching the natural and cultural heritage of Peel Region.
The natural environment goal, and a number of it's objectives and policies, are directly
supported by the Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003.
Natural Environment Goal
. To create and maintain a system of viable, well-functioning environmental features to
ensure a healthy, resilient and self-sustaining natural environment within Peel Region.
Policies
. Protect, maintain and enhance the quality and integrity of ecosystems, including air,
water, land, and biota jointly with the area municipalities, conservation authorities, and
provincial agencies.
. Adopt policies and establish programs for the restoration of the natural environment in
Peel jointly with the area municipalities, conservation authorities, and provincial
agencies.
Large Environmental Systems
A number of the policies pertaining to large environmental systems, including watersheds and
groundwater, are supported by the Project.
Watershed Policies
. Promote and participate in watershed plans and subwatershed plans throughout the
Region; and
. Work jointly with the area and neighbouring municipalities, conservation authorities, and
other provincial agencies to determine planning and monitoring Information
requirements for inclusion in watershed and subwatershed plans.
083 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
Groundwater Policies
. Protect, maintain, and enhance the integrity of ecosystems through the proper planning
and management of groundwater resources; and
. Work with the area municipalities, conservation authorities, and other provincial
agencies to protect, maintain, and enhance groundwater resources.
Restoration of the Natural Environment
A number of the policies pertaining to restoring the natural environment are supported by the
Project.
Objective
. To seek opportunities to enhance the Greenlands System in Peel by restoring and
enhancing degraded components of the ecosystem and by extending the network of
natural areas where ecologically benefic~al.
Policies
. Promote a wide range of environmental enhancement opportunities.
. Support and encourage all efforts, including those of the area municipalities and
conservation authorities, in restonng and enhancing components of the Greenlands
System. (Note: elements of the Greenlands System include wetlands, woodlands,
environmentally significant areas, areas of natural and scientific interest, habitats of
vulnerable, threatened and endangered species, valley and stream corridors, shorelines,
natural corridors, and fish and wildlife habitats,)
. Work jointly with the agencies and landowners to implement reforestation programs
across the region with the highest priority on those areas that will enhance the
Greenlands System in Peel.
REGION OFYORK
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003 supports many of the goals, objectives and
policies of the Region of York's Official Plan (1994) and Report Card (draft 1998),
Region of York Official Plan
The Region of York's Official Plan is a set of policies designed to help guide economic,
environmental, and community-building decisions affecting the use of land. The sustainable
natural environment goal, and a number of it's objectives and policies, are directly supported by
the Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003.
Sustainable Natural Environment Goal
. To conserve and improve the natural environment for this and future generations so that
it will sustain life, maintain health, and provide an improved quality of life.
April 23. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D84
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
Objectives
. To identify, protect and restore the Regional Greenlands System composed of natural
areas and connecting links as an essential structural component of the Region.
Policy: To pursue initiatives through multi-party partnerships to rehabilitate Greenlands
and re-establish, where possible, connecting links throughout the Greenlands System.
. To increase forest cover to a minimum of 25 percent of York's total land area from the
current 18 percent.
Policy: To encourage and work with the Ministry of Natural Resources, and others
involved in forest management, in maintaining and enhancing both publicly and privately
owned forested lands, and to encourage landowners to utilize good forestry practices.
. To maintain and improve water quality and flow of rivers, streams, and groundwater and
to protect headwater areas from land uses that may have the potential to contaminate
downstream water systems.
Policy: To cooperate with area municipalities, the conservation authorities, and other
agencies in the preparation of watershed planning initiatives to establish and achieve
water quality objectives for the watershed; create an inventory of existing geology,
hydrology, hydrogeology, limnology, aquatic, and terrestnal habitats and other
environmental data; and to recommend appropriate stormwater management
techniques.
Policy: to monitor the quantity and quality of groundwater systems in York Region to
Identify those areas that are currently experiencing water quality and quantity problems.
Policy: That the natural quality and hydrological characteristics of watercourses and
lakes, including aquatic habitat, baseflow, water quality, temperature, storage levels or
capacity are maintained.
Policy: To protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitats associated with streams and
lakes in the Region in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the
conservation authorities. ,
. To promote protection of natural areas and systems, and urban and rural forestry
initiatives as a means of improving air quality and reducing energy use through shading,
sheltering, and cleansing,
Policy: To undertake tree planting aDd landscaping initiatives along existing Regional
roads, at planned new facilities, and on Regional properties to improve air quality and
reduce noise.
Region of York Report Card
The Region of York is currently developing a Report Card on their Official Plan. As part of this
process, the Region hosted a series of workshops in October 1998. While a number of topics
were discussed at these workshops, the Greenlands and the York Forest, Greenlands Planning
and Practice, and Sustaining the Moraine workshops are of particular relevance to the Natural
Heritage Restoration Project 1999-2003. Focuses of this workshop included a need to monitor
and assess the implementation of the Natural Environment policies outlined in the Official Plan.
,
085 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23. 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
While no specific indicators and targets for measuring the success of the Region's
implementation of their Natural Environment policies have been determined, it is conceivable
that they will deal with the policies outlined above in the Region of York Official Plan section. It is
therefore likely that projects implemented under the Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999-
2003 would be relevant to the reporting of success in the Region's future endeavours to
implement it's Official Plan,
PART 5:
WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITIES
Priority projects for natural heritage restoration are proposed by The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority for each of the Etobicok~, Mimico, and Duffins Creek watersheds, and
the Humber, Don and Rouge River watersheds, within the municipal boundaries of the Regions
of Peel and York, The locations of these projects are shown on Figure 1.
These watershed priorities include:
. Terrestrial Habitat Restoration including forest and wetland rehabilitation and
enhancement.
. Aquatic Habitat Restoration including weir and channel mitigation, and riparian zone
restoration; and
. Surface and Ground Water Ouality and Ouantity Improvements including stormwater
management retrofit works, reduced erosion and sedimentation projects, and baseflow
maintenance and enhancement.
Determination of the above priority restoration categories is based on in depth analyses of our
watersheds, A Report Card, Turning the Corner, was completed for the Don River Watershed by
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council in 1997. The report identifies a number of key targets
for improving the natural environment, the foremost of which are terrestrial and aquatic habitat
restoration, and water quality and quantity improvements. Similarly, the Humber Report Card,
the development of which is a current project of the Humber Watershed Alliance, will also
identify key targets for priority components of the-natural environment.
Although development of a watershed strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds
will not commence until later this year, the State of the Watershed (1998) report does identify a
number of priority issues in the watersheds that need to be addressed. Again, the natural
enVIronment issues which are of paramount concern include terrestrial and aquatic habitat
restoration, and water quality and quantity improvements.
Implementation projects on the Rouge River watershed are determined in consultation with
landowners, area municipalities. and the Rouge Park Alliance. Priority environmental restoration
projects in this watershed are also targeted towards terrestrial and aquatic habitat restoration,
and water quality and quantity improvements.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D86
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
As part of the TRCA's agreement with Environment Canada and the Ministry of the Environment
to implement the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, the TRCA is developing a
monitoring program for these seven watersheds. The program focuses initially on surface water
quality and quantity, and aquatic habitat. In the future, terrestrial habitat and groundwater issues
will be addressed, The monitoring program will be used to track long-term changes that result
from the watershed restoration activities, Current funding partnerships for the development of
this program include Environment Canada, the Ministry of Environment, and the City of Toronto.
The following is a description of priority restoration projects, organized according to both the
regional municipality and watershed in which they are located, New projects will be identified
over time and these will be discussed with the municipality when establishing priorities on an
annual basis.
REGION OF PEEL - PRIORITY RESTORATION PROJECTS
Within the Region of Peel, the Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, and Humber River watersheds
traverse sections of the municipality. Six priority regeneration projects are recommended, as
summarized in Table 1,
Table 1: Priority Watershed Restoration Projects in the Region of Peel
Project Name Objective Total Cost Watershed Local Municipality
East Pond 4 Stormwater $225,000 Etoblcoke Creek City of Mississauga
management pond
retrofit
Snelgrove Stormwater outfall $25,000 (deSign Etobicoke Creek City of Brampton
Stormwater Outfall retrofits only)
Palgrave Mill Pond Instream fish bamer $1.5 million Humber River Town of Caledon
mitigation, improved
terrestrial and aquatic
habitats. and sediment
removal
McFall Dam Instream fish bamer $25,000 Humber River Town of Caledon
mitigation
Centreville Creek Instream fish bamer Design: $25,000 Humber River Town of Caledon
Pond mitigation Implementation:
not determined
Claireville Wetland Wetland creation $2 million Humber River City of Bram pton
087 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS
To date, two priority restoration projects for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds have
been determined, Other projects will be identified through inventory, consultation, and
development of the watershed strategy.
East Pond 4 - Little Etobicoke Creek Stormwater Management Retrofit
In 1996, R.E. Winter & Associates Limited completed the Mississauga Storm Water Quality
Control Study for the City of Mississauga. One objective of the study was to identify retrofit
opportunities among the existing stormwater management ponds within the City. The study
identified a number of ponds with retrofit potential
including, Derry East Pond 4, located in the Little
Etobicoke Creek Subwatershed, Currently this
pond is designed to serve quantity control only;
TRCA would like to retrofit this pond so that it
meets current Ministry of the Environment criteria
for erosion, quality and quantity control,
The next stage in the retrofit process will require
the establishment of stormwater design criteria for
the pond including: storage volume, erosion
control benefit, target release rates, and cost
estimates. In addition, the preparation of detailed
design drawings and construction drawings will be necessary for implementation of this pond
retrofit. The total cost for the design and implementation of this project is $225,000,
Partnerships for this project will be sought out with the City of Mississauga. The design of this
project will be completed in 1999 and implementation will occur in 2000.
Storm Sewer Outfall nos. 5 and 6 - Snelgrove Reach Plan
In the Snelgrove Reach Plan, all existing storm sewer outfalls (discharging without any
treatment) were examined for retrofit potential. Outfall number 5, located on the west side of the
west branch of the Etobicoke Creek approximately halfway between Conservation Drive and
Sandalwood Parkway, has a drainage area of
approximately 58 hectares which is primarily
residential development. There is potential to
provide a small wetland facility within the flood
plain adjacent to the existing outfall.
Outfall number 6, located on the east side of the
west branch of the Etobicoke Creek
approximately 150 metres south of Conservation
Drive, has an estimated drainage area of
approximately 97 hectares, consisting primarily of
residential dt"l/p!r,rmont Thor;:> jc nf"tcnti::ol tn
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 088
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
provide a wetland treatment facility with extended detention to address the issues of both water
quality treatment and erosion control within the flood plain located immediately west of
Somerset Drive Public School.
The next stage in the retrofit of these existing outfalls would require consultation with the City of
Brampton which owns and maintains the outfalls, Establishment of design criteria for the
facilities along with the preparation of construction drawings and cost estimates would be
required. Design costs for this project are estimated at $25,000. Potential partners include the
City of Brampton,
THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED
Within the section of the Humber River watershed that traverses the Region of Peel, four priority
restoration projects have been established. Throughout the entire watershed, priority restoration
projects over the next five years will be aimed at mitigating instream fish barriers, with the
ultimate goal being to restore a self-sustaining migratory fishery. The Remedial Action Plan
Implementation Project 1995-1999 is already contributing funds towards the mitigation of
barriers in the City of Toronto, It is expected that, with the mitigation of the barriers in the City of
Toronto, migratory fish will again be found within Peel and York Regions as early as 1999.
In addition to mitigating instream barriers, it is proposed that aquatic and terrestrial habitat
monitoring be implemented, revegetation programs be implemented to enhance the core
natural habitats and corridors, and that special attention be given to the Oak Ridges Moraine to
enhance the natural heritage of this significant landform,
Palgrave Mill Pond
Restoring the Palgrave Mill Pond involves mitigation of the dam through the construction of a
naturalized by-pass channel. The channel is intended to achieve objectives related to fish
habitat, water quality, and sediment transport. At the same time,
the plan maintains the social and heritage values associated
with the pond and dam, and the terrestrial habitat values
associated with the local ecosystem. Essentially, these goals will
be achieved by taking the pond 'off-line' of the Humber River.
This will be achieved by creating a new reach of the Humber
River which will convey low flows around the pond instead of
through the pond, as is the present situation.
I As part of the restoration project, the removal of sediment from
the pond is recommended. In addition to substantial benefits
related to longevity and appearance, sediment removal will
provide opportunities to improve aquatic habitat in the pond,
allow for a bottom draw outlet to release cooler water to the
Humber River downstream, provide for the installation of habitat
structures along the shore and at the bottom of the pond, and
Improve "vater quality.
089 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1 999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
The total project costs for the design and implementation of this project is $1,5 million, Detailed
design will occur in 1999. Given the substantial funding requirements, implementation of the
project will likely occur over two to three years, between 2000 and 2002. Partnerships with the
Palgrave Community Action Group, Ontario Streams, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
the Town of Caledon, the Palgrave Rotary Club, Humber Watershed Alliance, and local citizens
and businesses exist or will be sought.
McFall Dam
Tha McFall dam is located in the Town of Bolton between Highway 50 and Humberlea Road on
the north side of King Street East. It currently prevents upstream movement of fish into
watercourses north of Bolton. Fish passage will need to be provided to meet one of the primary
objectives of the Draft Humber River Watershed
Fisheries Management Plan, that of improving
access for migratory species from Lake Ontario.
This is particularly important for any future
attempts at reintroducing Atlantic salmon to the
watershed.
Allowing fish passage will also benefit the resident
fish species in the area. A number of potential
methods for allowing fish passage have been
suggested but no detailed investigations of their
~-- feasibility has been done, The estimated costs for
design is $25,000; the cost for implementation
have not been determined. Potential and confirmed partners include the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Canada Trust
Friends of the Environment, Town of Caledon, Humber Watershed Alliance, and Ontario
Streams.
Centreville Creek Pond
This pond is located in the Albion Hills Conservation Area approximately 300 metres upstream
from the confluence of the Main Humber River with Centreville Creek. This is a coldwater
system supporting populations of brook and brown trout, as well as numerous minnow
species. Two of the major impacts resulting from
the construction of the dam are the prevention of
I upstream movement of fish species into
,
I Centreville Creek and the warming of the water in
I the pond during the summer months, resulting in
thermal impacts downstream,
The concept plan for this site is to create two off-
line ponds, one for swimming and the other for
angling. The new channel for Centreville Creek
will be created between them. The estimated
costs for design is $25,000; the cost for
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D90
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
implementation have not been determined, Potential and confirmed partners include the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup
Fund, Canada Trust Friends of the Environment, Humber Watershed Alliance, and Ontario
Streams.
Claireville Wetland
The Claireville Conservation Area (including Indian Line and Ebenezer) is approximately 848
hectares in size and includes the only major flood control dam that was built within the Humber
River watershed, The Claireville Dam and Reservoir was built in 1964 to provide flood control
benefits to down stream lands, Although the
structure has impacted the function of the West
Humber River it also provides a tremendous
opportunity to create a large wetland complex.
Background studies have indicated that the West
Humber Subwatershed historically contained 838
hectares of wetland, or 4 percent of the land area.
At present the subwatershed contains only 87
hectares of evaluated wetlands, and although
there may be some unevaluated wetland areas,
this represents an approximate a ten fold
decrease in wetland coverage. It is not surprising
that an important component of rehabilitating the Humber River watershed is the re-creation of
wetland habitats. The size and nature of the Claireville Dam and Reservoir proVides an
opportunity to create a substantive wetland complex in the order of 15 to 20 hectares. This
would amount to a 20 percent increase over existing wetland area in the subwatershed and
raise the total wetland coverage in the subwatershed to 5 percent.
A wetland of this size in the GT A would provide 'excellent opportunities for recreation and
education, The purpose of this project is to conduct the feasibility assessment and begin
Gz'.'e!oping c()nstruction drawings. The project involves regrading within and adjacent to the
reservoir, raising water 'levels to submerge lands that would form the wetland area, planting of
aquatic vegetation, planting riparian and forest vegetation, construction of a boat launch (non-
motorized craft only), and construction of a trail. The wetland creation has the potential to
establish a renowned wildlife observation area in the City of Brampton, bringing with it
recreation and economic spin-off benefits, Project costs are estimate at $2 million, Partnerships
with Ducks Unlimited, the local municipalities, the Claireville Advisory Committee, Humber
Watershed Alliance, and local businesses will be sought.
,
091 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
REGION OF YORK - PRIORITY RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR 1999
The Humber, Don and Rouge River watersheds, and the Duffins Creek watershed, traverse
sections of Yor~ Region. Eleven priority regeneration projects are recommended, as
summarizec :.. Table 2, It should be noted that all projects on the Oak Ridges Moraine will be
designed to ennance the natural heritage of this significant landform.
Table 2: Priority Watershed Restoration Projects in the Region of York
Project Name Objective Total Cost Watershed Local Municipality
Board of Trade Instream fish barrier $175,000 Humber River City of Vaughan
Barrier mitigation
Lake Wilcox Weir Instream fish barrier $20,000 Humber River Town of Richmond Hill
mitigation
East Humber Riparian Zone $200,000 Humber River Township of King, the
Riparian Zone Restoration Town of Richmond
Restoration Hill, and the City of
Vaughan
William Granger Habitat restoration, $684,000 Humber River City of Vaughan
Greenway interpretative signage,
and interregional trail
construction
little German Mills Channel stabilization, $735,000 Don River Town of Markham
Creek stormwater
management, and
habitat restoration
Pioneer Park Improved water $900,000 Don River Town of Richmond Hill
Restoration Project quality. water quantity
control, and
regenerated habitats
Bartley Smith Improve water quality, $4,000,000 Don River City of Vaughan
Greenway restore habitats, and
provide trail links
LeGrice Pond Reestablish the pond $240,000 Rouge River Town Gf Markham
and wetland. create a
natural stream,
enhance habitats, and
provide a local trail
Unionvlile-Kennedy Establish nparian $150.000 Rouge River Town of Markham
Road: Rouge River plantings, stabilize
Rehabilitation banks, provide for
public ownership,
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D92
, -
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
Project Name Objective Total Cost Watershed Local Municipality
Bridle Trail Ponds Storm water $250,000 Rouge River Town of Markham
3, 4, and 5 - management pond
Burndenett Creek retrofit
Stouffville Habitat -= lncement $40,000 Duffins Creek Town of Whitchurch-
ReserVOir and creation of a Stouffville
fishing pier.
THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED
Within the section of the Humber River watershed that traverses the Region of York, five priority
restoration projects have been identified. Similar to what was stated in the Region of Peel
section, throughout the entire watershed, priority restoration projects over the next five years will
be aimed at mitigating instream fish barriers, with the ultimate goal to restore a self-sustaining
migratory fishery.
The Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999 is currently contributing
funds towards the instream mitigation of barriers in the City. It is expected that, with the
mitigation of the instream barriers in Toronto, migratory fish will again be found within Peel and
York Regions as early as 1999. In addition to mitigating instream barriers it is proposed that
aquatic and terrestrial habitat monitoring be implemented and revegetation programs be
undertaken to enhance the natural heritage system.
Board of Trade Barrier
The Board of Trade weir is located in Woodbridge on the west side of Clarence Street north of
Mounsey Street on the Board of Trade Golf Course Property. Following the mitigation of the
Eglinton Avenue barrier in Toronto, this is the weir preventing fish access to watercourses up to
Bolton, a distance of approximately 25 kilometres, The Board of Trade barrier is to be modified
to prevent access of rainbow trout, chinook and coho salmon to upper portions of the main
Humber River while allowing passage of Atlantic salmon and brown trout. As the watercourses
around and upstream from Bolton have the highest potential for successful reproduction of
Atlantic salmon, allowing fish passage around the Board of Trade barrier is critical to the
success -::,f reintroducing this species to the watershed.
~~,Lj"Jl,.l'~""-"""'" " -~ . Pending sufficient funding, the final design will be
I~;~':' ,-
"%"'~"~".. .'
I \.__ , f ~_ .....~ completed by the end of March, 1999. Costs are
"'1":'~~"'"'' ....
I ,..... estimated to be $25,000 for project design and
$150,000 for implementation. Potential and
confirmed partners include the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Action to Restore a Clean Humber,
Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Canada Trust
Friends of the Environment, City of Vaughan,
Humber Watershed Alliance, and Ontario
I Streams.
D93 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
Lake Wilcox Weir
This project is located approximately 100 metres west of Lake Wilcox on the East Humber River,
It is currently used to help control water levels in the lake through the addition or removal of
stop logs. The weir restricts downstream movement of fish from Lake Wilcox into the East
Humber River and prevents upstream movement. Fish passage will need to be provided to
meet one of the goals of the Draft Humber River Fisheries Management Plan which is to
mitigate the effects of instream barriers to allow fish passage. Allowing fish passage will also
contribute to the improvement the natural heritage of the Oak Ridges Moraine,
The estimated costs for design is $20,000 and the
cost for implementation has not been determined.
Potential and confirmed partners include the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Action to Restore a
Clean Humber, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund,
I Canada Trust Friends of the Environment, Town
I of Richmond Hill, Humber Watershed Alliance,
,
i and Ontario Streams.
I
I
I East Humber Riparian Zone Restoration
I
I The purpose of this project is to establish a 10
metre width of woody riparian vegetation on either
side of the East Humber River, between Lake Wilcox and Woodbridge, in the Township of King,
the Town of Richmond Hill, and the City of Vaughan. This project complements the Lake Wilcox
Weir rehabilitation project (above) in that the weir mitigation would provide access for fish
between the East Humber and the lake, and the riparian habitat enhancements would improve
habitat for these fisll populations. Similarly, this project would also complement the natural
heritage of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Increased migration and spawning opportunities would result, thus supporting the goal of
creating a self-sustaining migratory fishery in the
Humber River. These works are supported by the
draft Humber River Fisheries Management Plan.
Estimated costs for thIS project are upwards of
$280,000. Confirmed and potential partners include
rotary clubs, community groups, local schools,
Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Canada Trust
Friends of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, and
the Humber Watershed Alliance.
April 23, 1999 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 094
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
William Granger Greenway
The William Granger Greenway is approximately five kilometres in length and is located within
the valley corridor of the East Humber River watershed between The McMichael Canadian Art
Collection and the West Vaughan Community Centre in the City of
Vaughan, The objectives of this five year project are to provide an
interregional trail link between The McMichael Canadian Art
Collection, the Kortright Centre for Conservation and the Boyd
Conservation Area; to provide interpretive signage on
environmental, culture and heritage features, and to restore riparian
'I and terrestrial habitats along the East Branch of the Humber River.
Total cost of this project over the five year period is $684,000.
I Potential and confirmed partners include the City of Vaughan,
I McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Kleinburg Area Ratepayers
Association, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Canada Trust Friends
of the Environment, Humber Watershed Alliance, and Humber
I Heritage Trail Association.
THE DON RIVER WATERSHED
Within the section of the Don River watershed that traverses the Region of York, four priority
restoration projects have been established.
Little German Mills Creek
The Little German Mills Creek, a tributary within the Don Watershed flows through a degraded
valley system in a residential area south of the Highway 407 corridor. A concept plan for the
valley corridor was developed in conjunction with the local community who now refer to
themselves as Friends of Little German Mills Creek, The plan addresses stream channel
stability, stormwater management, restored
wildlife habitats and improved public access to
the valley system. Design and implementation of
a wetland management facility on this tributary
will address the remaining downstream
stormwater management requirement. Facilities
have been constructed upstream to handle runoff
from Highway 407.
In addition to assisting in the development of the
plan, the Friends of Little German Mills Creek
have carried out local cleanups, have formally
agreed to adopt the valley, and will seek
additional funding through a variety of
applications and by approaching upstream businesses. In 1999, the "Fnends" are committed to
plantings and other regeneration activities suitable for public involvement.
095 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
The entire project cost is approximately $735,000, to be completed on a multiple year basis.
Partners to date on this project include Times Development, y, W. Lee Associates, Gartner Lee,
Cosburn Patterson Wardman, Milus Bollenberghe Topps Watchorn, TRCA, Town of Markham,
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Thornlea High School students, and local residents,
Pioneer Park Regeneration Project
The Don Watershed Strategy, Fotty Steps to a New Don, identified a number of concept sites to
demonstrate the regeneration of the Don as a healthy urban watershed. Following the
completion of the very successful Harding Park
Stormwater Pond Retrofit, the Town of Richmond
Hill in conjunction with Great Lakes Cleanup 2000
and the TRCA initiated the development of the
Pioneer Park Regeneration Project. Pioneer Park
is located north of Major Mackenzie Drive in the
East Don subwatershed. Concept plans have
been developed that address water quality and
quantity management including local flooding
concerns, provision and enhancement of aquatic
and terrestrial habitats, improved community
linkages and access to the site for the
community.
Final design will be undertaken in early 1999 and construction is planned later in the year
subject to necessary approvals, It is estimated that construction costs will be approximately
$900,000. To date, project partners include The Town of Richmond Hill, TRCA, Great Lakes
2000 Cleanup Fund, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Bartley Smith Greenway
The Bartley Smith Greenway project is a 15 kilometre corridor located within the valley of the
upper West Don River as it flows from Teston Road south to Steeles Avenue. The major goals of
the Greenway are to improve water quality and restore habitat while providing for the
recreational interests of local residents. WithIn the Greenway, a number of restoration projects
at various sites will be undertaken:
. Mackenzie Glen Open Space, featuring a series of small to large storm water ponds;
. Retrofitting of the Kilian Lamar Stormwater Pond, to address water quality, create
wetlands, and regenerate terrestrial habitat with extensive community plantings;
. Ruperts Pond, featuring extensive watercourse naturalization and the creation of pocket
wetlands;
. Langstaff EcoPark which, in addition to becoming the largest natural area in Concord,
featuring lowland meadow and rolling uplands, will also contain numerous constructed
wetlands such as the Keffer Marsh, which was created in 1997; and
. Planting of over 20,000 square metres with trees and shrubs to provide riparian cover for
the Don River in the section from Highway 7 south through the Highway 407 and the
Hydro corridors.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D96
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
Partners on the Greenway include the
Conservation Authority, the estate of Anne
Bartley Smith, the Conservation Foundation of
Greater Toronto, the City of Vaughan, Vaughan
Rotary, the Evergreen Foundation, the Great
Lakes Cleanup Fund, EcoAction 2000, Canada
Trust's Friends of the Environment Foundation,
local schools, community groups, residents, and
local businesses, too numerous to mention but
led by the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce,
which have contributed time, material, services in
kind, and financial support. Total costs for the
Greenway will amount to about $4,000,000.
THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
Withl:l the section of the Rouge River watershed that traverses the Region of York, three priority
restcration projects have been identified.
LeGrice Pond
The dam and dyke for this historic dam mill pond were built on Bruce's Creek in the 1860's and
contained and controlled the 4.5 hectare pond. In its early years, the pond provided a source of
power for the mill, and in recent years, has provided recreational and aesthetic benefits to the
landowners and the community.
In the spring of 1994, a breach in the dam
occurred, causing the pond to drain, The
resulting erosion and sedimentation caused the
degradation of Bruce's Creek within, and
downstream of, the pond site, In October of
1995, the TRCA and the Town of Markham
initiated a study aimed at exploring and
evaluating alternative concepts and selecting a
preferred concept for the rehabilitation of this site.
A series of concepts were identified and
evaluated and a preferred design has been
selected.
The objectives of this project are to rehabilitate a reach of Bruce's Creek by:
. Recreating the pond and wetland habitat that was lost when the dam failed;
. Mitigating impacts of the dam failure by creating a stable, naturalized stream channel;
. Enhancement of riparian and wetland habitat through plantings; and
. Provision of an informal trail for public access.
D97 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
The estimated costs for implementation is $240,000. Potential and confirmed partners include
Rouge Park Alliance, Town of Markham, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, and the Ministry of
Natural Resources,
Unionville-Kennedy Road: Rouge River Rehabilitation
The site lies in the valley of the Rouge River north Highway #7 and
east of Kennedy Road in Unionville, Town of Markham, The Rouge
River traverses the site, comprised of three residential lots where the
homes were constructed below the valley top-of-bank with minimal
setbacks from the river itself. The valley slope and river banks along
this 140 metre reach have had various erosion control treatments,
ranging from sheet pile retaining walls to the dumping of concrete
and other debris. Poor management practices and neglect has
resulted in channelization of the watercourse, the loss of woody
riparian vegetation and habitat, and the loss of table/Valley land
vegetation and habitat.
The homeowners, TRCA, Town of Markham, Rouge Alliance, and a
developer are presently discussing a redevelopment plan that:
. provides for the establishment of a riparian zone (increased river setbacks) along the
recognized cold water fishery resource;
. provides the necessary level of river bank erosion protection including slope
rehabilitation which would involve the removal of existing concrete/rubble, retaining
walls, and other debris, and stabilizing the slope and riverbank through bioengineering
technologies and extensive table/valley land plantings; and,
. provides for public ownership of the undeveloped portion of the valley lands,
The proposed regeneration of the site is intended to restore the natural balance of the site
emphasizing the creation of habitat which supports a diversity of native plants and wildlife. This
project will represent a significant contribution to the protection, connectivity, and enhancement
of a section of the Rouge River watershed which is identified as an important cold water fishery
resource. Total project costs are estimated at $150,000 to implement. Partners include the
Town of Markham and the Rouge Park Alliance.
Bridle Trail Ponds 3, 4, and 5 - Burndenetl Creek Stormwater Management Retrofit
In 1998, TRCA, with the assistance of Aquafor Beech Limited, undertook the Town of Markham
Stormwater Management Study. One of the study's objectives was to identify existing
stormwater quality ponds within the Town which exhibited ideal retrofit potential. Three ponds
were identified within the Burndenett Creek subwatershed as having retrofit potential: Bridle
Trail Phase 3: Bridle Trail Phase 4, and Bridle Trail Phase 5 Ponds.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 D98
Natural Heritage Restoration Project 1999 - 2003
The next stage in the retrofit process will require
that a subwatershed study be carried out on
Burndenett Creek. Stormwater design criteria
including storage volume, erosion control benefit,
target release rates, and cost estimates will need
to be established. In addition, the preparation of
detailed design drawings and construction
drawings will be necessary for implementation of
the retrofit study. Once the retrofit study is
complete, implementation of the recommended
retrofit works will occur.
Total project costs for the design and implementation of this project is $250,000, Partnerships
with the Town of Markham and Rouge Park Alliance will be sought. The project is scheduled for
completion in 1999.
THE DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED
Within the section of the Duffins Creek watershed that traverses the Region of York, one priority
restoration project has been identified.
Stouffville Reservoir
The Stouffville Reservoir Enhancement Project, located in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville,
has two main components: habitat enhancement and creation of a fishing pier. Habitat
enhancement would be targeted to improving the conditions for bass in the reservoir, A fishing
pier would give anglers an opportunity to fish, where none currently exists, and would also
provide an opportunity to launch non-motorized water craft, such as canoes. Total costs for this
project are estimated at $40,000. Potential partners include local interest groups, local rotary
and Lions clubs, and Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation.
099 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
RES.#D17 199 - TORONTO PRIORITIES: TOWARDS A WATERSHED MONITORING
FRAMEWORK FOR THE TORONTO REGION
A Public Workshop sponsored by The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) , the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) and the Water
Quality Board of the International Joint Commission, May 13, 1999 Black
Creek Pioneer Village
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Authority members, the public and
appropriate staff be encouraged to attend the Public Workshop hosted by The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the Water Quality Board
of the I nternational Joint Commission, on May 13, 1999 at the Black Creek Pioneer Village.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the TRCA and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust were designated as the implementing
agencies for the Toronto Remedial Action Plan by the Federal and Provincial governments. One
of the TRCA responsibilities under that agreement is the development of a monitoring framework,
in partnership with the local and regional municipalities and other agencies. The monitoring
program is required to track the regeneration of Toronto area watersheds and the Toronto Bay, This
work in turn is reported through the Federal Department of the Environment to the International Joint
Commission (IJC) for the Great Lakes.
In 1997, Craig Mather was made a member of the Water Quality Board (WQB), an advisory
committee of the IJC. This is the first time that a non federal, provincial or state employee has
served on this Board and is an important step in what we hope will be an enhanced partnership
between the federal government and conservation authorities in Ontario,
The Water Quality Board, will hold it's Spring meeting this year in Toronto, In conjunction with that
meeting, a public workshop will be held on Thursday, May 13 sponsored by the TRCA, the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust and Environment Canada, This workshop will focus on three areas:
water quality and aquatic community monitoring;
sediment remediation; and
Toronto priorities for the Water Quality Board.
This opportunity to address members of the Water Quality Board comes at a critical point as our
Federal government reviews it's current financial and program commitments to regenerate the Great
Lakes.
Members of the Authority are invited to the workshop on May 13, and to meet with the Water Quality
Board Members. A number of IJC commissioners may also be on hand,
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: April 13, 1999
April 23, 1999 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0100
RES.#D18/99 - DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Strategy Initiation. To request the regional and local municipalities, major
land holders and other federal and provincial agencies within the Duffins
Creek watershed to participate in the development of a watershed strategy.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff request the regional and local
municipal governments (Region of Durham, Region of York, Pickering, Ajax, Markham,
Uxbridge, Whitchurch-Stouftville); major land holders; provincial agencies represented by the
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transport, and Ministry of Natural Resources; and federal
representation from Environment Canada; to participate in the development of a work plan and
investigate funding opportunities for the development of a watershed management strategy
for Duffins Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1989, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommended the Greenspace Strategy
to address the conservation of the Lake Ontario waterfront, the river valleys, and the Oak Ridges
Moraine. The Greenspace Strategy proposed that the Authority:
. assume the coordinating role between the Province and municipalities; and
. establish planning task forces for each major river 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 first watershed
management strategy, The Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River
Watershed, was produced. In 1994, Forty Steps to a New Don, was completed by the Don Watershed
Task Force. In 1997, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document titled,
A Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, were produced by the
Humber Watershed Task Force as an integrated watershed management strategy for the Humber
River. Each of these documents has been adopted by the Authority. The development of a
watershed management strategy has been initiated for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks and
Highland Creek.
Development and implementation of TRCA watershed management strategies normally proceed
through three phases over a 2 to 3 year time frame. Phase I is the production of a State of the
Watershed Report (SOW) that identifies issues and describes key environmental, social, and
economic conditions of the watershed, with the primary focus being environmental. Phase II is the
strategy development. A multi-stakeholder watershed task force is established to oversee
development of the strategy. This task force would include watershed residents, interest groups,
municipal elected representatives and staff, and other agency staff. The SOW Report and
community consultations provide a knowledge base for the task force to develop the strategy. The
strategy recommends actions necessary to protect, regenerate and celebrate the watershed. Phase
III is the implementation of the watershed strategy and monitoring progress toward regeneration
which is guided by a committee of watershed stakeholders.
0101 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
There are a number of benefits that are provided through the implementation of a watershed
strategy:
. An integrated, customized management framework - to assess, plan for and manage the
resources within their natural watershed context (ecosystem approach) which provides an
opportunity for us to begin to understand the complex ecological processes that occur
within a natural system. This Management Framework can be used to guide municipal
environmental planning policies in official plans, can be used to coordinate environmental
policies, programs and actions to ensure activities upstream do not negatively impact
conditions and activities downstream.
. Increased environmental awareness and stewardship - through education about the impacts
various land uses and human activities have on the natural and cultural heritage resources
of the watershed. Public outreach and education initiatives are important forces influencing
environmental values and encouraging changes to more environmentally sound human
behaviours. Strategies are community plans and are based on the community's needs and
shared vision for the future.
. Support for community based environmental actions - by assisting to prioritize, focus,
coordinate and stimulate regeneration initiatives. These initiatives can be carried out
independently from resource management agencies as the strategy and background reports
can help communities gain knowledge of their local environment and watershed issues.
Through encouraging environmental and community groups to network and learn from each
other, there can be improved communication and partnerships.
. Long-term cost savings - as the financial costs of taking a pro-active approach to protecting
watershed resources will be less than the costs that will be incurred with future restoration
works.
On March 11, 1999, a meeting to discuss the initiation of the Duffins Creek Watershed Management
Strategy was held. This meeting included representation from the regional and local municipalities,
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment, Duffins Watershed
Stewardship Association and the Authority. There was a consensus amongst the group that strategy
development should be initiated in a timely manner to ensure that protection measures for the
D.uffins watershed is in place prior to future development proceeding. There was a consensus also,
that the Authority should take the lead on the strategy development. It was agreed that because
there have been extensive studies undertaken within the Duffins watershed, that only a
comprehensive review and collection of existing information were required to begin the strategy.
An analysis of this information would be completed and any gaps identified (ie. heritage) would be
filled in. Therefore, it was concluded that there was opportunity to move directly to Phase II of the
strategy development process.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0102
Over the past twenty five years the TReA, Ministry of Environment (MOE), the Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) and academic institutions have undertaken numerous scientific and technical
studies of the Duffins Creek watershed. Many of these investigations initially focused on the effects
of the proposed land use change associated with the North Pickering Development Project (airport
.Iands and the satellite community of Seaton). Recent investigations by MOE, TRCA and MNR and
their research partners have taken a 'watershed' focus. Some of the more recent studies that have
been undertaken are:
. Long term watershed wide monitoring initiatives - stream flow, Provincial Water Quality
Monitoring Network, climate data, summary of industrial and municipal direct discharges to
surface waters, and
. Seaton Lands technical reports - water quality assessment (surface water quality, baseflow
water chemistry), a terrestrial ecosystem report (Seaton lands within the context of Duffins
Creek watershed), Hydrogeological Study of the North Pickering Development Corporation
and the Duffins Creek watershed, Seaton Lands Stream Assessment: Aquatic habitat and
Fisheries, and Fluvial Geomorphology Baseline Study, Seaton Lands.
RATIONALE
The Duffins Creek watershed is perhaps the most rural of the nine watersheds within the TRCA area
of jurisdiction. Duffins Creek extends from the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario. The watershed
covers an area of almost 300 square kilometers, and includes the regional municipalities of York and
Durham and the local municipalities of Pickering, Ajax, Markham, Whitchurch-Stouffville and
Uxbridge (Figure 1). Significant portions of the Duffins Creek watershed are in public ownership
through the federal (Airport lands - 7,530 ha) and provincial (Seaton Land area - 2850 ha)
governments.
The historic development pattern within the Duffins watershed has been one of development at the
mouth of the creek radiating north toward the headwaters. The rural lands to the north including
existing wooded areas and agricultural lands may be considered for future urban uses.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Establish a working committee that would include the regional and local governments, major land
holders and other federal and provincial agencies, to develop a work plan and to investigate funding
opportunities for watershed management strategy development.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Authority staff will work with its partners to .establish costs of the work to be undertaken and identify
potential fundin'g opportunities. Watershed strategies in the past, have cost approximately $300,000
to $400,000 over a two to three year period to develop. There is a significant amount of existing
information available regarding the Duffins Creek watershed, and as such, it is anticipated that a
strategy can be developed in a two year time period, for approximately $200,000 to $300,000.
Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 313
For information contact: Dave Dyce, extension 250 or Nancy Gaffney, extension 313
Date: April 6, 1999
Attachments (1)
0103 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Attachment 1
Duffins Creek Watershed
Local Context
\.
j'\1 \
.~
) ,
!' \ '
i~~.I.
; I LEGEND
. ~ Mum cipa! BoundJry
, 1\/ RegIOnal
.(i N L=ll
I~ IV S~ershed boundJry
I I '.. Tr:mslOnrer st:mon
I'd o'~\.~ TransmissIOn 1ir.t:S
,;1 /~V'. .~ps
::: ,":\I Rail line
OJ ,','-,',l'1pelmes
~ " '-,' proposed Hi gi"'<lY .:Q7
'J: IV Roods
~ ~ L3kes. ponds and re;erVQlr.;
.~ /\jWm==
- /'. / L3ke Onono Shoreline
\ = Parks and spons Roles
~ Urbaruzed 0=5
\
.i....'-...
f . THE TORONTO "'NO REGION
,;' CONSErlV.... nON AU11-l0RlTY
April 23, 1999 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0104
RES.#D19/99 - MUNICIPAL WATER REVENUES - PROGRESS REPORT
Status of the use of municipal water revenue as a source of funding for
certain Conservation Authority programs.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Milton Berger
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue
discussions with member municipalities to explore opportunities for addressing other
watershed management priorities with funding derived through the municipal water rates;
AND FURTHER THAT staff pursue discussions with the Province regarding potential
mechanisms for charging other, non-municipal, water users, such that the revenues could be
directed toward improved watershed programs, particularly in the area of groundwater
management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In response to a recommendation of The Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its
meeting held on December 4, 1996, the following Authority resolution was passed on January 24,
1997:
Res. #A288/96
"THA T staff be directed to work with Metro staff to investigate which M. T.R.C.A. programs
might properly be charged to the water rates;
AND THAT staff coordinate efforts in this regard with those of neighbouring conservation
authorities and the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham."
At its May 30, 1997 meeting, the Authority further resolved:
Res. #A100/97
'THA T staff be directed to continue discussions with the member municipalities to determine
which aspects of existing Authority activities could be funded by municipalities from water bill
revenues and to explore opportunities to address other watershed management priorities with
funding based on water consumption. "
Following this direction, staff has jointly prepared a discussion paper with the Credit Valley
Conservation Authority (see attached). This paper, Toward a User Pay Approach to Watershed
Management, has served as the basis for discussion with member municipalities and presentations
by Authority staff at several water management related conferences. It describes the relationships
between watershed programs and the protection of municipal water supplies. Also, the paper
outlines the mechanisms for drawing funds from water users to support watershed programs, and
the benefits of this funding approach.
0105 WATERS!-iED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Authority staff has met with representatives from the City of Toronto and the Regions of Peel, York
and Durham, who have all supported the concept that watershed management programs contribute
to municipal water supply protection. To date, several municipalities have expressed a willingness
to take this proposal forward.
In 1999, the City of Toronto, as part of its approval of the Authority's capital budget requirements,
has allocated from water revenues about $1.2 million to fund the Remedial Action Plan and a portion
of Waterfront and Valley Erosion Control works. The Region of Peel has committed funding of
$200,000 from its Water Capital Stabilization Reserve for the TRCA RAP projects. The Region of York
has indicated that it will consider funding for the requested $200,000 RAP project in York from water
revenues but no decision has been made. The Region of Durham does not fund any Authority
programs from water revenues. Discussions have been initiated with Durham and will be pursued
as water related capital projects are initiated in Durham Region.
In March 1999 the Region of Peel established a water quality management capital reserve fund. The
fund will be dedicated to water quality management initiatives, such as subwatershed studies,
groundwater quantification studies, and ground and surface water quality protection programs. The
Region was able to maintain their 1999 water rates at 1998 levels and direct a $1.8 million surplus,
generated by operational efficiencies, to the new fund. The Region will prepare a water quality
management policy by later this year to guide the use of the fund for 2000 - 2009 initiatives.
TRCA and CVC staff have also met with representatives from the Ministry of the Environment to
discuss opportunities for extending the user pay concept to other, non-municipal, water users, as
they are also benefitting from our watershed management services. An equitable, user pay
approach to watershed management funding must recognize that municipal water bill recipients are
not the only water users within a watershed. It was important to our municipalities that we pursue
ways of ensuring that other, large water users help fund watershed programs. At the time of the
meeting (November 1997), the Ministry of the Environment staff provided very limited support for
this concept, but their position may have been impacted by the considerable programming changes
that were being implemented within the Ministry at that time.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The municipalities may be interested in transferring more of our Authority programs from the tax
base to the water bill, during the 2000 budgeting process. Authority staff have evaluated all 1997
and 1998 watershed programs in terms of their relevance to water quality and quantity protection,
and have determined that approximately 55% of our annual budget could be justified as having
some link to the water bill. In the Region of Peel, for example, the transfer of all eligible TRCA
program costs to the water bill would represent approximately $1.50/year for the average family.
Staff are pursuing discussions with municipalities about the potential for transferring additional
programs to the water bill..' Opportunities are being considered to develop informative insert
materials about watershed work that could be distributed with the water bill.
Staff will pursue opportunities for enhanced program funding, particularly for groundwater
management initiatives which are currently underfunded. For example, staff has estimated that an
additional $1 Million could be raised in the Region of Peel, by applying moderate charges for water
use. Based on an estimate of water use in the Region, a typical family of four would pay an
additional $1.35/year and a 50,000 litre/day permitted water taker would pay $67/year.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0106
Staff will continue to explore mechanisms for ensuring that other, non-municipal, water users also
contribute to the costs of water quality and quantity services. Staff will approach senior Ministry
officials to determine their level of interest in this initiative.
For information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 253 or Jim Dillane, extension 220
Date: April 13, 1999
Attachments (1)
0107 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Attachment 1
TOWARD A USER-PAY APPROACH TO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Linking Conservation Authority Program Funding to Water Use
DISCUSSION PAPER
November 14, 19~h
INTRODUCTION
The overall mandate of a conservation authority, as stated in section 20 of the
Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990), is to establish and undertake, in the area' over
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.
Conservation Authority watershed plans and strategies provide the framework for
developing and delivering programs on a watershed-specific basis, in order to fulfil this
mandate. In many cases these programs are delivered in cooperation with other partners in
watershed management, including agencies, municipalities, and members of the public.
In recent years, reductions in provincial funding to conservation authorities and their
partners have put increased pressure on the municipal tax base. This has resulted in a
reduction in program delivery at a time of increasing public and agency concern over the
inadequacies of current levels of programming to address watershed protection and
regeneration needs. By the year 2021, the populatIon of the Greater Toronto Area is
expected to grow to 6.0 million from its current 4.5 million residents (The Province of
Ontario, 1992\. This growth will place additional pressures on the natural environment and
increased demand for water supply. Inadequate funding will place watershed health and
the securny of future water supply at risk. Regardless of growth, ongoing land use
practices need to be managed to promote water conservation, stewardship and
regeneration.
Conservation authorities clearly recognize a need to identify alternative sources of funding
to support watershed management programs that protect water uses for environmental and
human needs. A user pay system could offer a new approach to funding watershed
management programs and could also represent a water management tool in itself by
promoting awareness and fostering the wise use of water. The purpose of this discussion
paper is to present the rationale for funding certain conservation authority programs uSing
revenue from the municipal water bill, as a first step in introducing a user pay approach to
watershed management. The paper will also identify considerations that would have to be
addressed if the user pay concept were to be extended to other water users.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0108
RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND WATER SUPPLY
The Watershed Concept
A watershed is an area of land drained by a river system. It represents a unique physIcal
unit within which water moves continuously in a cycle that begins with rainfall (see Figure
1 ). Within the watershed landscape, rainwater may infiltrate the ground or flow overland
to be stored temporarily in depressions, wetlands or lakes. Eventually water flowing over
the surface or through the ground makes its way back into rivers and lakes, or is taken up
by vegetation, where it evaporates or transpires to begin the cycle again. This cycle serves
as a pathway for the transport of sediment, nutrients and other materials that influence the
qc- ty of the water. Everything is connected. Natural and human changes affecting the
naLJral features and functions of the watershed landscape are felt downstream.
Local Water Supply Context
In the Greater Toronto Area (GT A), residents, bUSinesses, farms, and industries rely on
groundwater or surface water from local rivers or lake Ontario for their water supply (see
Figure 2). Groundwater, pumped by large municipal wells, serves as the primary source of
water for many communities outside the Toronto urban area. Other rural residents, farms
and businesses operate their own private wells. Groundwater supplies are affected by
changes in the natural rates of recharge (infiltration) and groundwater use. However, even
a plentiful groundwater supply may be lost if it becomes contaminated. Groundwater
quality can be affected by a variety of land use practices, such as septic fields and
agricultural operations.
Local streams, rivers, and ponds are used as a source of water for some businesses, such
as farms and golf courses. Sustained flow and water levels in these water bodies is
dependent upon properly managed surface runoff and groundwater levels. Similarly, water
quality is impacted by land use activities that generate pollutants and excess runoff, and by
loss of the natural filtering capacity of wetlands, forests and vegetated stream buffers.
Increased surface runoff and streamflow can erode streambanks adding to the sediments
and other contaminants already carried in the watercourse.
Lake Ontario represents the primary source of, potable water for urban communities in the
southern portion of the GT A. The lake currently provides an abundant supply of water,
being mostly fed by the upper Great lakes basin. Nearshore lake water quality, while
influenced by contaminant loads from the upper Great Lakes, is affected by contaminants
carried down from local watersheds and from direct discharges to the lake.
At present, local sources of water supply are generally adequate, however a number of
factors threaten the future security of this supply. Increased growth, both locally and
throughout the Great lakes Basin, coupled with the effects of global climate change will
stress the natural environment and create new demands for water supply. These impacts
are expected tD result in water shortages (Farid et. a/., 19971.
0109 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
r
(
0-
(])
U
>,
U
~ .
(])
........
CO
S
CO :;
0 '"
~ c:.
:J Cl]
........ :>
CO "0
Q)
Z VI .-
C
(])
J:::
I- --
- -
-r-
<D
~
:J
0)
l.L
_..
c
.9
"@
. ," ........
"::::<~
',','.'; ~
,',"-
,,',',' ~
.: ::..-:UJ
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0110
'>-
we..
,/
c:
,Q
'" iii
III c:
::l 'E
Q; ro
iii C
~ 8
0; Q;
;: C>
~ en
-0 .c:
:; u
III
.~ '6
Q) ~ ~ t
u Cl
<I>
>- --"
U
'-
Q)
......
m
S
Q)
..c
......
c
c
0
......
c
Q)
2:
Q)
......
c
c
m
E
. ::l
I
C"J
Q)
'-
::l
0)
LL
0111 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
An overall lack of understanding of where the water supply comes from and a perception
of abundant water supplies contribute to unsustainable levels of use and poor land
stewardship practices. For example, there have already been cases of local well
contamination from agricultural practices in the Palgrave and 1\I10no Mills area, which forced
water suppliers to seek alternate sources of water (Hunter and Associates, 1993; Geo-
..... Environ ltd., 1989). While watershed protection and regeneration programs are being
implemented throughout the Great Lakes Basin (e.g. as part of Remedial Action Plans), it is
incumbent upon us in the GT A to do our part.
Watershed Management
Watershed management aims to ensure overall watershed health. A clean, sustainable
water supply, in addition to other social and ecological objectives, are important health
indicators. Watershed management programs aim to achieve these objectives by
protecting natural watershed processes and managing human activities and demands that
affect water.
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROLE IN WATER MANAGEMENT
The future security and availability of water supply sources is dependent on the protection
and management of the natural water system or watershed. Both water quality and
quantity are susceptible to impacts that may be far removed from the water supply source.
Protection of the watershed requires knowledge of how the system functions and a range
of programs for planning and regulation of human activities as well as mitigation and
restoration of human impacts.
There are a variety of agency programs that, to some degree, affect water management
including those of Provincial and Municipal agencies, as well as Conservation Authorities.
Table 1 provides a summary of these agency roles.
Conservation Authorities undertake a range of programs that contribute to a variety of
watershed management objectives (see Figure 3). The following programs provide a direct
contribution to water quality and quantity protection and, therefore, to the protection and
security of water supply.
Watershed Management and Monitoring
This program focuses on the de'Jelopment of a knowledge base and strategic direction for
management of a specific watershed. This is accomplished through watershed planning
studies such as subwatershed plans, etc., and through data collection, analysis, mapping
and monitoring of water quality, quantity and related ecosystem functions.
This program provides the information on watershed processes and critical features
nec2ssarv to make water mana~ement decisions in other Conservation AuthoriW programs
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0112
TABLE 1: AGENCY PROGRAMS IN WATER MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITY WATER MANAGEMENT BENEFIT LEAD AGENCY
.Watershed Planning provide Inrormatlon and strategic CA with municipal support
direction for water management
programs
Municipal land use planning and establish land use and ensure protection Municipality with CA suPpOrt
development approval or water quality and quantity
ServiCing Studies establish serviCing plans and ensuring . Municipality with CA support
(water supply, sewage protection and mitigatIOn of water
treatment, stormwater) quality/quantity Impacts
Erosion and Sediment Control protect surface water quality Municipality
Bylaws
Sewer Use Bylaws protect surrace water quality MuniCipality
Septic System Permits protect groundwater quality Health Unit
Certificate of Approval for water control large surface and groundwater MaE::: and muniCipality
and sewage systems takings to protect surface water quality
Permit to Take Water conuol large surrace and groundwater M 0 EE
takings to protect water quantity
Conservation Authorities Act protect water quality and quantlt'! b,! Conservallon ,A.uthorn,!
perml ts protecting stream comdors. wetlands
Property acquIsition and protect water quality and quantlt'! CA and munlclpallt'!
management through public ownership of significant
watershed features
Wellhead Protection programs to ensure the security of Municipality with support
groundwater quality and quantity for from CA
municipal wells
o peratJon and malnlenanCe of protecllon or surface water quality Municipality
sewage/stormwater facilities
Flow augmentation enhance surrace water quality and CA
quantity by dam operation
ServIcing upgrades (CSOs, Improve surface water qualit'! MuniCipality
stormwater retro fits, etc.)
Stream. valle'! comdor and Improve water quality CA and mUnicipality
wetland restoration
Reforestation improve waler quality and quantlt'! Conservation Authority
Promote stewardship of private. improve water quality and quantity CA and municioality
industrial, agricultural, public
property
0113 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
a..
..c <J)
<J)
en <lJ
"0 c
'- <lJ
co :;;
3 3:
2 -<
(f) -0
C
"0 m
~ -
Q) .2
..c
~ ro
Qj
Q) c
....... CO <lJ
C Cl
S <lJ
Q) a::
E
Q)
01
CD
C a;
CD CJl E
~ OJ Q) c.
.- U 0
l.- e .2 a;
..9 >
Q) Q) <lJ
....... ,- (f) 0
CD 0 -0
S ~ c c
co
0 Cl
"0 CJl c:
C .- <=
-- co > c
"0 co
Q) C <( a:
0 OJ ro <lJ
E <J)
0:: OJ C ::J
.c OJ OJ -0
E c:
co co
.~ C C ....J
0 co 0 .2
~ .:::
..c > s
....... "0 C c.
:J OJ ill .5
<( en
'-
C OJ
0 co
- 5 c
CD Q)
2: .-
c
Q) Q)
Cl
U) co
C .- c.
0 co E
~ '"
U (;j
Q) c:
u 3:
co 0
a.. -0
(f) c:
("') C m
c:
Q) g
Q) a..
I.- 0 ~
:J .-
01 0 U
-<
LL co -0
2: iii I
...,. Ii
Q) ....J
en . . ' : . , ' . , . ,'..
0 -:.':: ';:: .;
U ,",' " ,
" " ' .
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0114
as well as in the programs a9ministered by other agencies. Watershed management and
monitonng is the core of a successful water supply protection system.
Environmental Advisory Services
Conservation Authorities provide input into municipal land use plans and servicing studies,
and review of development plans to ensure the protection of water and related watershed
features. In addition, the Conservation Authorities administer regulations on watercourse,
valleys and wetlands.
These services ensure the protection of the water management function of watercourses,
valleys, wetlands, and significant groundwater recharge and discharge areas. This
contributes to the protection of water supply by preventing the degradation of ground and
surface water due to development.
Watershed Stewardship
Conservation Authorities provide assistance to landowners and the public through
conservation information, education, and land stewardship services. These services
promote sustainable management and enhancement of land and water through
reforestation, stream restoration, wetland enhancement, sound agricultural practices, etc.
These services contribute to the protection and enhancement of water supply by avoiding
the impacts of private land use practices on water quality and quantity.
Conservation Open Space Management
Conservation Authorities own significant amounts of environmentally sensitive lands,
including valleys, wetlands, and forests that perform critical functions in the water cycle.
The acquisition, protection and restoration of these lands secures the contribution of these
properties to water quality and quantity protection.
,
0115 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
USER PAY APPROACH TO FUNDING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
A user pay system could offer an alternative approach to funding watershed management
programs, and could assist in alleviating pressure on the municipal tax base. Under the
current arrangement, conservation authority watershed management programs are primarily
funded from the municipal tax base. Reductions in provincial funding to conservation
authorities and their partners have placed pressure on this source of funding, which in
some cases -has resulted in reductions in program delivery. An alternative source of
funding could assist in ensuring adequate support for the programs necessary to protect
water uses for environmental and human needs.
The municipal water bill represents a mechanism to introduce a user pay approach to
funding conservation authority watershed management programs. This funding approach
offers a number of benefits, including the ability to serve as a water management tool in
itself:
Equitable, Understandable, Fair
Funding watershed management programs with revenue from the water bill represents a
more direct relationship between the programs and the water users than currently exists
with the tax funded approach. As watershed management programs are currently funded
from the tax base, none of the water users contribute to the cost of programs that help
protect the resource. In the case of municipal water supply, the users' water rate covers
only the cost of water treatment and delivery. Under a user pay system, the water rate
would begin to reflect the cost of the environmental programs.
A user pay approach is consistent with current trends in Ontario, particularly in the area of
public services, such as sewer and water supply and garbage collection. This is because
there is a greater level of public understanding as to what the fee is to be used for and
perceived fairness.
Promotes Awareness
Linking conservation authority programs to the water bill offers the opportunity to promote
an understanding of the value of these programs to human health. This understanding
could lead to improved homeowner stewardship, water conservation, and may provide a
basis for greater public support for current and enhanced watershed management
programs. Inserts in the water bill mailing, or in the longer term, a separate "conservation
authority program" fee on the water bill are examples of how this understanding could be
fostered.
Promotes Conservation
Experience has shown that water prICing can promote water conservation, by making water
users realize that when they waste water they are wasting money. Water conser\/ation is
important in helping to defer the need to find future water supply sources to support
Inc~easec grovvth and to recuce ~he \/olume of wastewater reaulrlng treatment and
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0116
discharge. In areas reliant upon a groundwater supply. water conservation reduces the
impact on ground.water levels and associated environmental impacts. Currently, Canadians
have little incentive to use water wisely. as water is relatively inexpensive. Cola is about
1000 times more expensive than tap water. Canadian water prices are the lowest among
those of other countries, therefore it is not surprising that Canadians use almost twice as
much water per person than most other developed countries (Environment Canada, 1990;
Farid er. a/., 1997).
Charging conservation authority programs to the municipal water bIll will not in itself
constitute a pricing change that is likely to effect conservation- behaviour. However, it will
represent a first step towards a system where the cost of water more closely reflects the
full costs of sustaining the water resource and will provide a basis for further education and
awareness initiatives.
Public Support Exists
A number of reports have recommended a need to move toward full cost pricing for water.
Current municipal water and sewer charges do not reflect the full social and environmental
costs of water use (Environment Canada, 1992). The Ontario Fair Tax Commission (1993)
recommended that "in principle, water and sewer rates should be set at levels that reflect
the full cost of providing the service, including both transmission and distribution costs, as
well as the environmental costs associated with water withdrawal and its subsequent
discharge back into the natural environment". More recently the Transportation and
Utilities Sub-Panel of the Who Does What Panel endorsed the concept of full cost priCing
and user fees for water and sewer services to reduce costs and promote conservation
(letter to Hon. AI Leach from David Crombie, November 4, 1996). In its watershed
strategy Legacy.' A Strategy for a Hea/thy Humber (1996), the Humber Watershed Task
Force has called for full cost accounting as a means of promoting water conservation.
These studies and reports were developed on the basis of extensive public and expert
input, and therefore suggest strong support for the expansion of programs funded through
the water bill.
Other local groups have also expressed support for the use of water bill revenue for
environmental regeneration programs. Both the Humber and Don Watershed Task Forces
have recommended the need to investIgate the use of the water bill to fund water
management projects. In the Don Watershed, an Angus Reid survey conducted in 1996
found that 77% of residents would support the efforts to clean-up the watershed even if it
meant a small fee being added to their water bill to cover some of the costs.
Other Jurisdictions Have Begun
The principle of using water bill revenue to fund conservation authority programs has been
implemented by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRC.D..) and two of its member
municipalities. Based on an evaluation of GRCA programs, staff determined that
approximately 43% of GRC,c., programs contribute to water quality/supply. Last year the
Region of Waterloo and the City of Brantford transferred roughly this portion of the GRCA's
levy to the municipal water bill and derived the remainder from the general tax base,
... - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99
0117 April 23, 1999
, New York City and Boston have both identified watershed management as a core
component of their long term water supply strategies, and have demonstrated this
commitment through funding arrangements that are based on water bill revenue.
Watershed management programs funded by this means include:. land acquisition,
planning, protection, and stewardship (Platt and Morrill, 1997; New York City, 1996). A
water pricing tribunal in Australia has also stated that charges for water services must
recover the costs of administering associated resource management activities (Independent
Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales, 1996).
Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar approach for funding regeneration work, based on
a "polluter-pay" principle. Many Stormwater Utilities in the United States and Canadian
municipalities, such as the City of Regina and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton,
have developed programs to restore degraded water quality through stormwater retrofit and
other regeneration projects. These jurisdictions have introduced or are considering a
surcharge on their water bill to generate the revenue necessary to support these activities.
Factors such as property size and impervious areas affect the surcharge rate. This concept
may warrant further investigation to consider its application in the GT A, as it could provide
a mechanism for generating funding necessary to support retrofit and rehabilitation projects
of municipalities and their partners,
Other Water Users Are Considered
Full Implementation of a user-pay approach to watershed management funding must
recognize that there are other water users, besides those on the public supply system.
Within the lake Ontario Basin, water use sectors include: public supply and private
domestic, irrigation, livestock, industry and power generation. Power plants, particularly
hydroelectric plants, dominate water use representing approximately 97% of total water
withdrawals. Of the remaining users, public suppliers and industry account for about 46 %
and 50% of total withdrawals, respectively. Domestic, irrIgation and livestock water users
make up only about 4% of the water used (based on Vandierendonck, 1996).
locally, within the GT A, public suppliers probably represent higher than average water use
in the basin, due to the high population reliant on public supplies. For example, even in the
Region of Peel, which has a large rural component, the lake Ontario based public supply
supports 853,000 people, regional wells support 22,557, and private wells support 27,843
(Schiller, 1997, Personal Communication). Overall, regional public supply in Peel represents
about 55 % of total water withdra\^Jals. Industry accounts for about 29%, and private
domestic and irriga"'i:ion uses are about 1 % and 14% respectively. livestock water use is
not accounted for, but is expected to be less than half that of irrigational uses. This is
partly explained by the declining number of livestock operations in Peel and the potential
for higher than average concentration of irrigation uses, such as golf courses and nursery
operations, which are attracted to the Region's natural geography and proximity to large
urban markets (Meek and Piconi, 1997).
Implementation of a user pay approach to watershed management funding must also
consider the legislative and administrative mechanisms available to ensure equity among all
water users. Public supplies, as has been discussed, are administered by municipalities
who have the authority to charge a fee for the prolJlsion of water serlJices. rvluniclpal,
ir,GUS",;:ii21 commerci21 ane o~he: \2rt;:e w2t~r users 'in eXC2SS 'JT 50 000 litres ow dalJ\
April 23. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0118
require a water taking permit from the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). At
present the MOEE Iss!~es permits at no charge for either the permit or for withdrawing the
water, although the legislative authority for a water use charge does exist under the
Ontario Water Resources Act (Muldoon, 1989). British Columbia and Manitoba already
impose a water use charge (MNR, 1990). Mechanisms for monitoring and consistent
reporting of the total volumes of water withdrawn would have to be put in place, because
MOEE currently requires reporting by only certain permit holders. Farms and water users of
...:
less than 50,000 litres per day are not required to obtain a permit.
While an equitable user pay approach would apply to all users of the water resource,
constraints such as the availability of individual use data, lack of metering of surface and
ground water use, and gaps in legislative and administrative mechanisms would preclude
the immediate implementation of such a system to the domestic, irrigation, and agricultural
sectors who supply their own water. Alternatively, the most feasible approach would
begin with the largest volume users, those on public supply, for which administrative
mechanisms are already available. Mechanisms for imposing user fees on industry and
other water users should continue to be explored.
These water use data do not reflect water benefits, such as recreation, navigation, and
ecological functions. Therefore, continued financial contributions from the tax base and
other sources are justified.
SUMMARY
Conservation authorities provide programs in the areas of watershed management and
monitoring, environmental advisory services, watershed stewardship, and conservation
open space management. These programs contribute to the protection of the quality and
sustainability of public water supplies. The municipal water bill may represent a means of
ensunng adequate funding to support these programs, while also alleviating pressure on the
municipal tax base and offering a tool to promote the user's awareness of the importance
of protecting the water resource. This funding approach is consistent with the
recommendations of other local groups and with direction set by several other jurisdictions.
In the GT A, municipal public water supply represents a significant portion of overall water
use and, therefore, could serve as an initial focus for a shift toward a user-pay approach to
watershed management.
Staff from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and the
Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCAl have prepared thiS Discussion Paper as a first
step in introducing this user-pay concept. They will coordinate evaluation of this initiative
with member municipalities, GT A conservation authorities, water users/regulators and other
groups interested in watershed management. MTRCA and CVCA have begun to discuss,
with their member municipalities, the concept of linking a portion of conservation authority
watershed management funding to the municipal water bill. They will develop a more
detailed outline of the current and projected budget expenditures that would be eligible for
transfer to the water rates and an assessment of the Implications that this transfer would
present.
,
.- - ..---
'0119 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
REFERENCES
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales. 1996. Bulk Water
Pnces: An Interim Report. Department of Land and Water Conservation.
EnVironment Canada. 1990. W~ter Demand Management in Canada: A State-of-the-Art
Review. Social Science Series No. 23.
Environment Canada. 1992. Municipal Water Ra tes in Canada, 1989 - Current Practices
and Prices. Social SCience Series No. 27.
Farid, C., J. Jackson and K. Clark. 1997. The Fate of the Great Lakes. Sustaining or
Draining the Sweetwater Seas? Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes
United.
Geo-Envlron Ltd. 1989. Palgrave Groundwater Study. Prepared for the Regional
Municipality of Peel.
Hunter and Associates Environmental and Engineering Consultants. 1993.
Hydrogeological Background Study Town of Caledon (Rural Service Centre Study),
Prepared for Town of Caledon.
Meek, S. and M. Picotti. 1997. Estimation of Water Use in the Region of Peel -
Background Report. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Credit
Valley Conservation Authority.
Ministry of Natural Resources. 1990. Toward a Water Efficient Ontario: A Partnership
Strategy for Encouraging Efficient and Sustainable Water Use in Ontario. A Green Paper.
Technical Draft.
Muldoon, P. 1989. Presentation Summary for the Water Conservation Workshop,
sponsored by the Ministry of Natural Resources (June 26-27,1989), Theme 0:
Implementation of Water Conservation Program - Legislative Needs. Canadian Institute for
EnVironmental Law and Policy, Toronto, Ontario.
New York City. 1996. New York Cit'j Watershed Memorandum of Agreement.
Ontario Fair Tax CommiSSIon. 1993. Fair Taxation in a Changing World: Report of the
Ontario Fair Tax Commission. University of Toronto Press.
Platt. R.H. and V.L. Morrill. 1997. Sustainable Water Supply Management in the United
States: Experience in I'vTetropolitan Boston, New York, and Denver. In: Mitchell, B. And D.
Shrubsole. 1997 (Draft). Pracrising Sustainable Warer Management: Canadian and
International Experiences. Canadian Water Resources Association.
Schiller, M 1997. Regional Municipality of Peel. Personal Communication.
The Province of Ontario. 1992. GTA 2021 - The Challenge of Our FUTUre
Vandierendcnck, M. 1996. Report [Q the Ontario Ministry of NaTUral Resources on Warer
Use in Ontario. The Water Network, University of Waterloo.
April 23, 1999 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0120
RES.#D20/99 - STATUS REPORT ON SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BY-LAWS RELATED TO
RESOURCE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
A report on the status of special municipal by-laws enacted by the TRCA's
watershed municipalities that support TRCA resource/watershed
management goals.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority continue to work
cooperatively with its watershed municipalities in the development and implementation of
these by-laws and to pursue educational opportunities to strengthen and expand these
important regulatory controls;
AND FURTHER THAT this report be provided to the Authority's watershed municipalities for
their information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Executive Committee Meeting #3/98, held May 8, 199B, staff were requested to prepare a status
report on Tree, Grading, Topsoil and Ravine By-laws for Authority information. These by-laws,
passed and administered by the municipality, are important tools that assist in furthering
conservation authority goals. An inventory of these types of special municipal by-laws was
conducted to find out what tools exist for resource/watershed management. To gather this
information, each of the regional and area municipalities in the TRCA's jurisdiction was contacted.
The inventory revealed seven different types of by-laws related to environmental management.
These by-laws deal with: trees, erosion and sediment control, topsoil removal, peat removal, fill,
grading, and ravines.
The following is a summary of findings and a discussion on existing practices and further
opportunities.
STATUS REPORT
1. Who has what?
Below is a list of municipalities that have passed special by-laws and municipalities presently
considering them 1.
1 Though not included in the scope of this report, the new Crty of Toronto is phasing In a pestiCide ban on City
greenspaces and may consider the development of a pesticide use by-law in the future. Similar policieslby-Iaws on pesticide use
have also been proposed by enVIronmental groups to several other municipal councIls.
0121 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1 999
Tree Erosion and Sediment Control Fill / Fill & Grading
Durham Region Mississauga Vaughan
York Region Ajax Richmond Hill
County of Simcoe King
(used by Adjala-Tosorontio) Topsoil Preservation Wh itch u rch-Stouffvi II e
Ajax Markham Brampton
Toronto Brampton Caledon
Scarborough Mono Toronto
Mississauga
(under consideration) Peat Removal Ravine
Caledon Uxbridge Toronto
(under consideration) Scarborough
East York (passed but
not implemented)
Where no specific legislation has been passed, the municipalities indicate that they tend to rely on
federal, provincial and conservation authority regulations and municipal policies and development
controls generally afforded under the Planning Act. In some cases area municipalities have
indicated that they rely on by-laws passed by their Regional municipality, while others have adopted
by-laws which are more specific to their municipality.
2. What do the by-laws regulate?
The following is a brief overview of what each type of by-law regulates.
Tree
Tree by-laws are passed for the purpose of protecting or conserving trees and/or woodlots in a
municipality. The by-laws restrict and regulate the injuring or destruction of trees by cutting,
burning, or other means (e.g. bulldozing, changing grades around trees, or compacting soil over
root areas with construction equipment). In general, the by-laws specify the location, size of the area
and the types of trees to be protected, regulated or exempted. Area municipal tree by-laws are
enacted under the Municipal Act which enables them to set their own crite~ia. Regional tree by-laws
are enacted under the Forestry Act (formerly Trees Act) and generally covers trees within woodlots
greater than 5 acres (this number may vary). Under area municipal by-laws, a permit must be
obtained to injure or destroy a tree where applicable. Under regional municipal by-laws, where a
permitting process does not exist, an application for a minor exception is brought to Council for
consideration or a notice of intent must be submitted to the By-law Enforcement Office.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0122
Topsoil Preservation
Topsoil Preservation by-laws, enacted under the Topsoil Preservation Act, are passed to protect and
conserve topsoil. The removal of topsoil is regulated to ensure that the work for which the permit
is being issued will not have adverse effects (e.g. dust, erosion, sedimentation, decreased safety
due to traffic activity). The by-laws regulate or prohibit the removal of topsoil, and provide for the
rehabilitation of lands where topsoil removal is permissible; certain works are exempted from the by-
law. In general, a permit is required to remove or permit the removal of topsoil on lands equal to or
greater than a specified area and on lands adjacent to a body of water or lands susceptible to
changes in the drainage pattern. As a condition of the permit, site design guidelines and
rehabilitation measures for the affected land must be met.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and Sediment Control by-laws, also enacted under the Topsoil Preservation Act, are very
similar to Topsoil Preservation By-laws (see above) in objective, procedure and exemptions. The
wording and focus of the by-law differs slightly to emphasize the idea that all land disturbances must
be managed carefully. Although the permits are issued for the removal of topsoil, controlling any
detrimental effects by employing suitable methods appears to be the main goal. A certified Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan must be submitted by the applicant and the Site Design Guidelines must
be met.
Peat Removal
Peat Removal by-laws are passed to ensure that the removal or disturbance of peat is done in
accordance with proper engineering or environmental practice and that it will not result in erosion,
diminished levels of safety, unacceptable levels of noise or dust, or detrimental effects to the
environment. These by-laws prohibit or regulate the removal or disturbance of peat and are enacted
under special legislation. While peat removal as an incidental part of specified works are exempted
under the by-law, permits are required to remove or disturb or to permit the removal or disturbance
of peat from all applicable lands.
Fill
Fill by-laws are passed to discourage the dumping of unwanted substances, to avoid interference
with drainage patterns, and/or to provide an additional tool to protect the environment and natural
topography. To help meet these objectives, fill by-laws prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping
of fill and the alteration of the grade of land. While several areas (e.g. those regulated by a
Conservation Authority) or types of works (e.g. minor landscaping) are exempted by the by-law,
permits are required elsewhere in the municipality for the placing or dumping of fill or for grade
alterations. In most cases, these activities are prohibited in environmentally sensitive areas or other
lands specifically designated for protection. These by-laws are enacted under the Municipal Act or
with special legislation.
Grading
Grading by-laws, often combined with fill by-laws (see above). regulate the alteration of laryd
contours and changes to elevation. These by-laws help to ensure that development will not interfere
with existing drainage patterns. Since grading and drainage plans are often developed in
conjunction with development approvals under the Planning Act, works done to conform to such
plans are generally exempted by fill and grading by-laws.
0123 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Ravine
Ravine by-laws, enacted under special legislation, are passed in order to protect the long term
integrity of vegetation communities and the stability of slopes in ravine areas. Specific lands,
designated as ravines, are defined and mapped in the by-law. They often prohibit: the destruction
of trees or other vegetation; the excavation, grading or alteration in elevation or land contour; and/or
the discharge of water and the dumping of waste.
A reference booklet has been compiled which provides a series of tables highlighting information
on the following aspects of each by-law: municipality, by-law name and number, date adopted, Act
under which the by-law was passed, purpose and scope of the by-law, process for administering
the by-law, and enforcement.
3. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of these by-laws?
Based on comments from municipal staff, Attachment 1 was prepared which summarizes municipal
staff comments into three categories: impetus, strengths, and weaknesses. In general, the main
comments received were as follows:
Impetus For the most part, the by-laws were implemented due to environmental and
risk management concerns. In most municipalities, a particular situation and
public pressure prompted Council and municipal staff to develop a by-law.
Strengths Increased awareness among developers and/or the public, and the ability of
staff to somehow control the amount and type of activity involved, stood out
as major benefits of these by-laws. Not only did the by-laws provide a
platform for staff to educate people, but they also provided a process by
which standards could be imposed and penalties could be set.
Weaknesses Difficulties in administering and enforcing the by-laws were identified. The
key issues affecting implementation appear to be lack of suitable resources,
resistance to the by-laws based on differing values and ideology, and a lack
of strong deterrents (e.g. fines that are too low or inability to collect a
security/letter of credit). Exemptions, used as loopholes to a by-law, were
also noted as a disadvantage in some cases.
4. Discussion
Why are these by-laws important to the work of the Authority?
- The Authority's work is focussed on the protection, management, and restoration of our
watersheds. Because these by-laws prohibit and regulate activities that might have a detrimental
effect on natural resources within our watersheds, they are important tools that assist in furthering
conservation authority goals. Furthermore, the mere presence of a by-law identifies and supports
the need to address these environmental issues and concerns which is a key objective relating to
public awareness and education.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0124
- Unlike policies, these by-laws impose legally-enforceable standards by which to manage n-atural
resources. A by-law's provisions may be enforced by any police officer or duly appointed by-law
enforcement officer; letters of credit/securities and other penalties can be set; and offenders can be
charged and taken to court. Upon conviction, offenders are subject to a fine and/or term of
imprisonment in accordance with the penalty section of the by-law. The potential to be a strong
deterrent is an advantage of having these by-laws.
- These by-laws are passed and are administered by municipalities within the TRCA's jurisdiction.
Since they support similar watershed and resource management objectives, the by-laws help to
strengthen the Authority's municipal partnership. While the TRCA offers its specialized expertise
and shares information it has acquired throughout the watershed, municipalities are able to provide
a localized base from which to address specific environmental and/or risk management issues. In
this respect, the roles of the Authority and the municipality complement each other greatly when
promoting and regulating the management of natural resources.
What opportunities exist to strengthen these by-laws through TRCAlmunicipal partnership?
While the TRCA already provides advice and assistance in support of these by-laws, there may be
other opportunities to strengthen the effectiveness of these tools. Based on municipal comments
on what has and has not worked, additional effort in the following areas should be pursued:
Education and Public Awareness
Educating the public and the development industry on the importance of protecting our natural
resources is something the TRCA already does; however, prioritizing and increasing our efforts on
one or a few specific causes at a time would assist in focussing public awareness and education.
For example, increased awareness about the importance of wetlands, urban forestry, and proper
erosion and sediment control techniques might curb some of the problems encountered by the
municipalities. Training seminars such as the erosion and sediment control workshops carried out
by the City of Mississauga, or promotional campaigns coordinated under the watershed strategies
are just some of the possible avenues for getting the message across. Under the Don Watershed
Strategy, work on improving sediment control during construction has already begun. Proper
training and education gives people the knowledge to practice environmental stewardship principles
and provides regulatory agencies with the option of using enforcement as a last resort.
Technical Advice
As part of our plan review and technical clearance services, TRCA staff provide resource information
and expertise which assists municipalities in responding to ecological and hazardous issues that
arise under these by-laws. However, there is room to improve the coordination of municipal/CA
regulatory activities through increased knowledge, information sharing and perhaps the
development of municipal-specific protocols. Discussions have already begun with the Township
of King and with the Township of Caledon to develop a coordinated approach to administering
Authority fill permits and the Towns' fill by-laws. It is hoped that this report, when shared, will further
these coordinated efforts.
0125 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Enforcement
As part of our regulatory responsibilities, the TRCA monitors sites in areas designated under Ontario
Regulation 158. At the request of the municipality and where there is a particularly large or
contentious issue, TRCA staff provide additional support by flagging potential problems related to
these by-laws or by providing additional follow-up support. As noted under Technical Advice above,
there is also room to improve coordination of our enforcement activities in much the same way.
Advocacy
The Authority can increase its efforts to encourage municipalities to develop and enact these types
of special by-laws. Based on municipal staff comments, it appears that there is also a need to
provide support for addressing the issue of low fines. Low fines, often imposed by the courts and
the OMS, can sometimes undermine the by-law's function as a deterrent. It is unclear whether such
fines are a result of prosecution not establishing a strong enough case or due to a Justice of the
Peace not supporting a by-law. Regardless, lending support for the improvement of fines and
incorporating letters of credit into the permit approval process (if not already done) may be options
that both the municipalities and the TRCA may want to cooperatively pursue.
CONCLUSION
A great deal of work has already been completed by several municipalities in the area of special
municipal by-laws. These by-laws assist in furthering Conservation Authority goals by supporting
similar resource and watershed management objectives. Through continued municipal{TRCA
efforts, important tools such as these by-laws can be strengthened and expanded.
For information contact: Maria Flores, extension 268
Date; April 1 , 1999
Attachments (1)
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0126
Cll-~ '" I I::~~ Cll
..al::~ ~ I:: ~ ~CllO~~~':fi
~-t:: ~ 0 o'-~I::::'I::-t::I::Cll
~~'" Cll Cll ~ ~aCll~CllCll ~~S
- ~Q) <? ~o,o.. .21::1::~c:t:~.,
g.~~~ ~ !SE Cll~0~eQ~~8~~
--~ Cll ~bCll -l::o..Cll~---t::1::
",' g! '" ~..a ~ >< ~ .!! Q- t:: ....S! 11;I .0, ~
Cll~CllQ) "'~Cll o..~Cll~OSCI::-
-oE'" I:: ~..al:: ~~Cll"'-~I::ON~~
~"'o~ ~ ~~~ ::J~~~~N~~~~~
~I::<?- ~I::~ ~~ol:: "'e::J~Cll~
Cll ~ . ~ ~ I:: ~ ~ _€ 0 ~ Cll ~ E Cl.. E I:: g. .,
~ 0,- .!! .e~Cll"b~O::'CllO~ ~~Cll
~~m~ I Cll::J~ -~..a~~Cll80.."
~o,~~ ~ 1::"~CllO~-t:: ~~E ~
I:: I:: <- 'tco- ..a ~ 0 .!?2 ~ ..a - Cll .9 ~ I:: 0 ~ ~
o_<?~ Cll I::~I::~I::~I::~ Cll::J., ~o
~ '5 ::J 0 ':fi .;;; ->. Cll ..a ~ !! ~ < ~ ~ Cll ~ C 'f: ~
en ~ 0 0 I:: I:: ~ '" Cll Cll 0., Q.I:: lI:l I:: I:: Z; 0.. oJ:::
W ~CllCll~ - ~~..aCll~-t::I::~~~~~ _0,
en ..0 Q) a ..0 =ti' ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: Cll ~ 0 I:: "5, ~ )( ~ .9 0 '1::
en Cll~t::CllQ)O ~lI:l~~Eo~lI:l::J~~~o..lI:l~
w oJ::: 'Cll::'::'~~Cll~-t::OCllI::"'Plo::JEIO::JCllI::
Z - {g ~ ~ ~ 0.."0 '" lI:l <? E 0 Cll ~ ~ I:: '" -t:: ~ - ~ ::J
~ Cll..aCll-t::"'E lI:l ~~~-I::::JCll~o, oCllE~
~ ~~~~~~l~~l::g~~g~8"5,~g~~':fiE~
;;> <?~o..CllCllCll I:: CllI::Cll_o..~_~rOI::~O~
;;> ,0..1tl'::'..a, Q ,.!! 0..::J I lI:l ::J..aoJ:::oJ:::'O:Iq;;;:: 0 o..a
Cll "
Cll I:: Cll
- O.::J ~ ':fi
.~ >-. -;;; ~ E2 .g "'S ~
.~ -g .::, 0. '0 ~ Cll 0 ~
I 5l1:l~0~1::~!i ~
~I:: Cll",OO- .....
, ~o.2o..!:2~~lI:lCll Cll
~~I::~' 01::0,0 -t::
.2 ~ 51 .2 ~ .s .!! .S; ~ ~,;; Cll
~::Ji:::'" "':t:: 0 0
t:~::J~o,CllCll::J.:.c E~.!!
~ Q):5 o~~ 8 o~ ~~..s 0..
.!! ~ 0 e ~ Cll '" ~ - ~ ~ !:2 .S;
en o..o..oo..<?:s~",~~OOI::
~ ~ E Itl ~ I:: 0, 0, ~ g.'Qi ~ "6 ~
" ",e~"'!~~~Cll..seO..a
~ 0..Q) Q) ~ I::::J QJ 0..- 0..0_
Z '_ 0 I:: ~ ::J 0 I:: '" 0 '" ~ 0
w ::.-!::.~ 0 Q)CllItl--1::
. ~ e ~ ~ e Q g .!:2 E ~ ~ -t:: ~ ~
en ';L~lI:l'7-:2~~.gE~'7~~
o 0
..... ;,:; a Qj
o 0 ..... -
<?_Cll !:2 a
01 I:: 0.. 0 '-
o Cll '" -
- ~ Itl "6 ",' ~
~~~ 01::_
::.g...a ooe
OQj~ ~~o..
E:::'~ C3~~
Cll ~ ~ Cll _ g
(,) .~ o.s-
I:: 0 - ~ 1::-
0- '" 0..Q)'
cn~ 0 Cll .S; 0 E a
o ::J -'-
:.:::~~ ~a~
w ..o",ItlQi'Cll~Q)
a.. ::J Q) ::J '" Q) .~ ~
:::l: 0..~:l~1::1::~
I_~O,Q)...
:=
:5 w
>- w
In e:
0127 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
e:
~.9 ~ .9 E -
g, Q) .ra E ~ .g.9 .~ ~
Q) .9B 0 Q)~Q) 0 -~ ~~
::.....0 ....;:>.Q.. ..c: e:-<;, 0::..,
co Q)..c:~~ Q)O Q.. Q)Q.. e~
..c: e:01:l1:l 'S~l? 0 EQ..Q)Q..Q)
~ :t::..,E~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'S-'S
<II 0Q)00 -co_ ~ <IIoe:e
~ 1:l'Se:0 ~Q)~ co ~e:-~~
~ ~~1:l~ <II~~ 1:l ~~~~1:l
Q) """-e:~ e:..c:' <II O<llQ)oQ)
....Q) <II ~ co 7: o:t CJ:l ~ .:::, .Q E .;:: -;::
.r- - ."" ~ 1:l <II e: '"' '_ ~......
..c: .,,~;:>.co <---.;.. <II o:t:;:1:lcoE
:t e: .s. -S! <II ~ e: ~ ..Q :t 0 _ Q) . Q)
~ 0 .Q :>.. 'S co 0 .S e: co :t qj ~ CJ:l ~
~ ~ 1:le:~e: ~s~ co~co~o<ll
W ~ ~~<IIQ) ~..Q~S o~~~~~~
.~ 0 co s-s ::.~oe: !Q)..Qe:~Q)co
~ :;::: CI:l ";:; Q) - ~ .... '"' 0 0 -S! 0 .r- <II.!;1 ~ ~ ..c:
w "= ~ ...... 'S ~ '"'.... e: '-';::: - ~ ~ 0
Z 1:l0~_S~~.~~~~ a~'Sgoo~
~."" oCO"",'_;:>._::"'Q) ~coQ)""~o::'
~ ;:>'Q)~co~Q..-oQ..~o ~Q..~-""""~
~ . ~ s ~ ~ co E g =a E ~ .g, ~ - ~ ! ~ ~ ri-
~ co OOOoe:_oo1:l Q)Q)~O_-_
~ ,.9,o~o:J,ococo ,~,00:tQ)
- 1:l 1:l
o ~ , ~ ~ e: ~ ::.., 1:l
~ co ::"'0 Q)e:Q.. CO..QQ) e:
o Q) .0 ::..,..Q e: e: .....0.. Q) .ra _ -S! -S co
a. :a "" ~ Q) .Ql'cc .2 Q.. Q) 'a :t e:'cc Q) - ~ '0 ~ - ..;
~ .9 '0 .:c "': g,....... Q). 'S .ra 0.. E 1:; .:c '" 0 Q) ~ :ii .g Q) c'~ ~
.S e: 1:l c'~ CJ:l'Cij ri Q; ~ '0 :t E Q) ~ .9 g..I2 ~ ~ 1B ~ e: E ] "'= ~ Q..
o co ~.~ 1:l ~ ~ Q) ~ ,g ~ -S! 8 a. '0 ~ '; ~. Q) ~ (3 g..o !g ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ g. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 g ; ~ ~
Q..qj-coCOe~~C:o~COQ) ~-[~C01:l1BQ)CO~1:lQ)-S~
s.s.gegi~~2~,g~-S~ ~~]~&SQ..!]1:lQ)~S!~
~ ~~E&1:l:J~c:gi';~~:t 1:l~~co~~~g.;~s..c:.I28~
J: .0::;.... Q) co <II 0 c: :J - '- ~ Q).... e: c: :t ..... Q) Q) c: ~ ....::.., c: Q)
~ o1:l-S~~~Q)Q).ra1:l~g::.:J -Q)EoSESo<~S~Q)C:~
CJ Q) ~ qj Q3 ] ~ E -S ~ ~ qj I;;: Q) E <II E qj ..c: 1:l Q...... 0 .S c: ~ - E 0 :t
Zw ~ ~ ::a i ~ '0,0 ~.s 0 ~ i ~- -g ~ ~]-::a '0 ~ ~ ~ a ti-i 8 ~ .s ~o ~ '~Q)
~~co'" CO_~""""c:CO'- Q)Q)CO~O::'''''-~Q)-~",,~
. a: Q)'Cij e: o'~ '0 ~ ~ :l: g ~ ':; :t ~ :t:::. c: 0 E -S! ~ B 0 ::. E 1:l Q.. c: .s
~ ::.<Il<110 0 ......Q)-~Cll Q)Q)<IleQ)w;:>.....~CO<llc:EOc:
~ ,1:l, Q) e <Il E Q..:; , co .... -S! co ,1:l, _ .... , co Q) , ..c: ~ '_ '_ 0 '_
e: ~
o ~ ~ .... .S
~ Q) 1:l c: Q) ........ ....
o s<- ~~ ~~ ~ 0....
2 ::.e: --';":J ....~ c: ~~ 0
- e 0 1:l 0 -S!;:>. Q) '0 c: 1:l
qj ~ ~ '0 - Q) E 0 ~ ~ Q) '0.. c: ~
1:le:c:~~~0 ;.s Q) Q...s.~~
~~~C:EE~ ~~ ~ ~~.ra~
::. e Q) 0 Q.. ~ ~ c: ~ 1:l :t ~ .~ ;;::
0Q)~00~Q)....... 00 <Il~~'a1:lQ)
E:.sa~Qj~c:ri ~oc~Q)coa~~
Q)e:_o..~co:tQ) .....I2"'=<II~::..,o~:t
o.-co 1:l:t0 c:CO::'~..Q_<II
c: ..c: ..c: <II - - .S Q).s. 0 0 1:l ......I2
~ o'~ - ~ co a c: qj 1:l E .0 ~ ~ <II CJ:l S c: 1:l
~ 0 1:l~~~~~ Q)Q..~~Q)~<II<IIQ)Q)
. ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 1:l co <II - 0 0 ~ 0 ~ OJ - ~ E ::.
W ::a<ll~:JQ)ga.c: coQjEc::ti;1B-B~e
~ :J~<IIo~Q.._:t C:::'<IIoQ)C:~c:""Q..
~ Q..........~Q)Q..00 <Il-S!..c:o..c:_coco~Q..
I 0 I_~~C~ I ~_ 1_ IO_C~
alS...J
zO
Q~
~z
00
a:u
w....
:::rz
3: w -w
~ z 0::E
- ~-
., > ~ c
> c( ow
m a: ....~
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0128
.,"- III ~ 0) "- '0 1
\". ~~ .S~ "S~ 0 - 0~
~ ~e ~~ ~Ill e ~~ ~0
~ 0 ~o ~0 .\". ~O~; ~
III 0..Q) 0_ I'/)~Q)~ 0 ,.E~"-
E ~o.. Oe ~ EO 0~Q) ~~
I'/) o~- ~ 0 ~ III
~ ~~~~~Q) i-~I'/) ~~i~~~
o Q)~0IllQlg. Ef:2.G:l "O:t::G:l~ "-
~ :::.. '- C'I) " E "- ~ Ql 01 13 ~ E -- 0 ~ Ql
~~G:l~ 0.. 0"0. III o..E~~
~ 8~~g~~ -i~~ ~~"OEI!
s ~(,)~Q) Q)~-O ~ ~O ~
(,)-o~~ai[~ -60i~ ~~~(,)e
~~~SO 0Q) Q)Ql~g ~~ ~Ol~
en ~~~aj-~~ ~~~o ~:t::t~~~
~-IllE Ill~~ ~~"O"O € ~O~
US oO~Illf:2~~Q) ~.E_~~~.~~ ~(,)
l/) (,).ez ~o-o~ Ql~O. "00 0 e
lJ) ~~~~13~13i ~o~~~oi~~to..
US
z ~"-Q)~1ll e ~-Ill! ~-- 01
~ [~ ~ (0 - G:l ~ e::: '- '0 ~ .$1 g. ~ 01 ~
~ -~~E~~ (,) ~~.-
et ~~~1ll0 O~ ~~~~,,-~g~a~~
US . Q),,-~(,)E(,)\'" "~"O~~~~:::" e~~
~ b~~Q)~O_Q)~~Ill~EQl"-C'I)Q)~ ~
, C'I) III ~ ~ (,) (,) o..:-=:: 1 .S III _, III "0 I 01 o....$!
~ ~i :::.;-
~ Q) 0 .!::, Q) .... ~
c ~~~~-o..~
- o-o..E
Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ -g"~ ~ al ~ ~
;S j~ 0..fJ1ll~~0.."O~
.S ~ :; i: E -Sl' -; ~ f:2 ~ :::
C'I) 0 ~ Q) Q) ~ C'I) ~ ~ ...... ~
~.s~~ Eo...$!~~QlQ)0
~ C'I) - ~ E ~ 0.. (,) Q) "0 .~ (0
Ql ~~~ Q) 00 Q) O~:l::: ~~
~~Q).$!~(,)~8""-~Q)~
lJ) ~ .S 11 g. Q) 0 '€ III ~ ~ ~ ~ "0
iE III i: 5, (,) ~ ~ "~ '0 ~ ~ ~ '0 ~
~ Q) (,) 0 III ,~~ "'" '- "0 III
" Q) E~ Ill--.ez Q)~ Q)- "-
C'I) ~0i3C'1)Ill~:t:Ill~~Q)
Z Illg.o,,- ~~1ll0~:"'~~
W ~~~~.,g C'l)Q)~al ~
f= (,):::.. Q)~_g g.~ (,)~~ 0 Q)
.S ~ C'I) - E III "- ~ C3 ~ Ql j j
lJ) I 10 I ClCl.......ca I
-
0 ~
C'I) ~ C'I)~ Q) ~
~ .~ E III ~.~ Q)
Q)OQ)\'" ~C'I) ~:l::: Q..
"O:;::~~ ~~ III ~ ~"-
Q) '- III - Q) 0 ~ 0
~~:>'~C'I) 1'/):;:: 13Q)
'C'I) ~ G:l '- III Q) III C'I) "0 01
~ 0 ~ i: ~ "? 01 Ci3 ~ s 2! .[
EQ)Q)(,)OIll~ ~1llQ)
(,) E ~ '- .~ III Ql .... - E
)( 0 "0 .- ~ - ~ III
Ql.::~'S,,- e~ ~QlQ)-6
"-~ll3QlO(o"O "-E"-
~ :-=:: .... I'/) ~ - e - ~ ~ ~ ....-
o_c::~ "OOOl~oOOl~
en o Ql "- f:2 ~ Q) ~ Q) .!::, ~ Q)
E 01 E 01 ~ 113 01 ~ E E ::. 'w E
i= Ql~o..~OOlIll~QlQl~ 0..-
(,) '- 0 :t:: (,) ~ ..:c Q) (,) (,) Ql ~ 0 ~
US c:: o..Qj ~ a;'S 0 C'I)~ ~ "- C'l)Qj 0
a.. oE:::..~-o..2~o..OQ)Ill::'E
:!: o ~ Q) "- ~ o~ Ill~ of: ~ Ql Ql
,'"0"'0-....;:.. ;:::IO~IOQJ1J,-
l-
et
w
a..
0
z
atlet
..../ ci' ..../
~ ..../zet
iL->
:5 :::rOO
).. ..../~:!:
_ w
CD u... CHI:
0129 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
RES.#D21 /99 - STATUS OF MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLANNING RELATED TO
FLOODING
An update on the Status of Municipal Emergency Planning related to flooding
within the area of jurisdiction of The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority .
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority continue to promote and
assist in the development of Emergency Plans related to flooding within those municipalities
which currently have no plans ......................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In the Province of Ontario, emergency planning comes under the direction of the Office of the
Solicitor General. The Solicitors General's office facilitates and promotes the development of
emergency plans by all levels of Government from Provincial Ministries to local municipalities. With
regard to types of emergencies, the lead Ministry concept has been adopted within Ontario. In the
case of planning for flood and forest fire emergencies, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been
designated as the lead Ministry. The Ministry of Natural Resources has delegated the role of
facilitating and promoting Flood Emergency Planning to Conservation Authorities where they exist.
Consistent within most of the upper tier Provincial and Regional Emergency Plans is the
understanding that for most types of emergencies, the initial response will be at the level of the local
municipality. Wrth this fact in mind, the Solicitor General promotes the development of emergency
plans within all municipalities in the Province. Flood emergencies will also follow the above
framework with the response to a flood being at the municipal level until it's resources have been
committed. Once all resources have been committed at the Local and Regional levels of local
government, the Provil"')ce would become involved. The Authority's role with respect to a flooding
emergency is one of forecasting and advising the municipalities of a flood threat. We then operate
our flood control facilities and offer any advice we can to assist in municipal operations.
The Ministry of Natural Resources has recently completed an update to their Emergency Plan for
Flooding and Forest Fires. Wrthin the Provincial Plan, the roles identified for both the Authorities and
for the local municipalities has not changed. Municipalities are still defined as the front line agency
in terms of response to a flood emergency.
This Authority has successfully promoted Emergency Planning within our member municipalities
and has participated in the development of numerous plans to ensure that the aspects of flood
emergencies have been accommodated within the Plan. In an effort to ensure that these plans are
prepared and updated in accordance with procedures adopted through the Solicitor General's
Office, the Authority periodically reviews the Status of Plans within our member municipalities. As
part of our recent municipal contacts update, we also requested updates on the status of
Emergency Plans. The attached listing represents the most current information available on the
status of plans from those municipalities contacted.
This Authority, along with the other Conservation Authorities within the GTA, has adopted a
cooperative process of updating our Flood Emergency Contingency Plans on an annual basis.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0130
Beginning next year, we will also be requesting Municipal status of their Emergency Plans including
any operational testing along with our annual request for updates to contacts.
The vast majority of Municipal Emergency Plans are generic, thereby allowing for response for a
multitude of emergency situations. While not part of the Authority's defined mandate, other types
of Emergency Plans presently in effect within our area of jurisdiction relate to Nuclear Emergency
Response Plans for the Pickering Nuclear Power Station. Plans for the City of Toronto, Region of
Durham and the Province are in place to deal with any potential problems at the Pickering site. In
addition, a number of emergency planning exercises are also underway this year dealing with Y2K
Issues.
For information contact: Don Haley, extension 226
Date: April 7, 1999
Attachments (1)
I
0131 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Attachment 1
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PLANNING STATUS
MUNICIPALITY PLAN TYPE DATE AND BYLAW
Region of Peel Generic Apr/94 #38-94
Town of Caledon Generic 1988 #88-156
City of Srampton Generic 1992 # 51-92
City of Mississauga Generic Jan/94 #853-85
Region of York Generic Sept/98 #225-97 -83
City of Vaughan Generic 1989
Town of Richmond Hill Generic Jun/91 #238-88
T own of Markham Generic
Wh itch urch-Stouffvi lie Generic Mar /93 #93-41
Township of King None
Region of Durham Generic #214-74
Town of Pickering Generic
Town of Ajax Generic Oct/92 -92
Town of Uxbridge Generic Nov/93 #91-18 (1)
City of Toronto Generic Mar/98 #47/1998
Township of Adjala- None
T osorontio
Township of Mono Generic Jan/94 #94-1
Ministry of Natural Forest Fire & Nov/98 OIC # 1620/95
Resources Flood
(1) Currently being Updated
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0132
RES.#D22/99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999
Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Toronto. Continuation of the
site development at Colonel Samuel Smith Park, City of Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1999 development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Toronto, under
the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999" at a total cost of $150,000.
................................................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Over the past four years, much of the site development, landscaping and wetland enhancement
work at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park was completed. Official opening of the park took
place in September 1996.
In 1996 a coastal Engineering study was undertaken to assess the stability of the outer shoreline and
. final shoreline treatment designs were developed by: W. F. Baird & Associates.
During 1997 & 1998 all of the shoreline treatment was completed. Some landscaping work was
completed at hard points 3 & 4 and the area between these 2 hardpoints. A navigation light was also
installed at the entrance channel to the boat mooring basin.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development component for 1999 is to complete the grading and landscaping from
hardpoint 4 to the west end of the breakwater arm. The beach section on the south shoreline will
require the placement of more rubble material to stabilize this section of shoreline.
This work will substantially complete the project with only some tree and shrub planting to occur in
the spring of the following year.
Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment
supply contractor.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for 1999 is $150,000 under Account No. 204.
This work will be carried out under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999"
approved at Authority Meeting # 1 /94, March 4, 1994.
Funding will be subject to final budget approval including City of Toronto Capital Budget approval.
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 9, 1999
0133 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
RES.#D23/99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999
Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront Access{frail, City of Toronto. To report
on the 1999 work program to continue the public access objectives across
the Mimico Apartment Strip, City of Toronto (West District).
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
ll-iE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUll-iORITY THAT the staff proceed with the 1999 work
program for the Mimico Apartment Strip Waterfront Access/Trail in coordination with the City
of Toronto representatives and the community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting 2/94, held March 25,1994, the Authority adopted Resolution #A31/94:
"THA T staff be directed to proceed with the 1994 development program for the Mimico
Apartment Strip, City of Etobicoke, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project
1992-1994", at a total cost of $25, 000 subject to receipt of funding approval from the Province
of Ontario;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Etobicoke, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised. U
Work to date has included the development of a trail concept which includes a boat mooring facility
at Superior Avenue between the Grand Harbour Condominiums and Amos Waites/Norris Crescent
Parks. In addition, extensive property investigations and deed plot mapping has been completed.
Property negotiations have also been proceeding with the owners of 2-4 Superior Avenue and
Kilcooley Gardens to facilitate continuation of the waterfront trail.
RATIONALE
Improved public access across the Mimico Apartment Strip is part of the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1995-1999 (see attached map- Figure 4). This concept has evolved to provide
a temporary mooring facility at the end of Superior Avenue for boaters to easily access the Mimico
businesses along Lakeshore (ie. banks, grocery store, etc.).
There exists support from the community including the Humber Bay Boating Federation to pursue
this concept. With the near completion of the waterfront trail along Humber Bay Shores and over
Mimico Creek, opportunity exists to now focus on the next trail section - The Mimico Apartment Strip.
DETAILS OF WORKTO BE DONE
Propertv Negotiations
The Authority, in coordination with the City of Toronto, will negotiate at the appropriate time with the
property owners, both public (Ministry of Natural Resources) and private for approximately 25
parcels of land. These negotiations will include legal and appraisal work.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0134
Trail and Shoreline Design
The trail concepts general design parameters have been established through previous discussions
with the former City of Etobicoke (now City of Toronto) staff. A working group should be established
with the new City of Toronto to review the regional context and prepare the appropriate refined
concept. A consultant may be retained to assist in this exercise.
The Superior Avenue Docking Facility requires further discussion and integration into the overall
waterfront trail concept. Confirmation of all approvals is required, as well as discussion with, the
Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Public Participation
A working group will be established which may include representatives of the community
associations, the Mimico B.I.A. and the Humber Bay Boating Federation. To evolve the final plan
in keeping with the Humber Bay Shores Public Amenity Plan approach, workshop sessions are
suggested as the most productive means of acquiring public input.
Informal meetings could be held with individual property owners to address their concerns, obtain
their ideas and identify specific property interests.
Total cost of this work including initiating implementation, assuming receipt of all environmental
approvals, has been estimated at $300,000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total 1999 budget for this component of the waterfront trail is $300,000 with $150,000 being
allocated under Account #206-01 - Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999. The
remaining funds will be secured through discussion with the waterfront partners.
For information contact: Larry Field, extension 243
Date: April 9, 1999
Attachments (1)
0135 WATERSf;iED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Attachment 1
t:
~ ~ ~
~ ~ g ~ ~r=
c: -" c \:J Z "- ~
~ :! ~r -:: ~ = ~ ~ffi
- r Z -< C ~ :: ~ u 0 ::; UJ c:: :- ,..,.,
o c::o c:: - -- :::l (/) \:J 0<( '-'
II .q:c:: -- :(2 ~tJ 0 ~ == 9 a :r: ~ u:
~ ~2 >- ~= == ~ &l <( ~ a: _ (/)
.....w ou..: ~ 09 --~ - =' (j") E <t \ccU,J- zf:: c..~
-- u- ....J --- -- UJ 0 r- r- .-, __
~~ u.:<( c:t !:o::' ~= 3: a: w ~ ...J 02: =~ ~<
--=> Ul~ > en u..1.U c.. > a: <( Of- t:(/) (/)2
C W OJ rn 0 [!] ~ OJ f= ~ ~ ~~ s~ ~g
z: :. i..,1 J U UJ UJ ~z 0<( ~<( a:
UJ """ . W - u .......c::
CJ. :. 1~ I -:l ~ t:u a:o <(0 OUJ :::.::: 0
w. :: ~~ :::: ::... a: l.;;(:; 0<:2 <:2ai--' 0: I-
-J. . ".' 0 8 8 si jl ~~~ ~ ~
.. .. I-w
(j") :::.:::
w 0
~ U
>- en
-< 0
~ tD
w LL
en 0
~ ~
I -
U
I-
z:
01-
a:u
u..w
a:"""l
UJO
1-0:
~ a.. 0>
~28l
~ O~
i 0_.
> ~I-~
o ~~o>
~ I-a:o>
< 2w~
o 02
~ UJ
w~
:Z::a:
~
...j
<:
o
'0,
, ~
"t)
- <:
'"
o
c:>-
0_
o ";::
_ 0
<:-:
'" ~
.: 113
0<:
0..0
0=
~ .,
- >
'" ~
E ~
'" <:
-",,0
-u
~
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0136
RES.#D24/99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999
Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, City of Toronto. Continuation of the site
development at Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, City of Toronto, under the
"Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999" at a total cost of
$90,000.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1999 development program at Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, City of Toronto under the
"lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999" at a total cost of $90,000.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority completed the majority of the Master Plan components for Humber Bay West Park
between 1980 and 1984.
In 1997, a design for armouring of the uncompleted southeast headland; located at the west side
of Mimico Creek, was undertaken by: Shoreplan Engineering Limited.
Armouring and beachfeeding completed in 1998.
DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1999, it is proposed to plant trees and shrubs within the disturbed area. The beach area
adjacent to the hardpoint will be monitored and additional rubble will be deposited as required.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
The total budget for 1999 site development is $90,000 under Account No. 205-03.
This work will be carried out under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999"
approved at Authority Meeting # 1 /94, March 4, 1994.
Funding will be subject to final budget approval including City of Toronto Capital Budget approval.
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 1, 1999
0137 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
RES.#D25/99 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND
SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Fishleigh Drive Regeneration Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of
Toronto. Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works
along the Fishleigh Drive sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
continuation of the construction of the shoreline erosion control works under "The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total cost of
$100,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Fishleigh Drive Regeneration Project was approved under the Class Environmental Assessment
process in 1988. To date a total of 450 metres of shoreline protection has been completed.
In 1994, a working committee was established with representatives from the community, City of
Toronto, Waterfront Regeneration Trust and local politicians to review final design details of the
easterly portion of the shoreline protection works. This work was completed in 1998.
The westerly portion of the project remains incomplete, although preliminary designs have been
completed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE'
It is important that the remaining uncompleted section of the westerly portion of the project be
protected to ensure long term structural integrity of the remedial works.
A review of the preliminary design options will be undertaken, final design drawings completed, and
construction of approved final shoreline treatment commenced.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the work in 1999 is $100,000. The work will be carried out under
"The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001"
approved at the Authority Meeting #1/97. Funding will be subject to final budget approval including
City of Toronto Capital Budget approval.
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 1, 1999
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0138
RES.#D26/99 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND
SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Sunnypoint Ravine Regeneration Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of
Toronto. Continuation of the construction of erosion control works along t~e
base of Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1999 construction and completion of this project, under ''The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001 II at a total cost of $75,000.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
During 1998 Shaheen and Peaker Umited was retained by the Authority to carry out a Geo-technical
investigation and design for the shoreline erosion works below Sunnypoint Ravine. A plan was
developed and implementation commenced in the late fall of 1998. A major component of the plan
consists of raising an existing berm to create a larger containment area for material eroding from the
bluffs. Upgrading of existing filter drains and swale system are also required.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1999, it is proposed to complete construction of the berm and to restore all disturbed areas.
It is also proposed to remove sediment from the boat basin. This material had found its way through
the existing drainage system and into the boat basin, however with the upgrading of the drainage
system this process will be stopped.
Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment
supply contactor.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The work will be carried out under "The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1997-2001", approved at Authority Meeting #1/97.
The total budget for 1999 work is $75,000. Funding will be subject to final budget approval
including City of Toronto Capital Budget approval.
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 9, 1999
0139 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
RES.#D27 /99 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND
SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of
Toronto. Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works
along the Sylvan Avenue sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1999 construction program for the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto,
under 'The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-
2001" at a total cost of $432,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1994, approval was received to commence construction of the $3.7 million (includes 15%
contingency allowance) project as detailed in the Sylvan Avenue Shoreline Management Plan
prepared by: F. J. Reinders and Associates. The initial phase of construction commenced in
November 1994.
To date all headlands have been constructed and final armoured. Two underwater reefs have been
constructed to create nearshore aquatic habitat in accordance to the Fisheries Compensation Plan
and Agreement with the Department of Fisheries & Oceans.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1999, it is proposed to final armour 350m of shoreline. The access road (future trail) will be
raised to the final design height. Site grading will be completed. Next phase of landscaping and
wetland plants to be installed this year.
Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment
supply contractor. The supply and delivery of quarry stone will be tendered in accordance with
Authority's purchasing policy.
Environmental monitoring for the project will continue in 1999. This will include ongoing fisheries
surveys, benthos and substrate analyses to document any changes to the aquatic environment in
the vicinity of this project. In addition, monitoring of bluff erosion and lakefill quality will be ongoing.
The Authority will continue with Sylvan Avenue Steering Committee meetings during 1999 to provide
input and direction to the project implementation. The success of this project and its representatives
on the Committee.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
To the end of 1998, $2,463,000 has been expended with funding participation as follows:
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0140
Province of Ontario $1,018,000
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto $1,420,000
(Now City of Toronto)
Other Funding $ 25.000
Total $2.463,000
The work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1997-2001", approved at Authority Meeting #1/97.
The total budget for 1999 is $432,000 under Account Numbers 133-10, 133-03 and 133-23. The
$300,000 Provincial funding share for 1998, is part of a funding request to the Province of Ontario
for their remaining share of the project - $1,080,000 over the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 budget
years. This request has been made as part of a comprehensive Scarborough East Waterfront
project and funding partnership submission through the MPP. The Province agreed to fund their
share for the completion of the project.
Funding will be subject to final budget approval including City of Toronto Capital Budget approval.
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 9, 1999
RES.#D28/99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999
Ashbridges Bay Park, Coatsworth Cut Dredging. Award of a contract for the
maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridges Bay Park, City of
Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Harbour Commisssioners
be retained to carry out the maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridges Say Park
at a total cost of $206,500, plus Goods and Services Tax;
AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be paid up to $66,000 in
accordance with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners approved disposal fee schedule for the
disposal of the dredged material in containment cell no. 3 at Tommy Thompson Park.
................................................................... CARRIED
0141 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/99 held on February 26, 1999, Resolution #A59/99 was adopted:
. 'THAT staff be directed to proceed with maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridges
Bay, City of Toronto, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999";
at a total cost of $300,000;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with finalizing plans for shoreline
modifications to minimize the need for annual dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridges Bay;
in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment process, under the "The Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001", at a total cost
of $50,000. "
RA TI ONALE
Two written proposals were received to carry out the dredging of up to approximately 8,OOOm3
material from Coatsworth Cut as follows;
Demo Contracting and Marine Specialist
Dredging 8,000m3 @ $31.00/m3 $248,000
Disposal of material & tipping fees No quote given
Total Quotation $248,000 (but does not
include disposal costs)
Toronto Harbour Commissioners
Mobilization & demobilization $ 6,500
Dredging (including disposal)
8,000m3 @ $25.00/m3 $200,000
Disposal tipping fees:
For annual project volume over 5,000m3 $ 36,000
plus 3,OOOm3@ $10/m3 $ 30,000
Total Quotation $272,500
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) submitted a complete proposal to carry out all dredging
and disposal of material. The THC completed the dredging work at Coatsworth Cut for the Authority
in 1997. Demo Contracting based their proposal on the disposal of the dredged material being
completed by others. Based on the proposed dredging of 8,OOOm3, the disposal costs would add
another $64,000 to their proposal.
It is recommended that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be awarded the contract to undertake
the dredging at Coatsworth Cut up to a total cost of $206,500 plus G.S.T., and to pay the applicable
disposal fees to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, up to a total cost of $66,000.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0142
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are budgeted under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", Account
No. 211-16.
For information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 244
Date: April 15, 1999
RES.#D29/99 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Town of Pickering. An update on the Frenchman's Say Watershed
Rehabilitation Project and outline of the 1999 work priorities.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on and the 1999
priorities of the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project be endorsed;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue with this important watershed project in cooperation with
the Town of Pickering and project partners ............................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #8/98, held on September 25, 1998, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 173/98:
"THA T the staff report on the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project be
received;
THAT staff be directed to initiate the project in coordination with the Town of
Pickering;
THA T the Authority extend its appreciation to Environment Canada for funding this
initiative and indicate the importance of continuing these funding partnerships to
ensure the health of our watersheds through community-based initiatives;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Pickering be so advised."
The project was initiated September 1; 1998 as a result of federal funding through EcoAction 2000
and the other key partners (Town of Pickering, Community Groups, TRCA and Canada Trust -
Friends of the Environment Foundation). To date the project has been well received by the
community and has successfully met the goals and objectives as outlined below. The following is
an update on the Frenchman's Say Watershed Rehabilitation Project - September 1998 to March
1999, and an outline ofthe 1999 priorities.
0143 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Status of Project Objectives
Q Educate the Frenchman's Say Watershed Community about the importance of the
watershed and the Sav
Host 2 public environmental workshops
The project coordinator participated in the EcoAction Sharing Experiences Conference in November
which involved the preparation of a large scale display presentation. An Environmental Open House
was hosted in partnership with the Ontario Hydro Pickering Nuclear Information Center on February
25, 1999. As well, an Amphibian Monitoring Workshop was held on March 24, 1999 in cooperation
with the 84th Pickering Guides and other community organizations.
Implement a Yellow Fish Road Program with 4 community groups:
Two community groups, 8th Pickering Cubs and the Montessori Learning Center painted yellow fish
on 70 storm drains in the Frenchman' s Say Watershed and 30 storm drains in the Petticoat Creek
Watershed. A total of 400 homes received information about the Yellow Fish Road Program and tips
for storm drain stewardship. The project coordinator will train local scout and school children to
deliver the program in 4 locations within the watershed this spring.
Implement a community based amphibian monitoring program:
This activity was initiated through an Amphibian Monitoring Workshop held on March 24, 1999.
Volunteers will participate in 3 calling count surveys in April, May and June.
Provide project information at local and regional environmental fairs, seminars and workshops:
Two Yellow Fish Road workshops were held; one ecology club presentation at Highbush Public
School; one public open house in concert with the Pickering Nuclear Ontario Hydro; one formal
display at the EcoAction 2000 Sharing Experiences Conference; introduction of the project to
Pickering Field Naturalists and Say Watch Community Group meetings; participation in Pickering
Nuclear Ontario Hydro March Sreak Program - March 17 to 19 inclusive.
IJ Enhance 4 kilometers of riparian habitat a10nq creeks
Due to the project's late start, this performance indicator was not achieved in the first two quarters
of the project. Riparian sites will be enhanced through projects that complement the Frenchman's
~ay Watershed Restoration Plan (currently being developed) and the Town of Pickering Stormwater
Management Strategy. Several sites identified through these reports will be targeted for community
consultation; and spring and fall planting and cleanup events.
. 50 bird box kits have been prepared by community volunteers to deliver to local community
groups for assembly and installation. To date more than 40 boxes have been assembled
and installation will occur on April 10, and during scheduled planting and cleanup events.
IJ Enhance 9 hectares 0 wetland/marsh habitat around the Say
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0144
WEST SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
. Enhancement of three hectares of wetland by planting a buffer of 200 native trees and
shrubs around the wetland; established a restricted mowing regime; volunteer assembly and
installation of 12 assorted bird nesting boxes; garbage cleanup (1/4 ton on site); an.d
creation of a wildflower meadow.
. Five local elementary schools are participating in the Aquatic Plants program.
. 50 more bird box kits have been prepared by community volunteers to deliver to local
community groups for assembly and installation. Soxes will be installed on April 24 at two
sites, one adjacent to Frenchman's Say and the other at Hydro Marsh.
. Other activities associated with this indicator, particularly the purple loosestrife removal
program, have not been seasonally appropriate or included in the work plan for the first two
quarters. Additional wetland sites will be enhanced as per the Frenchman's Say Watershed
Restoration Plan and the Town's Stormwater Management Strategy.
r:I. Assist with the implementation of Common Tern and Slack Tern Recovery Plans
Activities associated with the construction of a common tern raft and 10 black tern rafts have not
been seasonally appropriate or included in the work plan for the first two quarters of the project. On
April 24, 1999, community groups will be participating in the construction of a common tern reef raft.
Repair and reassembly of existing black tern rafts will also be included. The construction of an
additional 10 black tern rafts will be included in the work plan for 2000.
!:l Other proiect results
Although there are no direct project and performance indicators identified in the original proposal
for cleanup and fish monitoring, the following has been accomplished.
Cleanup
. Clean-up of the Say area in several locations (10 hectares on land and 10 hectares on water)
for a total of 1/2 ton of garbage. This includes more than 40 tires removed from the Say by
volunteers.
. Clean-up of more than one kilometer of stream and riparian habitat by Pickering Ajax Youth
Network.
. One student and project coordinator cleaned up one hectare of a pine plantation at local
Pine Ridge Secondary School.
Fish Monitoring
. T own politicians, 'Ontario Hydro Pickering Nuclear and TRCA staff participated in an electro-
fishing and fish tagging demonstration on the Say, October 19, 1998.
. Fish monitoring 1.5 kilometers of Pine and Amberlea Creeks with TRCA staff.
0145 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
Q Measurement instruments
Mapping completed to identify cleanup areas, planting areas, bird box installation, biotic and abiotic
monitoring program stations. Development of data base and detail planting plans to be developed
in fourth quarter using TRCA and Town of Pickering GIS technology.
Q Communication Strategy
Project announcement
Public announcement of this project through a press release; project kick-off event; cheque
presentation and photo with The Honourable Sergio Marchi on Friday, October 23; cheque
presentation and photo for local political federal, provincial and municipal representatives on
Saturday, October 24.
Articles written in the local community newspaper
A variety of press releases were provided to local media highlighting various events and programs.
Shaw Cable coverage of project, programs and activities October 4, 19 and 24 February 25 and
March 25 were shown several times over the course of those weeks. Video tape available.
Participation In local environmental and community fairs, seminars and workshops:
As per performance indicators. Associated information packages and hands-on materials including
a project banner, were assembled for these activities.
Town of Pickering Community Events page and web site:
Web page prepared for Town of Pickering's web site and events page to provide access to
information electronically.
Frenchman's Bay Post:
Semi-annual newsletter distributed to a mailing list of 150 community volunteers, organizations,
partners, businesses and schools.
Other communications strategy components including the TRCA web page will be developed further
in the next quarter.
Additional Communications Initiatives:
Visual Display:
A full scale visual display identifying the project goals and objectives, partnerships and history of the
Say area was created for the Sharing Experiences Conference held on November 27, 1998 at the
Kempenfelt Center.
Project Information Packages:
More than 75 project and program information packages were sent to volunteer groups, businesses,
schools and individuals. Additional information regarding the amphibian monitoring, tern raft
construction, aquatic plants program and notices for all events were distributed as per activity
requirements.
.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0146
Community Volunteer Participation Milestone Summary:
More than 200 volunteer citizens in the community were directly educated about the importance of
the watershed and the Bay through events, information packages and participating in various
programs.
- 50 volunteers participated in the October 24th kick-off event
- 50 volunteers participated in cleanup activities around the Bay, October 24th
- 30 volunteers participated in the November 7 cleanup event
- 1 student participated in the December 23 cleanup event
- 25 elementary students participated in a hands-on program delivered by the project
coordinator
- 60 scouts and students participated in the Yellow Fish Road Program
- 10 partner representatives participated in an electrofishing demonstration
- 150 community members, 20 local environmental groups and businesses joined us for our
"Earth Day is Every Day" Environmental Open House
- 60 volunteers attended our Amphibian Monitoring Workshop
- 75 children have assisted in the construction of bird boxes, 10 community volunteers cut
and prepared the kits for assembly.
- March Break Program in partnership with Ontario Hydro Pickering Nuclear with more than
500 visitors to the event.
- 1 Sir Sandford Fleming College student put more than 84 hours of time into developing a
Rainbarrel and Downspout Disconnection Project proposal.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES
. Backyard Naturalization Workshop attended by project coordinator
. Volunteer brochure and project text developed
. Meetings with Ontario Hydro Public Relations and staff biologists to discuss a
biodiversity plan project for their property (largest landowner in the watershed)
. Preparation of a calendar of events for local MPP office publication
. Preparation and distribution of program information sheets
. Administration framework established
. Slide cataloguing system established
. Yellow Fish Road Program review and training with TRCA staff
. Participated in Santa Claus Parade with TRCA staff and electro-fishing boat.
. Historical research of the Bay, review of Mayor's Task Force Pickering Waterfront 2001, Town
of Pickering Official Plan
. Stormwater Management Strategy participation with TRCA and Town of Pickering staff
. Preliminary proposal for an ecology garden to Trillium Foundation in partnership with Ontario
Hydro Pickering Nuclear
. Extensive field work and photographing of the watershed
. Attended environmental"science class at University of Toronto as a commentator on
Frenchman's Bay Watershed Environmental Assessment Project by masters student Laura
Clinton
. Creation of bird feeder kits and fund-raiser necklaces
. Report to Canada Trust re financial and project update
. EcoAction 2000 first quarterly report
. Monitoring program summary for the watershed
. Development of a proposal for a Rainbarrel and Downspout Disconnect Project
0147 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE IN 1999
April to June
. riparian habitat rehabilitation activities
. vegetation buffer plantings
. installation of bird boxes
. tern raft construction
. amphibian monitoring
. aquatic planting program
. group education activities
. community cleanups
. Yellow Fish Road Program
. creation of a butterfly garden in partnership with Ontario Hydro Pickering Nuclear
. development of Watershed Restoration Plan and community review process
. EcoAction quarterly report
July to September
. in-field stream assessment and biological monitoring
0 electro-fishing
. mapping update and inventories
. purple loosestrife removal
. Frenchman's Bay Post newsletter preparation and distribution
. aquatic planting program
. cleanup events
. fund raising proposal to Canada Trust
. EcoAction quarterly report
September to December
. riparian habitat rehabilitation activities
. vegetation buffer plantings
0 cleanup events
. Yellow Fish Road Program
. group environmental education activities
. mapping update and inventories
. fundraising proposals
. EcoAction quarterly report
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0148
Calendar of Public Events April to June 1999
Tuesday, April 6 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm Cleanup at Kirtley Park
Saturday, April 10 9:00 to 11 :00 am Bird Box Installation in Watershed
Saturday, April 24 9:00 am to Noon Tern Raft Construction, planting, bird box installation
and cleanup at Frenchman's Bay and Hydro Marsh
Tuesday, May 4 7:00pm to 8:00pm Cleanup on Pine Creek
Saturday, May 15 9:00 am to Noon Habitat Restoration Project Hydro Marsh
Tuesday, June 1 7:00pm to 8:00pm Cleanup to be announced
Saturday, June 12 Frenchman's Bay Festival Spit Cart Display
Saturday, June 19 Aquatic Planting Project
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project has a two year term, beginning September 1, 1998 and ending August 31, 2000. The
original budget of $156,556 has been secured including the $69,730 EcoAction funding.
Funding for this project in 1999 is in Account #225-50.
The following fund raising and project partnership development initiatives have also been taken:
1. Three submissions to the OMNR for funding under CFIP, CWIP and the Fish and Wildlife
Enhancement Program.
2. Project coordinator and TRCA staff working with Town of Pickering staff to develop a
Stormwater Management Strategy.
3. Proposal for a Rainbarrel and Downspout Disconnect Project will be circulated to potential
partners for comment.
4. Town of Pickering providing $2500 to project for restoration planting on Amberlea Creek.
5. Pickering Hydro staff Earth Day planting activities $1200 to project for plant materials.
Report prepared by: Patricia Lowe (905)420-4660 extension 2155
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 243
Date: April 6, 1999
RES.#D30/99 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/99 held on January 19,1999. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting#1/99, held on January 19, 1999, are provided
for information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed
Alliance meeting #1/99, held on January 19,1999, as appended, be received. . . CARRIED
D149 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 April 23, 1999
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and adopted by
the Authority at meeting #4/97 held on May 30,1997 by Resolution #A66/97, includes the following
provision:
Part 1 . Section 1.1 Mandate
The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on
the progress of implementing activities.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: April 8, 1999
RES.#D31 /99 - 1999 FEE SCHEDULE
Minor Changes. Minor Changes to the 1999 Fee Schedule for the Kortright
Centre and the Conservation Areas.
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT changes to the 1999 Fee Schedule
for the Angling Program at Heart Lake Conservation Area, as outlined in the staff report dated
April 19, 1999 be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #/99, held on 1999, the 1999 Fee Schedule for Public Facilities and
Programming was approved. Since that time, the need for a minor change to the schedule has
come to the attention of staff; this change is outlined below.
RATIONALE
The following change is proposed to provide consistency throughout Conservation Area operations,
specifically as they relate to the angling program at Heart Lake. Changes appear in bold italics;
please refer to the appended Fee Schedule for existing relevant information.
April 23, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/99 0150
Item Will be amended to read: PST GST Base Gross
5.0 For fishing at Glen Hatty and Heart Lake;
5.1 Per day, for each person fifteen years of age 0.00 0.23 3.27 3.50
or over, exclusive of general admission.
5.2 Per day, for each person from five to fourteen 0.00 0.07 0.93 1.00
years of age, exclusive of general admission.
5.3 Per day, for each person four years of age or 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
under, exclusive of general admission.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
This adjustment will help to recoup expenses incurred by Glen Hatty Hatchery operations.
For information ~ontact: Sue O'Neil, extension 298
Date: April 19, 1999
Attachments (1)
Item Item description PST GST Base Gross
5.0 For fishing at Glen Hatty;
5.1 Per day, for each person fifteen years of age 0.00 0.23 3.27 3.50
or over, exclusive of general admission.
5.2 Per day, for each person from five to fourteen 0.00 0.07 0.93 1.00
years of age, exclusive of general admission.
5.3 Per day, for each person four years of age or 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
under, exclusive of general admission.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:46 am., on April 23, 1999.
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
jks
~
('/ THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99
June 18, 1999 Page D151
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/99, was held in the North Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 18, 1999. The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to
order at 10:04 a.m.
PRESENT
David Barrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Milton Berger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair
Ila Bossons ............................................................... Mem ber
Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair
Irene Jones ............................................................... Member
Pam McConnell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Jim McMaster .......................................:............ -. . . . . . . . . Member
Dick O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon ............................................................ Member
RES.#D32/99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/99, held on April 23, 1999, be approved . . . . . . CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
a) Presentation by Lionel Normand, Terrestrial Biologist, TRCA, with regard to item 7.1 -
Conservation Priorities Project.
RES.#D33/99 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Cliff Gyles
Seconded by: Jla Bossons
THAT the above-noted presentation a) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0152 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
RES.#D34/99 - CONSERVATION PRIORITIES PROJECT
Development of a system for assigning conservation priority ranks to
terrestrial flora and fauna and a methodology for their use in support of
Natural Heritage Strategies for terrestrial habitats.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to use the ranks and
methodologies as one of the tools in evaluating terrestrial ecosystem health for
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), watershed report cards, and natural heritage
strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Our terrestrial inventory work, as part of the ESA study, highlighted some disturbing trends in the
distribution of species and habitats within the Authority's jurisdiction. For example, some species
were no longer found in the urban areas even when apparently suitable habitat was available. As
urbanization expanded within our watersheds, there was a concern that so would this trend. As a
result, the Conservation Priorities Project was initiated.
Until recently, the focus of protection has been on rare species and habitats. However, it was felt
that waiting until something becomes rare before it is considered significant leads to perpetual crisis
management; it is intensive, expensive and often disregards other more common species/habitats,
which contribute to the biodiversity of this region.
Secondly, failure to recognize that some species/habitats have always been scarce or rare, and to
set these as targets or indicators may not be achievable or even appropriate.
The Conservation Priorities Project was designed to take a more preventative approach taking into
account the ecological needs and sensitivities as well as abundance of the species or habitat. It
represents a shift away from "rarity" targets to "ecosystem" targets. It considers species, vegetation
communities and habitat patches which:
. may not be rare in our Region, but which may have disappeared from significant portions
of it;
. may be vulnerable to land use changes, as evidenced by observations of urban areas;
. may contribute to the overall biodiversity of the Region; or
. may indicate environmental quality.
The development of the Conservation Priorities was based on several requirements. First and
foremost, it had to-be.based.on stFOng-ecological information.--'Secondly,.to maximize our service
to the community, it had to be transparent, accessible, and standardized. Finally, it had to be
versatile enough to serve the Authority in its many roles in managing watersheds while still
facilitating efficient use of our limited resources.
June 18,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0153
The project is composed of three elements.
. development of ranking criteria for species, vegetation communities and habitat patches;
. developing scores for each species and vegetation community using the ranking criteria;
and
. applying the ranks in the development of Natural Heritage Strategies and other TRCA
activities such as the ESA program or the management of TRCA lands.
Work on the Conservation Priorities began in 1997 with the development of the criteria for ranking
(scoring) terrestrial fauna species. In 1998, work continued to develop the criteria for ranking flora
species, vegetation communities and habitat patches. The development of the ranking criteria
included reviewing existing scientific literature/information and consulting with other agencies and
experts that are working in this area of ecology. The draft criteria were widely circulated for ongoing
technical (peer) review and two working sessions were held for interested stakeholders and
scientists, including municipal staff and the Urban Development Institute, to refine the criteria and
resolve issues. The result of this entire process were the following ranking criteria.
Species (Flora and Fauna)
. TRCA regional distribution/abundance
. Population trends
. Global or Provincial occurance
. Habitat dependance
. Area sensitivity
. Mobility
. Sensitivity to d~velopment
Vegetation Communities
. TRCA regional distribution/abundance
. Provincial occurance
. Vulnerability (to direct loss)
. Sensitivity to disturbance (indirect impacts on habitat)
. Habitat availability (including potential for restoration)
Habitat Patch (landscape) (e.g.; forest, wetland, meadow)
. Size
. Shape.
. Matix influence (surrounding land uses)
. Con nectivity-(Ii nkage)
The scoring under the criteria and the application methodologies will be used by staff in a number
of areas as outlined below:
. Identify significance of species, vegetation communities and habitat patches at all scales
from our region, to the wateshed and sUbwatershed, to local (individual sites).
,
0154 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
. In the interpretation of the designation criteria for the Authority's ESAs, particularly with
respect to identifying regionally significant species, communities and habitats as well as high
quality/diverse habitats.
. In the identification of Natural Heritage Systems and appropriate Natural Heritage Strategies
at various scales from subwatershed, to watershed, to TRCA region.
. The identification of targets for the watershed reports cards and selection of appropriate
indicators to measure movement towards the targets.
. To assist in the prioritization of sites for restoration and in the selection of sites for
monitoring.
. In the implementation of Natural Heritage Strategies in terms of direction for data collection
and evaluation.
. To support the RAP in the development of targets for delisting the Toronto Area of Concern
with respect to impaired wildlife use.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The application of the ranks will be tested in the development of a natural heritage strategy for the
Don watershed in 1999 and will be applied to other watersheds in the TRCA region in 2000.
The Project will continue to rank all species, vegetation communities and habitat patches, as well
as develop monitoring protocols.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Conservation Priorities Project has received funding and in-kind contributions from the Great
Lakes Clean-Up Fund 2000, the City of Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project, Canada Trust and
from a large stakeholder and peer review group.
For information contact: Dena Lewis extension 225, Lionel Normand extension 327
Date: June 9, 1999
RES.#D35/99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1999
The Regional Municipality of Durham. Approval of the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1999 for the continuation of waterfront regeneration
.. -"activitie~ithin the Regional' Municipality-of Durham~
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1999 in the Regional Municipality of Durham be approved;
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0155
THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in
connection with the project, including the executi'on of any documents;
AND FURTHER THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Towns of Ajax and
Pickering be so advised .............................................. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Technical and funding approvals of the Authority's ongoing waterfront development activities have
been initiated through the adoption of multi-year development projects by the member
municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Separate projects covering the periods 1972-
1976, 1977-1981, 1982-1986, 1987-1991 and 1992-1994 have all been approved. In 1995, 1996 and
1997, separate projects were approved for the Regional Municipality of Durham waterfront activities.
At Meeting #7/95 held on August 25, 1995, the Authority adopted Res.#A 197/95:
"THAT the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan be endorsed;
THA T the Master Plan required under the Waterfront Agreement with the Town of Ajax
be amended to incorporate the strategic direction and vision outlined in the Ajax
Waterfront Management Plan;
THA T the Revised Master Plan provide the basis for subsequent multi-year capital
projects for the Durham Waterfront within the jurisdiction of The Metropolitan Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Ajax, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised. "
The Regional Municipality of Durham has received approval of the new waterfront policies within the
Official Plan which provide the regional context for the waterfront initiatives in Pickering and Ajax.
The Town of Pickering, in 1998, completed a new Official Plan supporting the various waterfront
initiatives. In 1997, the Mayor's Task Force "Pickering Waterfront 2001" was established to formulate
specific recommendations for Council on an integrated plan and implementation priorities for
Pickering's waterfront.
Subsequent to Pickering Council's action on The Waterfront 2001 report at is meeting of October
19, 1998, the Authority at its Meeting #2/99 held on February 24, 1999 adopted the following
Resolution #A53/99:
'THA T the-staff repOft.on-the-Waterfront 2001-vMayor's- Task Force 'on .the Pickering Waterfront
Final Report - June 1998 as actioned by Pickering Council in Report to CouncillDT 80-98 be
received;
THA T the Authority support the establishment of a "Waterfront Co-ordinating Committee and
confirm Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist and an appropriate alternate, as the Authority's
representative on the Committee;
0156 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
THAT staff continue to acquire key properties within the Master Plan of Acquisition along the
Pickering waterfront in accordance with the Authority's priorities and in conjunction with the
Town of Pickering;
THA T staff be directed to work with the Town of Pickering and their departments, and the
Waterfront Co-ordinating Committee on the implementation of the various waterfront initiatives
on a priority basis;
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Pickering be so advised"
1999 Proje9t Implementation
Objectives and Priorities
The following are the implementation objectives related to planning, regeneration and acquisition
for specific segments of th~ Durham waterfront:
Pickering Waterfront Area
. participation with the Town of Pickering in setting implementation priorities
Rouge/Rosebank Area
. continue land consolidation and acquisition
. waterfront trail linkage, new trail gateway at Rouge River and vegetation regeneration
. shoreline regeneration in accordance with the shoreline management strategy
Petticoat Creek Park
. continue acquisition (Fairport Beach) to Westshore Boulevard
. waterfront trail linkage Petticoat Creek Conservation Area to Westshore Boulevard
. regeneration of Fairport Shoreline
Frenchman's Bay
. implementation of initial regeneration efforts as outlined in the Frenchman's Bay West
Concept Plan and review of Concept Plan
. initiate review of boat launching needs
. continue acquisition of key lands
. support the Frenchman's Bay Regeneration Project and Ontario Power Generations
biodiversity
. continuewaterfront-trail.and support-components-of Pickering Millennium Trail Project
Duffin Creek Waterfront Area
. continue implementation of master plan with wildlife observation, fish habitat enhancement
and environmental interpretative trail
. complete associated waterfront trail initiatives
. habitat initiatives at Duffin Marsh and boat launching site
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0157
Aiax Waterfront Area
. land acquisition
. maintenance of existing Authority lands not under agreement
. waterfront trail linkages
. tree and shrub planting
. participation in Rotary Park and Harwood Avenue waterfront initiatives with Town of Ajax
The 1999 Implementation Priorities are as follows:
Pickerina
. waterfront trail linkages and Pickering's Millennium Trail Project
. regeneration initiatives through Frenchman's Bay Regeneration Project with community
groups
. acquisition of key land for public purpose
. habitat rehabilitation (ie. tern rafts) and support to Ontario Power Generation biodiversity
program
Aiax
. waterfront trail linkages
. maintenance of Authority land not under agreement
. tree and shrub planting and habitat initiatives at Duffin Marsh and boat launch site
. property acquisition
. partnership with Ajax projects at Rotary Park and Harwood Avenue
RA TI ONALE
The Authority has prepared the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1999 for the Regional
Municipality of Durham to reflect the plans of the Region, Pickering and Ajax for a regional waterfront
open space system.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Upon approval by the Authority, we will be working with the Regional Municipality of Durham and
the Towns of Pickering and Ajax to confirm the 1999 priorities and establish specific capital works
for implementation in 1999.
The Town of Pickering has requested partnership involvement from TRCA and Ontario Hydro for the
extension of the waterfront trail from Montgomery Park Road (connecting to Duffin Creek Trail) to
Sandy Beach Road (west side of Ontario Hydro Plant). Authority staff will work with the Town of
Pickering on the..design-and-implementation-oHhis section of waterfront-trail. The Authority is
currently working with the Town in the western trail alignment and new waterfront trail gateway at
the Rouge River through Petticoat Creek Conservation Authority. The Town of Pickering has
recently submitted a Millennium Trail project under the Federal Millennium Program and has
engaged the Authority's support within the current funding priorities.
0158 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
The Town of Ajax is working on specific projects at Rotary Park and the recently acquired Harwood
lands. The Town of Ajax is requesting Authority involvement with these projects upon completion
of the design and approval process.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for the 1999 project is approximately $100,000. With the exception of minor
maintenance work, the project will be funded on the following basis:
The Regional Municipality of Durham 50%
Other Funding 50%
The Regional Municipality of Durham's share of the project has been approved as part of the budget
process.
No provincial grant is currently available in 1999.
Staff are continuing to explore new sources of funding from the municipalities, private sector (i.e.
Canada Trust Environment Fund), service clubs and federal funding (i.e. Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund
2000) to augment the scope of the work.
The total budget may be exceeded if additional funds can be secured.
Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 243
Date: June 8, 1999
RES.#D36/99 - ACQUISITION OF ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION (ORC) VALLEY
CORRIDOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS
Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek. Report on the acquisition of
the ORC valley corridor and environmental lands within the Rouge River,
Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek watersheds in the City of Toronto, Town of
Markham and Town of Pickering.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff establish a project
implementation team.-to-ensure-the transfer'of-the-0RC-lands-10 the--TRCA in a timely and
efficient manner and to ensure the long term costs of the lands are minimized;
THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary
documentation required;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to negotiate the purchase of various parcels! blocks
as they become available subject to Authority approval ..................... CARRIED
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0159
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 1999, the Province announced they would be adding 660 hectares (1,630 acres) to the
Rouge Park (North) and transferring ownership to the TRCA (approximately 160 hectares/400 acres
may be transferred to the Town of Markham). Approximately 628 hectares (1,551 acres) are located
along the Little Rouge Corridor and 32 hectares (79 acres) adjacent to Milne Park as shown on the
sketch. It's understood there are approximately 30 residential leases and a number of farm leases
within these lands.
While not included in the media package, it was also announced that all the ORC lands within Rouge
Park South will also be transferred to the TRCA. There are approximately 709 hectares (1,750 acres)
of ORC lands south of Steeles within the City of Toronto and the Town of Pickering. There are a
number of residential and farm leases within these lands as well.
At Meeting #3/97, April 25, 1997, the Authority adopted Resolution #A58/97, directing staff to
acquire approximately 160 hectares (395 acres) of valley corridor and environmental lands in the
West Duffin Creek and Petticoat Creek watersheds from the ORC as they became available through
their disposal process related to the North Pickering/Markham Agriculture Land Assembly. In
addition, approximately 175 hectares (430 acres) of permanent conservation easements are to be
acquired by the TRCA. This was negotiated through meetings held with staff from the TRCA, Town
of Pickering, Region of Durham and officials from the ORC to discuss the most appropriate means
on how to protect the environmental resources and functions in light of the Province's disposal
plans. The Rouge Park discussions were a separate process.
The TRCA has since acquired several conservation easements. However, the ORC marketing plans
were delayed pending resolution of the Region's request to place an agricultural easement on the
lands not addressed by the TRCA interests. This was resolved in late April 1999 and ORC has
agreed to place an agricultural easement on these lands in favour of the Town of Pickering. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has recently been signed by the Region of Durham, the
Town and ORC and also addresses the TRCA interests. In return ORC has been granted Crown
Right and will not be required to go through the severance process, A committee made up of the
Town, Region and ORC Officials/staff will be set up to ensure all interests ie easements are met
through the disposal of the agricultural lands. While TRCA is not on the committee, the Region will
circulate properties being sold for our review with the understanding that a quick turn around is
essential.
ORe has advised they would like to accelerate the transfer of the valley lands and wetlands to the
TRCA so they can begin to market their agricultural properties. The conservation easements will be
applied as they sell the lands. The 160 .hectare figure identified to be transferred to the TRCA in
Resolution A58/97 was based on ORC's Phase 1 disposal plan which only included those lands
south of Whitevale Road. They have now indicated they wish to transfer all the valley lands within
all the Assembly as sooo-as.it.can.be.arranged-and-a1so'include-the valley'lands on the east side of
the West Duffin Creek which is part of the Seaton land assembly. As a result, the amount of land to
be transferred to the TRCA in the Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek watersheds has increased to 430
hectares (1,260 acres) as shown on the attached sketch. Most of these lands are vacant, however,
it is our understanding there are approximately 10 residential leases.
,
0160 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
The estimated total lands being transferred to the TRCA is as follows:
Rouge Park South 709 hectares (1750 acres)
Rouge Park North 500 hectares (1235 acres) - less Markham's portion
Petticoat Creek 86 hectares (210 acres)
West Duffin 344 hectares (850 acres)
TOTAL 1,639 hectares (4045 acres)
ISSUES
General
- It is estimated that our residential and farm lease portfolio will double and it follows,
assuming the properties are in reasonable condition and at market rent that our revenues
will double.
- However, detailed inspection and analysis of rental properties is required ( a preliminary tour
of some of the properties indicate that they are in reasonable shape).
- Taxes - the Province has been paying grant in lieu - staff will review opportunities to reduce
tax liabilities ie: management agreements, preparation of Forest Management Plans,
exemption through designation as Conservation Lands, rental properties
- The property and improvements will be transferred for $2.00 (North Pickering is an
exception-the improvements are to be purchased at depreciated value).
- TRCA will incur routine legal and other costs related to transfer.
- Maintenance and property management costs will increase.
- We have been advised that as of August 1, 1999, Del Management (Tridel) will be managing
all the lands in the Agricultural Assembly and, therefore, it is important that we obtain as
much information as possible from the ORC staff before their responsibilities are transferred.
Rouqe Park South
- Taxes and management - much of these lands can be turned over to the City under our
Management agreement; however, there may need to be interim management provided by
the TRCA for some of the rental properties.
- A meeting with City staff is required to discuss management of these lands.
- All rentals and leases must conform to the Rouge Park Management Plan.
Rouge Park North
- Taxes and management -lands at Milne can likely be added to the Milne Park Management
agreement.
- A meeting with officials from the Town of Markham and Rouge Park Alliance is required to
discuss management of the Little Rouge lands.
- All rentals -and'leases-must-conform to the Rouge-park North Management Plan.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0161
Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek
- TRCA will likely be responsible for management of these lands which includes the Seaton
Hiking Trail.
- In the case of North Pickering TRCA will get the lands for $2.00 and the improvements if any
will be purchased at their depreciated value - this was not an issue when spread over 4 'to
5 years, however, if we must purchase 10 improvements in 1 year we may need $200,000
to $300,000. However, this is an opportunity for a long term revenue stream.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. property boundaries to be determined with ORC, Rouge Park Alliance and surveyors;
. complete the transfer of these properties to the TRCA in the usual manner;
. all rental properties must be inspected and assessed and incorporated into the TRCA
portfolio and data base;
. assessment and taxes must be reviewed and appealed if necessary;
. forest management plans must be prepared for eligible lands;
. lands must be reviewed to determine if they are provincially significant wetlands or ANSI or
habitat of endangered species and therefore qualify for a tax exemption (since this land is
owned by the Province it may have the attributes to be designated as conservation land but
has never been classified. It will be necessary to review this potential); and
. property management requirements must be clearly outlined to field staff responsible for
maintenance and costs identified.
For information contact: Don Prince, extension 221 and Ron Dewell, extension 245
Date: May 20, 1999
Attachments (2)
0162 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
Attachment 1
_ ""hllllon;,1 PrO~ln(,UI LmLb
~ Rl~JI:;f' I'UI< ......ntl
OOlhrr l'ro""I\nn! LllHb 10 , I
..... l.... fT,!n'lM"Tffi \0 [Re.\ I
Rc.,~.. p,.... ,)nuh
Df.u."n~ Roul;"'l',... ~~.~ ^ )~~
~. '.'---'
\ \1.-' _' .....-"1\.-0"
.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0163
Attachment 2
s:: --<::
~ )> -I
:;;:Joo ()
~'1:;f =tJ
:; z
s:: ~
;;0
0
c
C)
f"Tl
U
)>
:;;:J
/':
--;
",
<
~ C)
",
-;0 c::
0-
=tJ
:r::
)>
u ~
("') -I
/':00
f"Tl'1:;f
~ Z r(/)
z
C)
)>111
Z)>
O-i
(/)0
Z
. ' I J ~ ; I I I I II I ~I
. " i~'
! i :I> g z III · III Ol r~ 0
C"J ~ ~ I I I
- ~ :::0 . 0 . I ,
I n ~ ::D I I
C -I \ I in
r . v
~ "' -., I I
. I C ~ ~~ oi ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ilI~ I : ~
" :::0 f'Tl I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ! i 90
~ ~~ .~
~ ~ )> ~ . "'- ~ - ~ i~ ~~ a I ~;
~ f ~ 3! ;;
~ ,. ~~ ~o "Ii
-0 (j) i ~ ~ -~ ; \ ~
il '" :::0 -I ~. s~ ~ ~ ~ , :: s-
o ,.,., 0 ; ~2 -!1 ill i
~ UJ ~ ~, ~ . ~
,.,., GJ ~~ ~ ~ >
! :::0 -I < ~ 2 !
< )> 111111111/1 IIIII~ O2 I
,.,., ~
0 ,
0154 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
RES.#D37 /99 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEKS WATERSHED STRATEGY
Report on the Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of
Reference for an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force.
Membership selection, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the
formation and operation of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds
Task Force.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the membership selection, reporting
procedures and terms of reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task
Force, as described in the report dated June 1999 (attached), be approved;
THAT the Authority direct staff to confirm, with local and regional municipalities within the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, the appointment of a council member and alternate
to the Task Force by September 1, 1999;
THAT the Authority direct staff to request selected federal and provincial agencies to appoint
a senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force by September 1, 1999;
THAT the Authority direct staff to invite applications from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
watershed residents to participate on the Task Force;
THAT the Authority direct staff to invite community groups, residents associations, and
education representatives to apply for membership on the task force;
THAT the Authority authorize staff to take all other necessary actions to form an Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force to prepare an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds
Strategy;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership of the
Task Force for endorsement and formal appointment.
AMENDMENT
RES.#D38/99
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT Councillor Cliff.Gyles,-City of-Mississauga.and--Councillor.lrene Jones, City of Toronto,
assist in the interview process for citizen members of the Task Force.
THE AMENDMENT WAS .............................................. CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ................................ CARRIED
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0165
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #1/99, held on February 19, 1999, the Authority adopted Res. #54/99:
"THAT staff be directed to proceed with the initiation of a watershed strategy for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, including meeting with community groups,
municipalities, elected representatives, and watershed residents to seek their input
into the strategy development and task force initiation process;
THA T staff report by the Spring of 1999 on the proposed process for the development
of an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, including such issues as the
formation of a task force and its terms of reference;
THA T staff be directed to circulate the State of the Watershed Report: Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks (December, 1998) to community groups, municipalities, other
agencies, and elected representatives in the watersheds;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to apply for provincial funding to support the
development of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy."
On May 5, 1999, Authority staff held a workshop with municipal and other agency staff, elected
representatives, residents, educators, and community groups to seek their input into the strategy
development and task force initiation process. Approximately 50 people attended this session,
discussing technical and community interests within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds.
The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force will have a membership of approximately
30 people. Members will include elected municipal representatives, provincial and federal agency
staff, and representatives from business and industry, community groups, ratepayers associations,
education, and citizens residing within the watersheds. This cross section of interests, background
and expertise will help to build the strong partnerships needed for planning and implementing the
strategy.
The Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force will be elected from among its members. Lorna Bissell,
Regional Councillor, City of Brampton, has agreed to participate as Interim Chair until this election
occurs.
The Task Force will communicate to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory
Board. The Task Force Chair will be required to coordinate communications to this Board with the
assistance of Authority staff.
In June, a number of Information Sessions have been scheduled to launch the.development of the
Etobicoke and Mimico'C-reekWatersheds-Strategy.'-These-information sessions will provide general
information to individuals interested in knowing more about the Authority, watershed strategy
development or becoming an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force representative.
The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force will include seven citizens residing within
the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watershed.
,
0166 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
The mandate of this Task Force is to:
(a) Develop an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy to achieve a sustainable,
healthy watershed using an ecosystem based approach. Thus, the interrelationship
between natural and cultural heritage, biological and economic processes, and the
integration of conservation, restoration and economic activities will be considered. Restoring
health to the watershed will be of paramount concern.
Some of the management issues that the watershed strategy will deal with will include:
. actions required to address water, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and other
watershed based resource and environmental management issues;
. actions required to protect, link, and regenerate greenspace resources within the
watershed;
. provision of controlled public access and recreational opportunities that are
compatible with environmental management objectives;
. provision for integrating the protection of the watershed's heritage resources with the
regeneration of the natural resources;
. actions required to ensure that the management of environmental issues considers
economic factors;
. the development of reach plans (as defined in the State of the Watershed Report:
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, December 1998);
. establishment of targets and indicators for watershed issues that will be used to
measure progress over time (as discussed in the State of the Watershed Report:
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, December 1998); and
. the mechanisms and integration required to protect, regenerate and sustain a
healthy watershed.
(b) Assist and encourage individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry, and
government agencies in resource planning, stewardship, and management activities within
the watersheds. These activities could include:
. pilot or demonstration management projects;
. community "Adopt a Stream" initiatives;
. water quality public awareness;
. revegetation projects;
. watershed education including natural and cultural heritage; and
. public information including displays, newspaper articles, television and radio
coverage and communications to municipal councils.
(c) The -Task Force membership"Shall: .
. consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry,
and government agencies in the development of the watershed strategy;
. report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the TRCA through the Authority's Watershed
Management Advisory Board;
. report progress to their respective agency, group or general public as required to
maintain effective communications between all partners;
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0167
. participate on technical working groups;
. review and comment on draft Task Force documents;
. assist with consultant selection;
. host local meetings so members become familiar with all geographical areas;
. follow the Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to purchasing, hiring 'of
consultants and all other matters; and
. provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by June 30, 2001.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Two members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board are required, along with one senior
Authority staff, Watershed Management, to form a selection committee to review citizen applications.
A selection process will be developed, in consultation with the selection committee.
Applications and information kits will be prepared for distribution to those people interested in
applying to become a Watershed Task Force member. Applications will be accepted until August
13, 1999. The interview process will take place in late August, early September to accommodate
a Task Force start in late September 1999. Authority staff will make all the necessary arrangements.
Brief interviews will be scheduled in the evening over several days.
Advertisements will be submitted to local papers inviting citizens residing within the watershed and
interested in serving on the Task Force to submit applications/resumes and to attend an
information session scheduled for June, 1999.
Requests will be sent to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds, local and regional
municipalities, to confirm a Council representative appointment to the Task Force.
Selected community groups, residents associations, and educational institutions will be invited to
apply for representation on the task force.
Requests will be sent to selected Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds interest groups and
federal and provincial agencies for the names of their Task Force representative.
A staff report will be prepared recommending to the Authority the membership of the Task Force
and subsequently, the persons selected to the positions of Chair and Vice Chair.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Authority will budget for and administer the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy
project. Funding will be allocated from the project budget for:
. . -Task For-ce-strategy-development-and related initiatives;
. staff secretariat support; and
. Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds regeneration activities.
The development of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy will be subject to
available funding and a work plan developed by the Task Force and approved by the Authority.
0168 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
Staff will continue to investigate funding opportunities with federal and provincial agencies and other
sources to undertake components of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy that
relate to the implementation of the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 313
For information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 313 and Brian Denney, extension 242.
Date: June 8, 1999
Attachments (1)
June 1 8. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0169
Attachment 1
THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS
TASK FORCE
MEMBERSHIP SELECTION
REPORTING PROCEDURES AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
June 1999
0170 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
At Authority Meeting #2/99, held on February 19, 1999, the Authority approved Resolution #A54/99
which states:
THA T staff be directed to proceed with the initiation of a watershed strategy for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, including meeting with community groups,
municipalities, elected representatives, and watershed residents to seek their input
into the strategy development and task force initiation process;
THA T staff report by the Spring of 1999 on the proposed process for the development
of an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy, including such issues as the
formation of a task force and its terms of reference;
THA T staff be directed to circulate the State of the Watershed Report: Etobicoke and
Mimico Creeks (December, 1998) to community groups, municipalities, other
agencies, and elected representatives in the watersheds;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to apply for provincial funding to support the
development of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy.
2.0 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP SELECTION
Members of the Task Force will be appointed by the Authority for a term ending June 30,2001,
subject to an annual review by the Authority.
2.1 Size of the Task Force
The Task Force shall consist of thirty (30) members including:
. the Chair of the Authority or other Authority member as designated;
. one elected representative from each of the four local and two regional municipalities within
the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds which include:
- City of Toronto
. - Regional Municipality of Peel
- City of Toronto (Etobicoke)
- City of Brampton
- Town of Caledon
- City of Mississauga
. five senior Federal and Provincial representatives;
. seven citizens residing within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds;
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0171
. three representatives from community groups;
. three representatives from residents associations;
. one representative from the formal education sector (primary, secondary, or post-
secondary);
. one representative appointed from each of:
- the Toronto Remedial Action Plan
- the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
- Urban Development Institute
- Greater Toronto Airports Authority
- Agriculture Representative
2.1.1 Local and Regional Municipality Representatives
The local and regional municipalities will be requested by the Authority to confirm the
participation of a council member, and an alternate to the Task Force. A municipality may
appoint a current Authority member. Alternate municipal Task Force members will have
voting privileges on all matters of business.
2.1.2 Federal and Provincial Representatives
Selected federal and provincial agencies will be requested by the Authority to appoint a
senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force. Alternate members will have voting
privileges on all matters of business.
2.1.3 Citizen Membership
An advertisement will be placed in local papers requesting interested individuals residing
within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds to apply for appointment to the Task
Force.
The selection of seven citizens who reside within the watersheds will be carried out by a
three person committee comprised of two members of the Watershed Management Advisory
Board, and one senior Authority staff. Seven citizens will be recommended to the Authority
for approval.
2.1.4 Other Community Representatives
Other community partners including community groups, residents associations, and the
formal education sector will be invited to have representation on the task force.
The selection and approval of these members will follow a process similar to that of citizen
members.
,
0172 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
2.2 Membership Selection Criteria for Citizen and Other Community Representatives
In recommending citizens for appointment, the selection committee will take into consideration the
following:
. demonstrated interest and/or active participation in watershed management, community and
heritage issues;
. the ability of the applicant to meet the potential time commitments;
. representation of rural, urban, environmental, recreation, education, heritage and business
interests.
The selection committee will take into account similar criteria for community group, residents
association, and education representatives.
2.3 Attendance by Task Force Members at Meetings
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis. It is anticipated that evening meetings will
be held once per month. Technical working groups may be required to deal with specific issues.
Additional meeting time will be required in these cases. Members unable to fulfil this commitment
will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings to ensure broad and effective
representation on watershed issues.
2.4 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force
The Chair and Vice Chair will be elected by the Task Force from amongst its members.
2.5 Reporting Relationship
The TaSk Force will communicate through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. The Task
Force Chair will be required to coordinate communications to this Board, with the assistance of the
TRCA staff secretariat. Refer also to 6.1 (b)(c).
3.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE TASK FORCE
3.1 TRCA Secretariat
The secretariat will include:
- Project Manager;
- Environmental Technician;
- Secretary (part-time position);
- Writer (part-time position).
The secretariat's role will be to attend all meetings and to assist the Task Force in all activities related
to the development of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0173
3.2 Technical Working Groups and Consultants
Technical specialists representing specific disciplines will be requested from agencies, business and
other sources to assist the Task Force in the development of the strategy and to provide technical
advice or review of key reports. The technical specialists will also provide a communications link
to planning and resource managers, within affected agencies and groups.
Technical specialists may include one or more person(s) with expertise in:
- Water Quality
- Groundwater
- Hydrology/Hydraulics
- Terrestrial Ecology
- Land Use Planning
- Restoration Ecology
- Municipal Operations and Maintenance
- Local/Regional, Provincial and Federal Government Programs
- Fisheries Management
- Community Involvement/Public Consultation
- Data Management/GIS
- Tourism
- Recreation
- Cultural Heritage
- Education
- Services and Utilities
- Marketi ng/Com m u n ications.
The Technical Working Group(s) will be formed following the appointment of the Task Force
members as the need is identified.
3.3 Budget
The Authority will budget for and administer the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy
project. Funding will be allocated from the project budget for:
- Task Force strategy development and related initiatives;
- Staff secretariat support; and
- Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds regeneration activities.
The development of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy will be subject to
available funding and-a work.plan.<:leveloped-by -the Task-Force and-approved by the Authority.
4.0 COMPENSATION OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS
For regular Task Force meetings, members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority
policy.
0174 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
5.0 RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE TASK FORCE
The Task Force will follow the Rules of Conduct of the Authority (The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority), as adopted by Resolution #3 of the Authority Meeting #2/86, or as
may be amended. A quorum will consist of a majority of the members of the Task Force.
6.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE
The goal of the Authority through the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force is to
develop a management strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds which will be
adopted and supported by municipal and agency politicians and staff; community groups; business
and industry; watershed residents; and the general public. The watershed strategy must also
empower everyone to become actively involved in watershed management, stewardship activities
and raise public awareness and understanding of environmentally sensitive planning and planning
Issues.
6.1 Mandate of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force
The mandate of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force is to:
(a) Develop an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy to achieve a sustainable,
healthy watershed for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watersheds using an ecosystem
based approach. This approach recognizes the interrelationship between natural and
cultural heritage, physical, biological and economic processes, and the integration of
conservation, restoration and economic activities to ensure the continued health of the
watershed.
Some of the management issues that the watershed strategy will deal with will
include:
. actions required to address water, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and other
watershed based resource and environmental management issues;
. actions required to protect, link, and regenerate greenspace resources within the
watershed;
. provision of controlled public access and recreational opportunities that are
compatible with environmental management objectives;
. provision for integrating the protection of the watershed's heritage resources with the
regeneration of the natural resources;
. actions required to ensure that the management of environmental issues considers
economic factors;
. - . ..the development of reach-plans- (as-defined -in the State of the Watershed Report:
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, December 1998);
. establishment of targets and indicators for watershed issues that Will be used to
measure progress over time (as discussed in the State of the Watershed Report:
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, December 1998); and
. the mechanisms and integration required to protect, regenerate and sustain a
healthy watershed.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0175
(b) Assist and encourage individuals, interest groups, communities, schools, business, industry,
and government agencies in resource planning, stewardship, and management activities
within the watersheds. These activities could include:
. pilot or demonstration management projects;
. community "Adopt a Stream" initiatives;
. water quality public awareness;
. revegetation projects;
. watershed education including natural and cultural heritage; and
. public information including displays, newspaper articles, television and radio
coverage and communications to municipal councils.
(c) The Task Force membership shall:
. consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry,
and government agencies in the development of the watershed strategy;
. report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the TRCA through the Authority's Watershed
Management Advisory Board;
. report progress to their respective agency, group or general public as required to
maintain effective communications between all partners;
. participate on technical working groups;
. review and comment on draft Task Force documents;
. assist with consultant selection;
. host local meetings so members become familiar with all geographical areas;
. follow the Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to purchasing, hiring Qf
consultants and all other matters; and
. provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by June 30, 2001.
0176 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
RES.#D39/99 - FEDERAL FISHERIES ACT - FISH HABITAT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
RENEWAL The TRCNFederal Department of Fisheries and Oceans
agreement respecting Fisheries Act Section 35 (habitat management)
implementation, originally signed July 23, 1998 is up for renewal.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to renew the existing
Fish Habitat Management Agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for another
year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
I n July 1998 the TRCA entered into an agreement with the Federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans respecting worksharing arrangements for initial screening, mitigation requirements and
compensation planning (level 3) for the purposes of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act (Board resolution
attached) . The intent of the agreement is to facilitate adequate fish habitat protection and a
streamlined approach to approvals since the September 1997 withdrawal of the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (OMNR) from an interim agreement respecting the same.
Over the past year, 31 of 36 Conservation Authorities have entered into various levels of agreement
with the DFO. The TRCA is one of three Conservation Authorities who initially signed on to level 3
agreements. Original agreements were signed for a period of one year, allowing both parties the
opportunity to revisit the agreement at that time.
RATIONALE
After one year of implementation, staff feel that the agreement provides opportunities to improve
customer service while protecting fish habitat. Initiatives to further streamline agreement
implementation are being reviewed jointly by both parties. Proposed operational changes have
been identified and steps are being taken to incorporate them into our internal protocol. All changes
are relatively minor in nature and will not require changes to the agreement.
With respect to monitoring and research, DFO has been resourcing TRCA initiatives over the last
year and additional opportunities are being investigated for the next year.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff have been advised by DFO that the existing agreement can be renewed by letter prior to July
23, 1999. Staff are not proposing any changes to the agreement and therefore recommend
renewing the agreement for another year.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 D1n
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Wrth the original signing, it was agreed that the Authority's existing planning fee schedule and permit
fees include Authority staff review of fish habitat interests. After one year of implementation, staff feel
that additional funding specific to our role under this level 3 agreement is not required to administer
the agreement for another one year term. Financial arrangements will continue to be monitored and
reviewed over the next year.
For information contact: Sandra Malcic, extension 217
Date: June 2, 1999
Attachments (1)
,
0178 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
Attachment 1
January 23, 1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board # 10/97 D595
RES. #0134/97 - FEDERAL FISHERIES ACT
Section 35 - Habitat Management (Section 35) Implementation
A proposed agreement between TRCA and the Federal Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to streamline the approach to fish habitat protection
through land use development and permitting since the withdrawal of the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) from an interim agreement
with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) on September
18,1997.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on Federal Fisheries Act
Section 35 - Habitat Management Implementation be received;
THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
Conservation Ontario to finalize and enter into a level 3 (Compensation Planning) agreement
permitting the TRCA to perform Screening, Mitigation and Compensation Planning for fisheries
habitat protection within our jurisdiction;
AND FURTHER THAT in the event that the finalization of the attached draft generic agreement
results in substantial changes which will have the effect of modifying the intent of the
agreement, staff be directed to report back to the Board with the revised agreement.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1989 DFO and OMNR entered into an interim agreement under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act.
The agreement had the effect of permitting OMNR staff to review plans, permits and proposals to
assess the impacts of the proposal on fish habitat, provide direction on and approve mitigation
measures and facilitate the DFO Authorization of harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish
habitat, including any requirement for compensation. On September 18, 1997 OMNR withdrew from
this agreement leaving the full responsibility for review and authorization of projects under Section
35 of the Fisheries Act to DFO. The result is a substantial increase in the number of reviews to be
conducted by limited DFO staff and subsequent delays for public and private sector proponents of
development and rehabilitation projects.
Discussions between DFO and OMNR for a long term solution to the issue of fish habitat protection
in Ontario are still taking-place: .In-order to -facilitate -adequate fish -habitat protection and a
streamlined approach to approvals in the interim, DFO staff has been working with Conservation
Ontario and Parks Canada to investigate opportunities to have fish habitat reviews conducted in
concert with other review and approval processes. Draft generic agreements are the result of
several working sessions conducted between the three parties. There are three draft agreements
which have the effect of permitting Conservation Authorities to assume varying levels of
responsibility with respect to section 35, fish habitat protection.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0179
D596 Watershed Managment Advisory Board #10/97 January 23, 1998
Level 1 (Screening)
The Conservation Authority agrees to include in its reviews the determination of whether or
not fish habitat will be harmed or affected. All files affecting fish habitat will be deferred to
DFO for review and approval.
Level 2 (Mitigation)
The Conservation Authority agrees to screen all applications for potential fish habitat impacts
(as per level 1 ), provide guidance to the proponent on acceptable mitigation and approve
all works that include adequate mitigation measures. Files which cannot be adequately
mitigated, and require DFO authorization pursuant to the Fisheries Act will be deferred to
DFO for review and approval.
Level 3 (Compensation Planning)
The Conservation Authority agrees to screen all applications for potential fish habitat impacts
(level 1), direct and approve mitigation (level 2) and facilitate DFO authorization of harmful
impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated. This facilitation, or compensation planning,
will include providing information relating to compensation of harmful changes to habitat to
the proponent and DFO as scientific and technical advice. DFO authorization of these
harmful alterations, disruptions and destructions, including any compensation plans, will still
be required.
Subsequent to Planning Reform, and the Provincial delegation of planning approvals to
municipalities, the Authority has been working with our municipal partners to streamline the
approvals process. The Authority's review role under this streamlined process includes
consideration of the Natural Heritage component of the Provincial Policy Statement. Fish habitat
protection is a component of this review under the Planning Act. Additionally, staff currently have
regard for the protection of fish habitat in their review of permit applications and through the
development of Fisheries Management Plans. This review is consistent with the role assumed by
the Authority under the Don River Watershed, "One Window" Agreement with OMNR.
In light of our current involvement in fish habitat protection, staff feel that a commitm~nt to deliver
the level 3 responsibilities, as set out in the attached draft generic agreement, will result in better
service to our clients and municipal partners and facilitate a streamlined approach to planning and
permitting approvals.
DETAILS OF WORK :rO.BE.DONE
The attached generic agreement is a draft prepared by a writing team of staff from DFO, select
Conservation Authorities and Parks Canada. This draft is now in its final stages of review by all
Conservation Authorities, Conservation Ontario and their lawyers and DFO staff and senior
management. Major changes are not anticipated. Final agreements are to be ready in February.
Staff is recommending approval to execute the agreement at that time.
0180 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
January 23, 1998 Watershed Managment Advisory Board #10/97 D597
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Authority's existing planning fee schedule includes Authority staff review of fish habitat interests.
Fisheries habitat review and assessment for permit applications will be included as part of our permit
fees which are currently under review. Additional funding specific to our role under this level 3
agreement is not required.
Report prepared by:
Sandra Malcic, ext. 217
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEM~NT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0181
RES.#D40/99 - ENFORD ROAD INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN
Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures. Interim flood plain planning
procedures are being recommended for a portion of the flood plain
associated with the German Mills Creek, Town of Richmond Hill, that will
permit limited development and redevelopment until such time as a Special
Policy Area designation is determined.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled "Interim Flood Plain
Planning Procedures, Town of Richmond Hill, dated May 1999 be approved;
THAT the Authority administer its Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations
within the Enford Industrial District in accordance with these interim procedures as approved
by the Town of Richmond Hill Council;
AND FURTHER THAT the Interim Procedures be superseded by approved Special Policy Area
policies or be reevaluated by December 2001 ............................. CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
There are several applications for redevelopment proposed within the Enford Industrial District, a
developed industrial community within the flood plain of the German Mills Creek. Based on the
current policies within the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, no new
development or major redevelopment is permissible. As a result, the Town of Richmond Hill and the
TRCA has identified the need for interim flood plain planning procedures and Special Policy Area,
and steps to facilitate their adoption have taken place.
To this end the Town of Richmond Hill at its meeting of the Planning Committee on May 19th, 1999
has approved a report to adopt the interim procedures and to move forward with designation of a
Special Policy Area. The report is scheduled to be presented to Town of Richmond Hill Council at
its meeting on June 7th, 1999.
Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures
Interim flood plain planning procedures are being recommended for the following reasons:
The Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program provides criteria for evaluating
development applications within the floodplain. In this regard Section 4.2.1 Development and
Redevelopment/Intensification Within Established Communities/Highly Urbanized Areas notes
that the Authority .iRlplements.a..One .z-one-Appr-oach-t0 flood-plain- management based on the
Regulatory Flood Standard, in accordance with Provincial Planning Policy.
The one zone approach currently being utilized in this area would not allow for any major
redevelopment(greater than 50 percent of the size of existing structures)and as a result existing
facilities cannot be expanded to facilitate their operational needs.
0182 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
Exceptions to the One Zone Approach may be permitted where it has been fully demonstrated that
the prohibition of new development would have serious impacts on the economic and social health
of an existing flood Drone community, and that the potential impacts warrants acceptance of a
higher. level of flood risk and approval of either a Special Policy Area or as a two zone pursuant to
Provincial Policy.
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program also highlights the process required to
achieve approval of a Special Policy Area including the requirement that the process be initiated at
the request of the local municipality. To this end the Town of Richmond Hill has recognized this
developed industrial community as an appropriate site for Special Policy Area consideration given
the serious economic and social health impacts ff the area was not allowed to continue to modernize
to meet industry demands.
The area under consideration is all developed with industrial uses. There are no vacant lots
remaining, however there are a number of proposals for redevelopment and expansion of existing
industrial facilities.
The Interim Procedures:
. provide increased flexibility regarding the type of development/redevelopment that may be
considered; such as major additions;
. maintain the flood proofing standards of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management
Program;
. incorporate increased restrictions regarding the portion of the floodplain where
development/redevelopment may be permitted to occur(areas of less than 1 metre of
flooding under regulatory flood conditions);
. recommend that development/redevelopment be prohibited on lands identified for future
flood control works.
Development applications shall be subject to normal review and approval procedures pursuant to
the Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation.
It is anticipated that the Interim Procedures shall provide sufficient flexibility to minimize the number
of appeals pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 and/or the Planning Act.
All parties including the Region of York and the Ministry of Natural Resources shall be consulted as
required to support the Special Policy Area designation as being requested by the Town of
Richmond Hill-and..pfomoted .through..the .Authority~s..valley -and-Stream -Corridor Management
Program.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Prior to implementation of the report entitled "Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures"
council approval from the Town of Richmond Hill will be required. It is anticipated that the council
approval will be provided on the meeting of June 7th, 1999 and prior to the approval of this report
at the Watershed Management Advisory Board.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0183
TRCA staff support the process of establishing a Special Policy Area for this section of the German
Mills Creek which although subject to minor flood depths(less than 1 metre in all instances) is
currently all developed. We also support the interim procedures as outlined below, which will
facilitate several expansions to existing industrial uses which have been on hold, pending the
establishment of a Special Policy Area.
Staff will continue to work with Richmond Hill, and as required the Ministry of Natural Resources,
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Region of York to facilitate the final approval of the Special
Policy Area designation for the subject lands.
For information contact: Russel White, extension 306
Date: June 4, 1999
Attachments (2)
0184 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
Attachment 1
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures
Town of Richmond Hill
May 1999
I ntrod uction:
Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures have been developed for the Enford Industrial District of
the Town of Richmond Hill being part of the Regional Storm Flood Plain for the German Mills
Creek(see Fig. 1 attached). These procedures will provide a set of Interim Flood Proofing Policies
that will be used to evaluate development applications pursuant to the Authority's Fill Construction
and Alteration to Waterways Regulations(Ontario Regulation 158). This approach is necessary prior
to the approval of Special Policy Area Policies, the finalization of Flood Plain Mapping, and in light
of the increasing number of development applications within this developed industrial district.
\t is recognized that there are a number of characteristics of this stream corridor which are generally
absent in other areas of TRCA jurisdiction. These characteristics along with the inadequacy of the
current policies for development within established communities within the Authority's Valley and
Stream Corridor Management Program, to address issues relating to development/redevelopment
justify the approval of the interim procedures. The characteristics of this corridor are as follows:
1 ) The corridor is a well developed industrial community within the Regional Storm Floodplain.
2) The areas are not Fill Regulated.
3) The watercourse for the most part is channelized and/or buried with no riparian vegetation.
4) The properties which are all developed are experiencing urban renewal and are currently
zoned to allow for development and redevelopment.
6) The properties are registered lots of record.
T~ere are a number of proposals which are being developed for the area which calls for the
recognition of new principles through which development/redevelopment can occur. In this regard
we outline the following:
Principles:
1 ) Development/redevelopmentwill'be"restricted to areas 'oftheflodd plain where the depths
of flooding and velocities are non life threatening, and property damage can be minimized.
2) The highest level of flood proofing technically and economically feasible will be achieved.
3) Approvals pursuant to the Authority's Fill Construction and Alteration to Waterways
Regulations are granted at the discretion of the Executive Committee.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0185
StudY Area
The interim procedures shall apply to those lands within the regulatory storm flood plain where
depths under regulatory flood conditions are less than 1 metre. New development shall not be
permitted within 10 metres from the open sections of watercourse, and wherever possible
regeneration of the watercourse will be undertaken to restore the natural flood plain.
Development Guidelines
1) Development/redevelopment must be protected to the level of the Regulatory Flood as
defined by the floodplain mapping prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited on
behalf of the TRCA and Town of Richmond Hill.
Based on site specific considerations where it is not feasible to flood protect to the level of
the regulatory flood, then a lower level of flood protection may be permitted.
The specific level of flood protection to be imposed and any flood protection measures to
be implemented relative to individual development applications, shall be determined by the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Town of Richmond Hill staff.
The level of flood protection to be required shall be the highest level determined to be
technically feasible or practical.
2) New developable lots shall not be permitted in the flood plain until the Special Policy Area
Policies are in place.
3) In all instances, ingress and egress shall be "safe" in addition to the maximum level of flood
protection determined to be feasible shall be considered.
4) Flood damage protection measures shall be carried out by the proponent of any
development to achieve the required level of flood protection.
The selection of flood damage reduction measures shall be based on the following
alternatives, listed in order of priority:
(I) Dry, passive flood proofing measures shall be implemented to the extent technically
and/or practically feasible. Dry floodproofing is the elevation of structural openings
above the regulatory flood level.
(ii) Wet flood proofing measures may be permissible to minimize flood risk and/or meet
-the.;ninimum~level of flood'protection'-required.-Wet floodproofing is the use of
materials, methods and design measures to maintain structural integrity and
minimize water damage.
(1) Dry, active flood proofing measures may be permissible to minimize flood risk. Dry
active f100dproofing is the use of flood proofing techniques that require some action
prior to an impending flood in order to make flood protection operational.
0186 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
5) All applications for development/redevelopment may be accompanied by engineering
studies, prepared by a qualified professional, detailing such matters as flood frequency,
depth and velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage reduction measures
including structural design details, stormwater management techniques, and or other
necessary information and studies as may be required by the TRCA and the Town of
Richmond Hill
6) New development shall not be permitted to locate in the flood plain where the use is:
(I) associated with the manufacture, storage, disposal and/or consumption of
hazardous substances or the treatment, collection and disposal of sewage, which
would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety if they were to escape their
normal containment/use as a result of flooding or failure of flooding measures;
(ii) associated with institutional services, such as hospitals, nursing homes and schools,
which would pose a significant threat to the safety of the inhabitants(eg. the sick, the
elderly, the disabled or the young). if involved in an emergency evacuation situation
as a result of flooding or failure of flood proofing measures; and,
(iii) associated with services such as those provided by fire, police and ambulance
stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during a flood
emergency as a result of flooding or failure of flood proofing measures.
7) Notwithstanding the above, no new development or redevelopment shall be permitted if:
(I) the development would be subjected to a water velocity or depth which would create
an unacceptable hazard to life; or
(ii) the development would be susceptible to major structural damage as a result of a
flood less than or equal to the Regulatory Flood; or
(iii) the necessary flood protection will have a negative impact on adjacent properties.
8) The Authority shall seek to regenerate the watercourse reach through advocating the re-
establishment of a riparian zone and the naturalizing of channelized sections of the
watercourse reach on any new development proposal in consultation with the Town of
Richmond Hill staff.
Implementation
1 ) Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 written permission from the TRCA Execl,ltive Committee
must be received prior to:
(a) the construction of any buildings or structure within the regulatory storm flood plain;
June 18. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0187
(b) the straightening, changing, diversion or interference in any way with the existing
channel of a river creek stream or watercourse.
Applications shall be evaluated in accordance with the Interim Flood Plain Planing
Procedures described above.
2) All development applications in proximity to the watercourse reach shall be TRCA for review
and comment by the Town of Richmond Hill.
3) The Interim Procedures shall be superseded by approved Special Policy Area policies and
will be re-evaluated upon completion of the final flood plain mapping limits.
0188 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
Attachment 2
-
Map 1
RICHMOND HILL
\ ,
---
., I
I -i
en 0
-u ;;
J> ~
III 0
0 ..
c ~
Z 0.
0 ii'
J> '"
::J "
-< ~
n
0
ii
..
~
"
"
lo
c:
5-
~
~
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0189
RES.#D41 /99 - SEDIMENT AWARENESS PROJECT
A demonstration project focussing on the reduction of sediment loading
during construction through improved planning, site monitoring, and choice
of techniques.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to work in
partnership with the development industry, the Ministries of Natural Resources and the
Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, member municipalities and other
stakeholders in support of the Sediment Awareness Project to develop mechanisms to reduce
the sediment loading to receiving streams;
THA T at an appropriate time, the results of this project be shared with all The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's municipalities through a workshop or other program;
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be requested to provide financial support toward assisting in
the monitoring of the demonstration site located in the Rouge watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized to enter into agreements with members of the
development industry with respect to the monitoring of demonstration sites for the duration
of this Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
For many years, there have been significant concerns regarding the amount of sediment generated
from construction sites, particularly in the sensitive headwater streams in the Great Lakes Basin. A
number of efforts have been undertaken by the TRCA and others to address this problem. The
adequacy of the planning process, the appropriate selection of sediment control best management
practices, and the maintenance of these temporary devices through the servicing and building
phases, have been identified as potential issues in sediment and erosion management.
In 1994, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region RAP document "Clean Waters, Clear Choices"
recommended:
. Better enforcement of existing guidelines for control of sediment loss from construction
activities;
. The creation of better education programs for the development industry and the
establishment of improved methods of erosion and sediment control.
Similar recommendationswere-a1so'made-in"uForty.Steps.to a-New-Don", ""Legacy" and "A Call to
Action".
In 1998, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (Don Council) identified through its work plan
the need to refocus business, community, municipal and agency attention on reducing sediment
loads to the Don. At Meeting #6/98, the Don Council adopted a four-point program to address
sediment control:
0190 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
1. Technology, Techniques and Standards Workshop
2. Planning Process and Protocol Workshop
3. Education and Technology Transfer
4. Demonstration Sites
Since that time, a number of specific actions have been undertaken, including:
. formation of a stakeholders committee including representatives of the Urban Development
Institute, the Ministries of Natural Resources and the Environment, the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, the City of Vaughan, the Towns of Markham, Richmond Hill and Ajax,
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and the TRCA;
. agreement to proceed with a short issue paper - 'The Case for Change - A New Process for
Sediment Control in Developing Areas';
. identification of three potential demonstration sites to test new technologies and
opportunities to improve the planning and maintenance for sediment and erosion control;
. development of a funding partnership including direct and in-kind resources from a number
of stakeholders including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans;
. opportunities for testing new techniques including catch basin designs.
RATIONALE
The Don Council recognized that the issue of sediment generation is common to all the watersheds
within the TRCA's jurisdiction. The headwaters of the Don lie within the City of Vaughan and the
Towns of Markham and Richmond Hill which also contains portions of the headwaters of the
Humber and the Rouge Rivers. Representatives of the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Rouge
Park Alliance were consulted and indicated their support for this Sediment Awareness Project.
The criteria established for the selection of the demonstration sites included that, if possible, the
sites be chosen early in the development process to ensure that the entire servicing and building
phases are covered in the demonstration.
Monitoring actual development sites will: provide first-hand knowledge for the regulatory agencies
working in conjunction with developers and builders; identify the need for industry and agency
education; and provide the opportunity to test an enhanced planning process currently being
developed in conjunction with staff of the four municipalities.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Three potential sites have been chosen: one each in the City of Vaughan, and the Towns of
Markham and Ajax. Negotiations are underway and letters of understanding to be signed by the
owner/developer, the municipality, the TRCA, and DFO will be drafted to ensure the commitment
of all parties to the project
The sediment management.plan.for-eact:l-site-will.be-developed in-conjunction with the stakeholder
committee. A monitoring protocol will be developed which includes visual inspections on a regular
basis for all sites and detailed physical monitoring of at least one site where new technologies are
being tested.
It is anticipated that one to two years of data will be collected to assess the sediment management
approaches used at each site.
June 18. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0191
A workshop will be planned for early 2000 to further the industry and municipal awareness of the
issues and discuss the issue paper "The Case for Change - A New Process for Sediment Control in
Developing Areas" following completion of the initial monitoring at the demonstration sites.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds are available to initiate this project through special provisions of the federal Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and through the 1999/2000 Toronto RAP funding. Additional funds will be
sought from the Rouge Park Alliance, the Ministry of the Environment and others. The TRCA will
provide limited funding from its watershed strategy implementation budgets and the assignment of
technical staff to manage the project.
For information contact:Glenn MacMillan, extension 212 or Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: June 3, 1999
RES.#D42/99 - DEMONSTRATION OF A ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM SELECTION TOOL
IN URBAN ROAD PROJECTS Completion of an Authority study which
tested and revised a road drainage system "Selection Tool" during the
planning and design of four municipal road reconstruction projects.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT copies of the reports "Demonstration
of a Conveyance System Selection Tool in Urban Road Projects", by Totten Sims Hubicki
Associates and Donald G. Weatherbe Associates, and "Alternative Road Drainage System
Selection Tool", by J. F. Sabourin and Associates Inc., and/or a summary of the study results
be distributed to all member municipalities and other key agencies and organizations involved
in stormwater management;
THAT all member municipalities be requested to consider the adoption of a policy that would
enable the use of alternative road drainage systems, where feasible;
AND FURTHER THAT staff encourage municipalities and development proponents to use the
Road Drainage System Selection Tool as a means of determining the optimal road drainage
system for a given site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the Authority-<:ompleted-a-study.An-Evaluation of--Roadside-Ditches and Other Related
Stormwater Management Practices. The study identified a number of road drainage practices, which
when used alone or in combination with other measures, are capable of meeting current objectives
for stormwater management. These practices include:
0192 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
. grassed swales
. perforated pipes
. exfiltration systems
. roadside ditches
. curb-gutter-sewer systems
The study found that traditional curb-gutter-sewer designs are often adopted as the municipal
standard in favour of alternative approaches that may provide greater environmental benefits.
Municipal designers are reluctant to use alternative systems due to lack of experience with these
systems, lack of information as to the design's compatibility with the site and with public
expectations, and perceived additional long term maintenance requirements and costs.
The study investigated and reported on the environmental, engineering, social and economic
advantages/disadvantages associated with various road drainage systems and recommended a
procedure (i.e. a USelecti~n Tool") for selecting the optimal road drainage alternative according to
site specific characteristics and expectations.
A subsequent demonstration project, just completed, involved the testing and refinement of the
Selection Tool. The Selection Tool considers: site features (such as soil type, groundwater and
bedrock levels, and slope); development characteristics (such as type of land use, density, right-of-
way size, and lot features); the ability of alternative drainage schemes to meet stormwater
management objectives (such as criteria for groundwater protection, erosion control, quality control
and flood control); and costs.
Project partners included: the City of Ottawa, City of Toronto, Town of Richmond Hill, Environment
Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund (GL2000CUF), the Ministry of the Environment (MOE),
the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and Ryerson
University.
The Selection Tool was used in the design of four urban road reconstruction projects (Table 1).
Preliminary design drawings were prepared for each project.
I Table 1: Demonstration Projects I
Road Site Watershed Recommended Road Drainage System
Hillsview Avenue, Richmond Hill German Mills Creek shallow ditches/swales with storm sewer
Lane between Hiawatha Road Ashbridge's Bay perforated pipe infiltration system
and Ashdale Avenue, just north
of Fairford Avenue, Toronto
Zephyr Street, Ottawa Brittania Bay area of shallow storm sewer to accommodate sump
the Ottawa River pump connections and shallow swales with
no culverts
Sanford Avenue, Ottawa Rideau Canal shallow roadside perforated pipe infiltration
systems with shallow swales
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0193
Based on the experience with its use in the demonstration projects, several improvements were
made to the selection tool in the following areas: revised cost tables; the addition of standardized
objective setting tables; update and completion of stormwater management performance tables;
and clearer documentation for the tool's use. One significant improvement is the transformation of
the tool from a paper copy to a digital spreadsheet format, for on-screen use. It is expected that this
latter improvement will make the tool much easier to use, and will thereby enhance its adoption by
designers.
BENEFITS
The preliminary design drawings for each road reconstruction project will provide the basis for
municipal proponents to proceed with the detailed design and construction of the works.
Phosphorus and suspended sediment removal efficiencies have been reported in the r.ange of 60-
80% for road drainage alternatives such as infiltration trenches, grass swales, and grass swales with
perforated pipes. Preliminary monitoring of exfiltration systems has found complete capture (i.e. no
runoff) of runoff from some storms up to 15 mm. These retrofit drainage works will, therefore, reduce
pollutant loadings to receiving waterbodies and assist in reducing the rate and volume of stormwater
runoff from the areas involved. The City of Toronto anticipates construction of the Hiawatha Ave.
project in 1999. In this particular case, the retrofit works will demonstrate the benefits of source
control of stormwater runoff in a combined sewer area.
The improved Selection Tool will facilitate road drainage evaluations by municipalities and others.
There is evidence that SWM designers are interested in obtaining further design assistance in the
area of alternative road drainage, and therefore, should be receptive to using the revised Selection
Tool. The original "Roadside Ditches" Report was distributed in 1997 to 170 municipalities,
conservation authorities and government agencies. An additional 100 copies of the report have
since been ordered by municipalities, consultants, community groups, and organizations. While
many of these requests have been from Ontario, a number have been from as far away as New
Zealand, the United States, British Columbia and Alberta.
The demonstration projects and improved selection tool can be used, by the Authority, as new
products to promote the consideration of alternative road drainage systems that meet current
environmental objectives.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Information about the study will be distributed to all member municipalities, and other key agencies
and organizations involved in stormwater management. Information will be posted on the
Authority's web site, and presentations will be arranged for inclusion in the Authority's annual SWM
Seminar and other venues.
0194 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for the project was $45000, which was derived from the following sources:
GL2000cUF ($2??oo), City of Ottawa ($10000), City of Toronto ($ 5000), MOE ($ 5000), and TRCA
($ 50qO). Each of the municipal partners also provided in-kind contributions in the form of base
survey drawings, soils data, and technical input.
Funding is available in account 121-25 to cover printing and distribution costs.
For information contact: Sonya Meek extension 253
Date: June 3, 1999
RES.#D43/99 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY SEDIMENT MAINTENANCE
GUIDE
Completion of a report and guidelines on the removal and disposal of
stormwater management pond sediments.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a copy of the "Stormwater
Management Facility Sediment Maintenance Guide" by Greenland Engineering and/or a
summary of the study results be distributed to all member municipalities and other key
agencies and organizations involved in stormwater management;
AND FURTHER THAT staff encourage municipalities to recognize the importance of regular
maintenance programs in ensuring the continued effectiveness of stormwater management
facilities ........................................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At its Meeting #10/97, the Executive Committee adopted Res.#B192/97:
"THA T the Authority provide administrative and accounting services on behalf of a
partnership of agencies and municipalities interested in undertaking a study into the
removal and disposal of stormwater management pond sediments;
AND FURTHER THAT Greenland Engineering Group be retained by the Authority at a
cost not to'exceed-$l2;500j'-conditional uponleceipt-oUunds from-all partners, to
carry out a study into the removal and disposal of stormwater management pond
sediments. "
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0195
In 1997, Greenland Engineering submitted an unsolicited proposal to a number of conservation
authorities and municipalities in Ontario to undertake research into cost-effective methods for
removing and disposing of sediments from stormwater management facilities (SWMF). A number
of groups, including the TRCA, recognized this research as a worthwhile endeavour. In the near
future, many municipalities will be faced with the need to remove and dispose of accumulated
sediments from SWMF, in order to ensure their continued design operation. SWMF maintenance
represents a significant municipal concern, due to uncertainty as to the required frequency of
maintenance activities, methods, approval procedures, and cost.
Following the Executive Committee direction, Authority staff and Greenland Engineering formed a
Steering Committee to oversee the stormwater management facility maintenance study. Steering
Committee members included representation from each of the following groups: Town of Ajax, City
of Brampton, City of Toronto (Etobicoke District), Town of Markham, City of Oshawa, Town of
Whitby, Credit Valley Conservation, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transportation,
Environment Canada, and the Urban Development Institute.
The study involved: a review of relevant literature and legislation; review of current SWM facility
design criteria; survey of Ontario municipalities and subsequent case studies of completed
maintenance projects; and evaluation of data on sediment accumulation rates and sediment
chemistry. Key findings are as follows:
. responsibility for operating and maintaning SWMF lies with the owners (usually
municipalities) and is stipulated under the Ontario Water Resources Act.
. a number of agencies may be involved in the review and approval of a sediment removal
project, including: Ministry of the Environment (sediment quality testing and disposal).
Conservation Authority (basin dewatering, fill placement, diverting or by-passing flows). and
Department of Fisheries and Oceans or its agent (fish habitat)
. maintenance frequency can be forecasted using estimates of sediment loading and removal
efficiencies published in the literature or from field measurements. Field measurements will
provide more accurate estimates, due to the variability in accumulation rates among SWMF.
For example, sediment accumulation rates ranged from 13 - 250 mm/yr among the eight
case studies.
. sediment chemistry generally varies according to land use types, with sediments from
residential catchments typically having lower pollutant concentrations than those from
commercial and industrial areas. Sediment contaminant levels in most (6 of 8) of the case
studies were not high enough to require landfill disposal.
. a variety- of-mecl:lanical..8FId -hydraulic- dredging-technologies -are -available for sediment
removal. The choice of technology will depend on factors such as site accessibility, volume
to be removed, options to by-pass inflow runoff, in-situ sediment drying potential, etc.
0196 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
. sediment removal and disposal costs can vary substantially, depending on site specific
factors (e.g. requirement for landfill disposal, dredging technique, transportation to disposal
site, amount of restoration, etc.). Total project costs in the eight case studies ranged from
$14/m3 to $669/m3 (1997 dollars), and total project costs in the range of $12,100 to $1.1 M
(the majority of projects were in the order of $300,000).
The report provides guidelines for forecasting, planning and implementing a sediment
removal/disposal operation. It also provides recommendations for preventitive maintenance
activities that can prolong the life of a facility and design considerations for new facilities, in order
to simplify future maintenance activities.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff and other members of the project steering committee are currently completing their
review of the final draft report. The final report is expected to be available for distribution by late July
1999.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total study cost of $12,500 was derived from the contributing study partners as follows: TRCA
($1,500); Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance (SWAMP) Program ($5,000); and
Credit Valley Conservation, Town of Ajax, City of Brampton, City of Toronto (Etobicoke District),
Town of Markham, City of Oshawa, and Town of Whitby. Greenland Engineering contributed in-kind
consulting services, valued at $5,000.
For information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 253
June 8, 1999
RES.#D44/99 - PESTICIDE STUDY IN THE DON AND HUMBER RIVERS
Information about an Environment Canada monitoring study to determine the
presence of pesticides in the lower Don and Humber Rivers.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT this report be sent to the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, City of Toronto;
THAT the City of Toronto be encouraged to continue to assist Environment Canada in the
completion of its-Toronto--Stream Pesticide Study,by-providing"technical and financial support;
AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff continue to assist in this study and seek opportunities to
promote public education and awareness regarding pesticide use ............ CARRIED
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0197
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on April 21, 1999, the City of Toronto's Works and Utilities Committee had before it
a report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the water
treatment process, quality assurance methods, and an assessment of the drinking water quality
analyses. The report noted that pesticides are occasionally detected in the City of Toronto's treated
drinking water supply, although they are at extremely low levels and well below the Maximum
Acceptable Concentrations. The City currently tests for over 100 pesticides, annually, to ensure their
continued absence in drinking water. Over the past decade pesticide detection has varied from no
pesticides detected in 1988 and 1989, to up to three pesticides detected at extremely low levels in
any given year during the early 1900's. Since 1995 only one pesticide (atrazine) has been detected,
at levels 50 times lower than the maximum acceptable concentration.
The Committee:
"requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and/or the Medical
Officer of Health to submit a report to the Committee on pesticide testing results in
the City's watersheds, for example, at the mouth of the Don River, and on the
implications of the findings of such tests; and that The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority be invited to participate in compiling test results and offering
their commentary on those results."
In June 1998, Environment Canada initiated a water quality monitoring project to determine the
degree of pesticide contamination in the lower Don and Humber Rivers. Water samples are being
anaJysed for a number of pesticides commonly used in urban and agricultural settings including:
phenoxy acid herbicides (e.g. mecoprop, 2,4-D). organophosphorus insecticides (e.g. diazinon,
chlorpyrifos), organochlorine insecticides, triazine herbicides (e.g. atrazine). EBDC fungicides, and
other compounds. Environmental concentrations of these compounds would be expected to be
at their highest during rain events immediately following application periods. Project partners
include the City of Toronto's Public Works Industrial Waste and Stormwater Quality Unit, the
University of Guelph, and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Samples were also
collected from additional urban sites in Hamilton and Guelph.
Grab water samples (1 litre) were collected primarily during moderate to heavy rain events from two
locations in the lower Don and Humber Rivers by the City's Public Works Industrial Waste and
Stormwater Quality Control Unit. Station locations on the Don include: (1) 75 metres south of the
Pottery Road Bridge, and (2) at the confluence of Wilket Creek and the West Don. Station locations
on the Humber include: (1) opposite the Humber Yacht Club, south of Bloor Street, and (2) a
tributary as it enters and leaves the Scarlett Woods Golf Course. When possible, sample collection
coincided with peak flow periods after the start of storms. Additional samples were collected during
the base flow period to characterize pesticide concentrations during dry weather. Water samples
were analysed by-the-University..of Guelph -using-Gas-Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry
Detection.
0198 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
Due to the dry weather in 1998, only four samples were collected in Toronto streams (two
precipitation events, two baseflow). Continuation of the study during 1999 will generate a larger
database from which to assess, more comprehensively, any instream pesticide concerns and
potential stream impacts on Lake Ontario drinking water. While the study is being completed, it is
important to promote programs that encourage reduced use, where possible, as well as best
management practices.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Toronto Urban Pesticide Stream Monitoring Project is expected to continue throughout the
summer of 1999, however the University of Guelph is no longer able to provide in-kind laboratory
services. Environment Canada has asked the City of Toronto for a financial contribution to support
the completion of the project. A full report of the findings, potential sources, and recommendations
is expected from Environment Canada late in 1999.
Authority staff will assist Enyironment Canada and the City of Toronto with the interpretation of study
findings and development of management recommendations.
Continued support for programs that promote the reduced use of pesticides is important. The
Vaughan Environmental Action Committee, North Toronto Green Community, and Toronto
Environmental Alliance are three organizations that have active pesticide reduction/elimination
programs.
For information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 253
Date: June 4, 1999
RES.#D45/99 - REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Works undertaken 1998/1999. In 1997, the TRCA signed a three year
Memorandum of Understanding to assist in implementing the Toronto and
Region Remedial Action Plan. This report provides an update on 1998/1999
activities.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff be directed to continue the
work consistent with the objectives of the TRCA and the Remedial Action Plan subject to
available funding ...;..".............................................. CARRI ED
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 D199
BACKGROUND
In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWOA). The Agreement was renewed in 1978 with the purpose of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. In 1987, a protocol
to the Agreement identified 42 Areas of Concern (AoCs) in the Basin where one or more beneficial
uses have been impaired. Of these 42 AoCs, 5 were shared between Canada and the United States
in the connecting channel areas, and 12 were within the Province of Ontario. The Toronto Region
is one of the largest and most complex of these 12 Aoes in Ontario. The 1987 Protocol also
required that for each AoC in their jurisdiction, the governments develop and implement a Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) which shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to
restore and protect beneficial uses in the AoC. The Protocol also required that the public be
consulted in all actions taken.
An agreement signed between Canada and Ontario, The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
the Great Lakes Ecosystem (COA) , provides a framework for systematic and strategic coordination
of the shared federal and provincial responsibilities for environmental management in the Great
Lakes Basin. It also outlines Canadian efforts to fulfil Canada's obligations under the GLWQA. This
includes the development and implementation of RAPs for which Environment Canada and Ministry
of Environment are the lead agencies.
Under the direction of COA, in 1991, the Metro Toronto and Region RAP Team, a collaboration of
government implementing agencies and members of the public and supported by advisory groups,
prepared and submitted the Stage 1 RAP Report, identifying impaired uses and their causes, to the
International Joint Commission as required under the GLWQA. Subsequently, the Team developed
the Report "Clean Waters, Clear Choices". This Stage 2A Report contains 53 recommendations fQr
action to "restore the polluted waterways and waterfront in the Metro Toronto Region, from
Etobicoke Creek in the west to the Rouge River in the east".
In the ten years since the process to develop a Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto Region
commenced, a great deal of good work has been done to identify problems and suggest
appropriate remedial measures. Many important implementation projects have been completed or
initiated to address critical issues. In particular, projects to deal with combined sewer outfalls and
habitat enhancement have been undertaken by many municipalities. Some federal and provincial
support has been available to assist in these projects. However, there has been growing frustration
among the public and within public agencies at the relatively slow pace of action to progressively
restore the health of the rivers and lakeshore within the Toronto and Region.
0200 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18. 1999
It was time for a renewed focus and emphasis on the importance of protecting and restoring the
rivers and the lakeshore. The report, "Clean Water, Clear Choices" recommended Lead
Implementors and Partners to address specific remedial actions. It did not, however, recommend
an org~izational structure to advocate, co-ordinate and facilitate these actions. In November 1995,
the Ministry of Environment Metro RAP office retained the LURA Group to assist in the development
of the necessary organizational framework. Following a review of other RAPs and discussions and
meetings with various Metro RAP stakeholders, a draft proposal was presented at a multi-sectoral
workshop. The proposal recommended the consideration of the TRCA and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust as "co-stewards". This approach reflected the growing recognition of the need
to address remedial actions on a watershed basis, the Authority's experience in municipal
consultation, public involvement, project implementation and the experience of the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust in facilitation and partnership development. The consultation process and
results from the workshop confirmed that a strong base of support existed within the RAP area for
the Authority and the Trust to proceed as "Co-Chairs".
At the Authority Meeting #5/96 held on June 26, 1996, Resolution #A30/96 was adopted:
"THA T the staff report concerning the Authority's proposed role as Co-chair with the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust to implement the Metropolitan Toronto Region Remedial Action
Plan be received;
THA T the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and
Environment Canada be advised that the Authority is prepared to accept a joint lead role for
implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Region provided that
adequate provincial and federal resources are available;
AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to negotiate a suitable Memorandum of Understanding
among the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Environment Canada and the Ministry of
Environment and Energy (MOU) and submit the proposed MOU to the Executive Committee
for approval. ..
Immediately following the direction from the Authority, staff met with representatives of the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada. In late
October the Memorandum was signed.
1 99S/1 999 PROGRAM
In 1 99S/1 999, the TRCA delivered a number of programs utilizing funding provided through the RAP
MOU including:
. Conservation.Education.Rrograms -RAP on-Wheels-school visits.
. Stormwater Management Headwaters Studies on potential opportunities for enhancing water
quality and quantity management through stormwater pond redesigns.
. Watershed Monitoring including both development of a Watershed Monitoring Framework
and field monitoring of aquatic communities.
. Watershed Planning activities including the completion of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
State of the Watershed Report.
. Co-ordination of the Great Lakes Funding Applications for the Toronto RAP area.
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0201
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In 1999/2000, the TRCA will continue with a number of projects including RAP on Wheels, the
Stormwater Management Studies, Watershed Monitoring and Watershed Planning activities, and the
co-ordination of the Great Lakes Funding Applications. In addition, actions will be taken to develop
a natural heritage framework and to work with watershed municipalities and the development
industry to reduce the amount of sediment entering the watercourses.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The implementation of the Remedial Action Plan goals and objectives are fundamentally consistent
with other efforts of the TRCA. This program augments the efforts being undertaken to protect and
restore the resources of the watersheds.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
This program is primarily funded through financial resources provided by Environment Canada and
the Provincial Government. Opportunities may exist to expand the work through a variety of
partnerships. The work is undertaken to the extent resources are made available.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: June 9, 1999
RES.#D46/99 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #2/99 held on April 20, 1999. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance Meeting #2/99, held on April 20, 1999, are provided for
information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed
Alliance Meeting #2/99, held on April 20, 1999, as appended, be received. . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8,1997, and adopted by
the Authority at meeting #4/97 held on May 30,1997 by Resolution #A66/97, includes the following
provision:
Part 1: Section .1-:1-. Mandate
The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on the progress
of implementing activities.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: May 26, 1999
0202 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
RES.#D47/99 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #2/99 and #3/99. The minutes of Meeting #2/99 held
on April 8, 1999 and Meeting #3/99 held on May 27, 1999 of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #2/99 held April 8, 1999 and Meeting #3/99 held May 27, 1999
be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration eouncil are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record
of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration eouncil, and serve to keep the Authority members
informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty
Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: June 9, 1999
RES.#D48/99 - NUGGET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 41
TOWN OF AJAX, REGION OF DURHAM
Ontario Municipal Board Referral. Authorization for staff to seek Participant
status before the Ontario Municipal Board on a referral made by Nugget
Construction Company Umited, related to Official Plan Amendment 41 , in the
T own of Ajax.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Participant status before the
Ontario Municipal Board on a referral made by Nugget Construction Company Limited related
to Official Plan Amendment 41 in the Town of Ajax, be authorized;
AND FURTHER THAT-staff-continue to.pursue-the-resolution of-Authority issues and interests
in cooperation with the Region of Durham, the Town of Ajax and Nugget Construction
Company Limited. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. CARRIED
June 18. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0203
BACKGROUND
The subject property is owned by Nugget Construction Company Umited (Nugget). Their parcel
is approximately 0.7 hectares in size and comprises the east portion of a knoll situated outside the
regional storm floodplain but within the stream corridor of the Carruthers Creek, between the west
and main branch of the Carruthers Creek where their confluence is. immediately downstream. The
site is located south of Bayly Street, with Bayly Street frontage, east of Shoal Point Road; legally
described as Part of Lot 5, Broken Front Concession, in the Town of Ajax. The west portion of the
knoll is owned by Hi Rise Structures. The site situation and description identified below would apply
to both the Nugget and Hi Rise portions; however, Hi Rise Structures has not been named as an
appellant to this appeal. See Attachment 1 for location.
Environmental
The site situation of this parcel is a height of land outside the regional floodplain which appears as
an island, south of Bayly Street within the earruthers ereek stream corridor. At this location, the
regional floodwaters from both the west and main branch of the Carruthers Creek spill overtop of
Bayly Street at a depth and velocity which make it questionable whether safe access can be
provided to the subject parcel in accordance with provincial floodplain planning policy. The site is
entirely Fill Regulated. Abutting the south east portion of the site, the earruthefs ereek is coincident
with the toe of slope. The site is located upstream of the earruthers Creek Forest Environmentally
Significant Area and a Provincially Significant Wetland. The valley and stream corridor limits have
not been determined or confirmed by Authority staff.
Planning
The subject parcel is designated in the Region of Durham Official Plan as Major Open Space-
Waterfront. The existing Official Plan designation is Open Space in the Ajax District Plan and is
zoned Greenbelt-Conservation.
The Town of Ajax undertook a study known as the "A3 Corridor Land-Use Study - West Side". This
Study was centred around the east side of Pickering Beach Road and along Bayly Street to Shoal
Point Road. The Study was undertaken to determine appropriate land use within the study area with
objectives for compatibility with future road improvements, the existing residential neighbourhood
and the natural environment. On the basis of the study, the Town of Ajax recommended that the
site be redesignated as a Special Study Area, with the opportunity for Medium Density Residential
subject to the landowner undertaking the necessary supporting background studies, including a site
specific Environmental Impact Study.
Authority staff provided comments on Official Plan Amendment 41 to the Town of Ajax. Specific to
the subject parcel, staff identified that the site was entirely within the stream corridor of the
Carruthers Creek and the present Open Space designation accurately depicts the long term use of
the site.
The Region of Durham, as the approval Authority, recirculated Official Plan Amendment 41 for
comment. Authority staff provided similar comments as previously stated and recommended that
given the potential environmental site constraints, the minimum size of the parcel of land, and that
an EIS, in accordance with Regional Official Plan policy, had not yet been undertaken to confirm the
viability of a land use change, that it was inappropriate to predetermine a change in land use without
a sufficient environmental assessment.
0204 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1 gg9
The Region of Durham approved Official Plan Amendment 41 with modifications; one of which
replaces the "Special Study Area/Medium Density~ designation on this site with a "Special Study
Area" designation, subject to an Environmental Impact Study so that the ecological functions and
potential impacts to the natural features may be identified in order to determine whether
development is appropriate in this location.
Authority staff met with representatives of Nugget, the Region and the Town to discuss and establish
the environmental study requirements. At that time Nugget identified that they would undertake the
required EIS, but would also file an appeal with the Ontario Municipal Board in the event that issues
could not be resolved through the appropriate agencies. To date, Authority staff have not received
a complete EIS for review or comment.
RATIONALE
A Prehearing conference has been scheduled for June 29, 1999 at the Town of Ajax in order to
identify the Parties/Participants and identify the issues. A Hearing date has not been scheduled.
Staff are recommending Participant status at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the Region
of Durham position that the parcel of land be identified as a Special Study Area to determine
whether a change in land use from Open Space is feasible through an environmental assessment
(EIS).
The Prehearing will also be considering two other appeals to Official Plan Amendment 41. The
Lawrence Avenue Group Umited and 1097467 Ontario Limited have also appealed portions of OPA
41 related to a Parkette shown on tableland and a road issue. Both of the latter appeals do not
involve interests or issues of Authority concern.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
At this point in time, staff are not recommending that legal counsel be retained. It is recommended
that staff request Participant status at the OMB and support the Region of Durham modification to
the Official Plan Amendment 41 as it relates to the Nugget parcel, south of Bayly Street. Staff will
continue to pursue resolution of Authority issues in cooperation with the Region, the Town and
Nugget.
For information contact: Janet Foster, extension 282
Date: June 14, 1999
Attachment (1)
June 18, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 0205
Attachment 1
M j
""
~ ~
lJ.J
2m >,
-.0: t
~c 8 ~
'=~
u;'S, 0
5c7i ~ ~
cn>, 0 0....
~~ 5
is ffi ~
~gQjCe~
>--
u:t.5iXiIiI (j)
~~I
~
~ \
0206 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/99 June 18, 1999
NEW BUSINESS
RES.#D49/99
Moved. by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT a staff report be brought to the next Executive Committee Meeting scheduled for July
9, 1999, providing infonnation with respect to a preliminary proposal to pipe flows south of the
401, from the proposed Hydro lands development north of Highway 401, into Massey Creek
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:25 a.m., on June 18, 1999.
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
/ks
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99
September 17, 1999 Page 0207
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/99, was held in the Humber Room, Head
Office, on Friday, September 17, 1999. The Vice Chair, eliff Gyles, called the meeting to order at
10:01 a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon ............................................................ Member
David Barrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Milton Berger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Ila Bossons ............................................................... Member
Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair
Irene Jones ............................................................... Member
Pam McConnell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member
Dick O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair
RES.#D50/99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Bas Balkissoon
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/99, held on June 18, 1999, be approved ...... CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Presentation by Gary Wilkins, TRCA Humber Specialist, on item 7.2 - The Humber
Watershed Strategy, and in regards to the Canadian Heritage Rivers Dedication Ceremony.
(b) Presentation'by'Councillor Irene Jones, TRCA Board Mem'ber,in regards to item 7.3 - City
of Toronto Environmental Task Force Education and Awareness Workgroup Report.
0208 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D51 /99 - PRESENT A TIONS
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Mike Tzekas
THAT presentation (a) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
RES.#D52/99 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Seconded by: Mike Tzekas
THAT presentation (b) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
RES.#D53/99 - ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND RESTORATION PROJECTS
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Milton Berger
THAT The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommend that the councils of its
member municipalities consider the establishment of environmental categories for the
purpose of the distribution of grants to Community Groups to support environmental education
and restoration projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
RES.#D54/99 - CANADIAN HERITAGE RIVERS DEDICATION CEREMONY
Details on the official ceremony to dedicate the Humber River as a Canadian
Heritage River.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the draft event program to officially
dedicate the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River be received for information.
.......................................... :......................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) is a federal/provincial/territorial program aimed at
recognizing Canada's important rivers to ensure their future management such that:
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0209
. the natural and human heritage which they represent are conserved and interpreted, and;
. the opportunities they possess for recreation and heritage appreciation are realized by
residents of and visitors to Canada
The Humber River was officially nominated a Canadian Heritage River in December, 1995. The
nomination was based on the human heritage recreation values and the contribution the river has
made to the development of the country. Since last December, the remaining criteria have been
satisfied. The Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Honourable John
Snobelen, the Minister of Natural Resources, have officially accepted the recommendation to include
the Humber River in the Canadian Heritage River system. The Humber is the 25th river in Canada
to be officially designated a Canadian Heritage River.
A Steering Committee is finalizing the details for an official plaque unveiling ceremony to publically
announce the dedication of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. Members of the
committee include Parks Canada, Ontario Parks, First Nations, Police Services Board, City of
Toronto, Humber Heritage Committee, Humber Alliance members, and TReA staff.
The draft event program is as follows:
Friday, September 24, 1999
Etienne Brule Park, Toronto
10:30 a.m.
Dedication Ceremony
Flag Party forms in Etienne Brule Parking Lot and proceeds to stage.
Dignitaries arrive
Meet Platform Party at the reception tent adjacent to VIP parking
Ceremony Begins - Rice Lake Drum - Welcome Song
John Hodson, Native MC, announces to all that until Flag and Honour Songs are complete, all
should stand except the elderly. Hats to be removed.
Rice Lake Drum - Flag Song
Flag party stops at centre stage ground level, turns and faces crowd.
Platform Party proceeds onto--the'stage. -- --
Rice Lake Drum - Honour Song
Flag Party posts the flags at stage level. Eagle Staff at centre stage, eanadian and Provincial Flag
stage right, TRCA and New Credit Flag stage left. Flag Party retires.
John Hodson, Native MC, introduces Merle Assance-Beedie. Merle offers the prayer
0210 WATERStiED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
'0 Canada' sung by Humbercrest School Choir
MC Adair Ireland-Smith introduces Platform Party and Dick O'Brien
Chair, Dick O'Brien - Opening remarks and welcome
MC Adair Ireland-Smith introduces Grand Chief Larry Sault
Grand Chief Larry Sault - Opening remarks and welcome
MC Adair Ireland-Smith introduces Chief Carolyn King from New Credit
Chief Carolyn King from New Credit - Opening remarks and welcome
MC Adair Ireland-Smith introduces Mayor Mel Lastman
Mayor Mel Lastman - Opening remarks and welcome
MC Adair Ireland-Smith introduces Chair, Peel Region and Chair makes address
MC introduces ehair, York Region and Chair makes address
MC introduces the Honourable John Snoblelen
The Honourable John Snobelen speaks
MC Adair Ireland-Smith introduces the Honourable Sheila Copps
The Honourable Sheila Copps speaks
J. Hodson introduces the Water Ceremony performed by Sue Anderson assisted by young woman
Jingle Dress Dancer from New Credit and invites Guests of Honour to participate
Narration of Water Ceremony by Merle Assance-Beedie
Platform Party participates in Ceremony
When Platform party completes the Ceremony, Sue Anderson, Jingle Dancer and John Hodson offer
water to the Guests of Honour
MC Adair Ireland-Sm1th,thanks-forwater ceremony'and announcesioint signing of the Canadian
Heritage Rivers Registry on stage. Signators include Sheila Copps and John Snobelen, witnessed
by Dick O'Brien and Carolyn King. While the document is being signed, bagpiper plays in
background.
John Hodson, Native MC, announces that until songs are completed, all should stand except the
elderly. Hats to be removed.
September 17. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0211
Flag party reforms, collects flags, ascends stage and Rice Lake Drum - Flag Song
Platform Party follow Flag Party
Joint unveiling of plaque by Carolyn King, Sheila Copps, John Snobelen and Dick O'Brien, flanked
by Flag Party
Plaque read in Ojibway, Vernon Root, Grand Chief, Union of Ontario Indians
Plaque read in English, Lois Griffin, Humber Watershed Alliance Chair
Plaque read in French, Lisette Mallet, La Societe d'histoire de Toronto
At the completion of the readings, Dick O'Brien will present the blanket covering the plaque to Chief
Carolyn King. Chief King to reciprocate.
MC thanks and invites all to enjoy refreshments to be served on site.
New Credit Youth Drum will be showcased at the refreshment area.
Media opportunity: Ministers will be led off-side to media venue to begin media interviews.
Ministers led to VIP Parking and Depart.
Platform Party and Flag party is invited to a Briefing Session at Old Mill prior to ceremony to ensure
a smooth presentation and a sensitive understanding of cultural protocols.
The Dedication Ceremony will be preceded by the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
Sunrise Ceremony from 6:30 to 8:00 a.m. at Etienne Brule Park, Toronto.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Finalize location details;
. Confirm participants;
. Recruit volunteers;
. Mail invitations.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
. Limited funding is available from TRCA;
. Sponsors are required to help cover costs associated with rental equipment, refreshments,
printing materials, site security, musicians and honorariums.
For information contact:-Gary-Wilkins; 'extension 21-1
Date: September 9, 1999
0212 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D55/99 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED STRATEGY
Community Action Sites. Update on the implementation of Community
Action Sites in the Humber River watershed.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the letters of appreciation be sent to
partners of the existing Community Action Sites thanking them for their contribution to protect
and restore the Humber River;
AND FURTHER THAT staff encourage and assist other groups to adopt Community Action
Sites and assist with the planning and implementation of recommended actions. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The watershed management plan for the Humber River titled, "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy
Humber", used the concept of Community Action Sites to demonstrate how partners could work
together to improve the health of the watershed.
Three eommunity Action Sites were profiled in Legacy. Several additional Community Action Sites
have been adopted, including the Botton and Palgrave Community Action Sites. Many smaller, less
complex, projects have been completed as well since the Humber Watershed Alliance was formed
in 1997.
Community Action Sites have been nominated by residents and interest groups. The concept helps
focus interest and resources on specific areas to achieve tangible results.
A brief summary of key accomplishments are listed below:
Caledon East Wetland
. re-creation of the wetland;
. establishment of wetland plants;
. stream bank planting;
. in-stream fish habitat improvement;
. interpretive signage;
. boardwalk (Fall, 1999);
. promotional events (ie. Caledon Trailway Day, Green Forum).
Sun Row
. buffer planting;
. stream bank planting; .
. stream channel renaturalization (Fall, 1999);
. wetland creation (Fall, 1999);
. environmental education days;
. community water quality monitoring;
. multicultural outreach including interpretive tours, literature and community tree planting
events.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0213
Lake Wilcox
. community environmental day. Activities included fish monitoring, archaeological
excavation, environmental games, displays, music and interpretive hikes;
. "lake lung" installation to aerate the lake and reduce plant growth;
Palqrave Mill Pond
. completion of public consultation on needs and opportunities;
. preparation of a preferred concept plan;
. completion of a feasibility study on the preferred concept plan;
. community tree planting;
. project promotion and fundraising;
. interpretive signage;
. construction of fishway, bottom draw outlet and deepening of the pond (Year 2000).
Bolton
. completion of public consultation on needs and opportunities;
. preparation of a preferred concept plan;
. hosted community awareness days;
. construction and revegetation of a wetland;
0 buffer planting;
. sited and designed an observation platform overlooking the river;
. designing a preferred concept to get fish passage around the dam;
. sited an extension of the Humber Valley Heritage Trail;
. initiated the consultation and design of the Sunkist Valley Community Parkette.
RATIONALE
Community Action Sites have proven to be an extremely valuable method for achieving the
objectives and actions recommended in Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber. They profile real
locations and focus resources to achieve results. They encourage the involvement of like-minded
individuals for a common cause, create friendships and leave a significant lasting legacy for the
participants.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Raise additional funds and in-kind services to complete the recommended tasks.
. Host special events to officially recognize the accomplishments of the Humber Watershed
Alliance, sponsors, and other partners.
. Encourage the adoption of new Community Action Sites and assist partners in their planning
and implementation. --, -
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Humber Watershed Management budget provides staff support and modest sums of seed
money to plan and implement various components;
Generous donations of time have been provided Humber Watershed Alliance members, citizens,
interest groups, agency staff and elected representatives;
D214 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Generous donations of money have been provided by many sources including the City of Toronto;
Toronto RAP; Region of Peel; Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund; Canada Trust Friends of the
Environment; Ministry of Natural Resources; Bolton and Palgrave Rotary.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: September B, 1999
RES.#D56/99 - CITY OF TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE EDUCATION AND
AWARENESS WORKGROUP REPORT
Recommendations for the TRCA. Recommendations to the Authority 1rom
the City of Toronto Environmental Task Force regarding
environmental/sustainability public education and outreach.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Toronto Environmental
Task Force's recommendations requiring Authority action be received;
THAT staff continue to provide support for the Education and Awareness Workgroup and to
the Environmental Task Force until December 2000 to assist in the implementation of
workgroup recommendations;
AND FURTHER THAT staff establish a steering committee to proceed with planning an
education forum to be held in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
In March 1 99S, Toronto City Council formed the Environmental Task Force (ETF) to establish the
City as a world leader in municipal sustainability--with a healthy, sustainable environment,
community, and economy that meets today's needs without compromising opportunities for future
generations. A major activity of the Task Force is to recommend an Environmental Plan for the City
of Toronto. The Environmental Plan will include a chapter on public education and outreach.
In April 1999, an Education and Awareness Workgroup was formed to investigate and make
recommendations about environmental/sustainability education and outreach in Toronto. The
workgroup consisted of City Councillors, City staff, representatives from school boards, agencies,
community organizations;-and-interest-groups. Itwas 'chaired by'"ETF-members Councillor Irene
Jones and Dr. David Bell, Director of the York Centre for Applied Sustainability. Adele Freeman and
Karen Puhlmann from the TRCA co-ordinated the workgroup.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0215
A draft report on education and outreach was prepared by the workgroup. It is anticipated that the
report will provide the basis for a chapter in the Environmental Plan. The report provides an
umbrella under which a broad range of environmental/sustainability education and outreach
activiti~s can be developed to complement recommendations made in other chapters of the
Environmental Plan-sustainable energy, sustainable transportation, green economic development,
governance, air, land, and water.
The draft report recommendations correspond to ten themes that emerged based on the
experiences of workgroup members:
. Public Education and Outreach Program (PEO)
. Social Marketing: eity-wide and at the Community Level
. Institutional Commitments to Environmental Responsibility
. Multi-cultural and Multi-lingual Sensitivity
. Community-based Groups
. Engaging Youth
. Integrating Environmental Sustainability Into Formal Education
. Experiential Learning
. Access to Environmental/Sustainability Resources
. Long-Term Partnerships for Education and Outreach
For each theme, recommendations are put forward to build awareness, develop support, and
motivate action toward the achievement of a more environmentally sustainable city. While most
recommendations are directed toward the City, actions are also recommended for the school
boards, agencies, the Toronto Public Library, universities and colleges within the city, the TRCA, and
other levels of government.
The draft workgroup report was presented at the July 20, 1999 meeting of the ETF (Items 6.1.6 and
6.1.7 as recorded in minutes). At this meeting, the ETF recommended that:
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to hold an annual
environmental/sustainability education forum for environmental educators; such forum would
celebrate achievements, assist in the integration of local environmental! sustainability issues
into classroom teaching, and set priorities for future action.
The Education and Awareness Workgroup continue to meet on a quarterly basis for the next
year; and meet with and work in partnership with representatives of the Toronto District
School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board.
Copies of the draft workgroup report are available from the City of Toronto web site
<www.city.toronto:on.ca-> or-from TRCA'staff.- - -- .~
RATIONALE
The ETF's request that the TRCA hold an annual environmental/sus:ainability education forum will
complement work on the education review currently being undertaken by the TReA. It is anticipated
that the forum will provide useful information for this review.
0216 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
City staff and community members reviewed and commented on the draft report during August.
The final workgroup report will be submitted to the Environmental Task Force for consideration at
their meeting on September 27, 1999.
During 1999 and 2000, the Authority will continue to provide staff support for four meetings of the
Education and Awareness Workgroup. Authority staff will also assist ETF staff in integrating the
workgroup report into the City's Environmental Plan.
Staff have reviewed the ETF's request for an annual environmental/sustainability education forum.
Staff would recommend that a steering committee be formed to guide the development of the first
forum; that the forum be included in the TRCA's millennium projects; and that representatives of all
school boards within the TRCA's jurisdiction be invited to attend.
Staff will conduct an evaluation of the first annual forum and report results to the Authority. The
evaluation will determine how the education forum should proceed in future years.
Report prepared by: Karen Puhlmann, extension 230
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: September 7,1999
RES.#D57 /99 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED PLEDGE
Signing of The Humber Watershed Pledge.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT each member of the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority sign The Humber Watershed Pledge as a symbol of their
commitment to help protect, restore and celebrate the Humber River Watershed. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance identifies priority tasks to be undertaken
during their term.
One of those specific tasks is the development of The Humber Watershed Pledge. This document
is a tool to formally'acknowledge'thecommitment'of-partners to abide-by the principles of "Legacy:
A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" and to make a contribution to protect, restore and celebrate the
Humber River Watershed.
Humber Watershed Alliance members, together with TRCA staff, developed the Pledge which was
formally approved by the Humber Watershed Alliance at their meeting held on July 20, 1999.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0217
Once signed, the individual "Pledges" can then be framed and hung in suitable locations as a
reminder of the commitment it represents to regenerating the Humber River. The Pledge will be
used as a measure for reporting environmental stewardship with businesses, groups and individuals
across the watershed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Promote the signing of The Humber Watershed Pledge by the Humber Watershed Alliance
members, Authority members, municipalities, agencies, businesses and community organizations
throughout the watershed.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Humber Watershed management budget will fund the production (colour copying) .of a small
number of copies. Approximate cost per copy is $2.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: August 12, 1999
Attachments (1)
0218 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Attachment 1
Many people share a dream: to have a healthy Humber River watershed full of natural beauty, culture
and hentage, recreanon oppornmines, and community prosperity.
in order to achieve this deeam, we
agree to honow; respect and comrrut to the GLUding Principles for the Humber River watershed as
ldentified U1 Legacy: A Strategy far a HeaWry Humber through our every day actions.
GUIDING PRlNCU'LES
rK Increase awareness of the watershed's resources.
~ Protect the Humbet River watershed as a cononuing source of dean wateL
~ Celebrate, regenerate, and preserve our natural, histoncal, and cultural heritage.
& Increase commumty stewardship and take individual responsibility for the health of the
Humber River,
r!L EstablISh Imkages and promote partnerships among commurunes.
rr' Bmld a saung watershed economy b:IScd on ecolOgical health.
r$ Promote the watershed as a desnnatlOn of chotee for recrcanon and tounsm,
Dd O'Bm:n UiliGnfIi.n
Chau- =,
The Toronto md Rq,on The Humber
ConterV1ltKm Authontr Watenbed Alliance
t~ Got.,.. --
THE TORCWTO N#:) RECilON
~ATK:lN Al/Tl-QRlTY TIm HlJWlI'R W AIEIlSBEll Al.LIANCI!
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0219
RES.#D58/99 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Extension of Term of Appointment and Revisions to Membership. Extension
of term of appointment for Humber Watershed Alliance members and
revisions to membership.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the term of appointment for Humber
Watershed Alliance members be extended for one year to November, 2000;
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority accept the resignations of Robert Hubbs
and Brenda Crompton - two resident members representing the City of Toronto;
THAT letters of apprec!ation be sent to Robert Hubbs and Brenda Crompton for their
contribution to the Humber Watershed Alliance;
AND FURTHER THAT Amy Maurer, representing the Black Creek Project, be appointed to the
Humber Watershed Alliance ........................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority, at its meeting held on May 16, 1997, adopted the Terms of Reference for the Humber
Watershed Alliance dated May 8, 1997.
Section 3.3 of the Terms of Reference states that membership appointments be made for a duration
of two years from October, 1997 to November, 1999.
Since the inception of the Humber Watershed Alliance in October, 1997, many projects have been
initiated which will require additional time to complete. One of the major projects is the first Report
Card for the Humber watershed. While most of the work may be done before November, its
publication and release will be sometime after January, 2000. It would be advantageous to have the
original membership together until this has occurred,
The Humber Alliance members have expressed an interest in seeing proJects such as the Humber
Report Card through to completion and, at their meeting held on July 20, 1999, adopted the
following resolution:
'THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance request that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
extend the term of the current members of the Alliance by one year to November 1, 2000."
Recently, the Humber-Watershed Alliance'~as' accepted-the-resignation of Robert Hubbs and
Brenda Crompton - two resident members representing the City of Toronto. In accordance with the
approved Terms of Reference, five watershed resident representatives from e<;lch of the five
subwatersheds shall be appointed to the Humber Watershed Alliance. To achieve this balance, staff
is prepared to take the necessary action to fill these two vacancies.
0220 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
The terms of reference make provision for interest and group representation. The Black Creek
Project was established in 1982 to preserve and rehabilitate the Black Creek using community
involvement and education. It is made up of one full time staff person, a volunteer base of about
2500, and is headed by a committee consisting of professionals and residents living within the Black
Creek Watershed. The Black Creek Project is supported by the TRCA, City of Toronto, Environment
Canada's EcoAction2000 Community Funding Program and the Canada Trust Friends of the
Environment Foundation.
The Black Creek Project was representated on the Humber Watershed Task Force and it would be
appropriate to have this group represented on the Humber Watershed Alliance. Ms. Amy Maurer
has been recommended by The Black Creek Project to be their representative on the Alliance.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Interview and appoint two resident members to represent the City of Toronto on the Humber
Watershed Alliance,
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The TRCA Humber watershed management budget will fund the expenditures related to the one
year extension of the term of appointment.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: September 2, 1999
RES.#D59/99 . DON VALLEY BRICK WORKS - CITY OF TORONTO
Mud Creek Reconnection. To commence implementation of a project for the
reconnection of Mud Creek to the Don River.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with implementation of
Phase 1 of the Mud Creek Reconnection as detailed on construction drawings and
specifications prepared by Schollen & Company Inc., at a total estimated cost of $60,000.
................................................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Initiated in 1993, the'goal\)f the-Don Valleyi3rick'Works-Regeneration Project is to restore the site's
cultural heritage resources and enhance habitats of the site. The Project to-date has resulted in a
dramatic improvement in the ecological health and diversity of the Lower Don Valley. Wetlands
created as a component of the Brick Works Project were designed to support the spawning by a
range of fish species, however, several barriers including culverts and excessive gradients, prohibit
the migration of fish passage upstream in Mud Creek and the Don River. Consequently, the
reconnection of Mud Creek to the Don River is a vital component of the Don Valley Regeneration
Project, providing benefits that will extend well beyond the limits of this site.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0221
Historically, Mud Creek flowed from its northern headwaters in Downsview south across the City and
emptied into the Lower Don River. As Toronto developed, Mud Creek was buried and re-routed to
the Brick Works where it was used to support the site's industrial purposes. Research undertaken
in 1995 identified the location of the Mud Creek channel from historical mapping information, and
during rehabilitation of the site, the Creek was re-opened. Currently, this channel is connected to
the original Mud Creek via a low flow pipe/Waterfall diversion at the upstream end of the Brick Works
property .
The regeneration of the Brick Works included the development of over 3 hectares of open wetland
areas. Currently, the water in Mud Creek is directed through these wetlands and then into the Don
River via the channel. The channel includes a series of culverts and passes under the Bayview
Avenue Extension before discharging into the Lower Don River. The Mud Creek ehannel traverses
the Brick Works lands, the C. N. Railway and easements in favour of a number of utility companies.
In its present form, the channel includes many obstacles including steep grades and low water
levels and flow rates which impede the movement of desirable fish species into the Brick Works site
for spawning.
I n the Spring of 1999, a detailed design and implementation plan, was completed by Schollen &
Company Inc. (Res.#B167/98) to facilitate the movement of fish between the Brick Works wetlands,
Mud Creek and the Don River and to address the following factors:
. steep gradient in the channel at the confluence at the Don River;
. the lack of sufficient water depths in the upper end of the channel under base flow and low
flow conditions; and
. lack of in-stream refuge and shelter.
RATIONALE
Target fish species for the project include Northern Pike, Minnows, and other species which are
residents in the Lower Don River. The reconnection of Mud Creek to the Lower Don River will
facilitate fish movement within Mud Creek as well as achieve a number of other objectives aimed at
enhancing the diversity and integrity of the ecosystem of the Brick Works site and the Lower Don
River. Among these objectives are:
. the creation of habitat nodes which will support a resident fishery and spawning in the flood
plain of the Don River;
. the integration of initiatives to heighten public awareness of the reconnection project; and
. the incorporation of initiatives which are aimed at increasing vegetation cover and mitigating
erosion along the banks of the Don River and the Mud Creek site.
The City of Toronto continues on an annual basis to improve the site. The reconnection of Mud
Creek to the Don-River-will-complete'the first'phase-of workinitiafly'undertaken by TReA and will
contribute to the ongoing regeneration of the site,
D222 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding is available from the City of Toronto RAP Budget, under Account No. '113-60.
Report prepared by: Mark Preston (416) 392-9722
For information contact: Nick Saccone, extension 301
Date: August 31, 1999
RES.#D60/99 - DON WATERSHED STRATEGY
Wilket Creek (Edward's Gardens) Stream Regeneration. Regeneration of a
100 metre section of Wilket Creek at Edward's Gardens Park in the City of
Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
regeneration of a 100 metre section of Wilket Creek at Edward's Gardens, City of Toronto, in
order to mitigate on-site erosion and to restore and improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat
features, at a total cost of $150,000 ..................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Wilket Creek, also known as Milne Creek, flows from the approximate area of Bathurst Street and
Finch Avenue, south to Leslie Street and Eglinton Avenue where it joins up with the West Don River.
From its headwaters down to York Mills Road, the creek is buried, surfacing at a large outfall located
just south of York Mills Road.
Due to the almost complete urbanization of the sub-basin, the creek is subjected to tremendous wet
weather flows causing degraded water quality, extensive erosion problems and frequent flooding
events. Erosion along the creek is currently threatening a number of bridges which are located in
the extensive network of valley land parks along the creek. In addition, erosion threatens buried
infrastructure along the length of the creek.
Over the years, gabion baskets were installed along the sides of the creek to prevent erosion. The
lifespan of these baskets is between 20 and 40 years and consequently, many of these structures
have failed and are no longer providing effective protection against erosion.
. -.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0223
In 1996, the TRCA, the former City of North York's Parks and Works Departments and former
Metropolitan Toronto's Parks and Works departments formed the Wilket Creek Regeneration
Steering Committee in order to generate a holistic and ecosystem based plan for dealing with
erosion, flooding, aquatic habitat and terrestrial habitat concerns along Wilket Creek. Previous
erosion mitigation works had taken place in a patchwork manner without the consideration water
management options and long term basin stability. The Steering Committee felt that a holistic
watershed-based regeneration plan for the creek was needed in order to provide a proactive and
cost saving template for Mure creek regeneration and protection works. It was the intention of the
Steering Committee to contract for the completion of a regeneration plan that also included detailed
design drawings for a concept site which could be constructed in order to begin the process of
regenerating the creek.
The Committee determined that a 100 metre section of Edward's Gardens, immediately south of the
dam structure downstream of the on-line ponds was the desired location for a concept site due to
the high degree of erosion on site and the high public visibility at the park.
At Meeting #10/96 held on November S, 1996, the Executive Committee adopted Res. #B 166/96:
'THA T staff be directed to award the contract for the development of a Regeneration
Plan for Wilket Creek (also known as Milne Creek) to the consulting firm of Aquafor
Beech Limited in association with Todhunter Schollen & Associates Limited and Beak
International Limited for the amount of $30,000 (excluding G.S. T.) ".
The draft Wilket Creek Regeneration Plan was submitted to the TRCA in July 1995 and the detailed
design for the concept site was completed in July 1999. Through the continued activities of the
Steering Committee, City of Toronto Parks staff have approved the design at Edwards Gardens.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The project involves the following components:
. Creation of a vegetated riparian zone on the east side of the creek: At present, the east side
of the creek is comprised of a pathway located directly on top of failing gabion baskets. The
creek will be moved slightly west to allow for the creation of the riparian zone and the
movement of the pathway away from the creek.
. A series of rock weirs and "stone hook" structures: Extensive flows in this sector are
threatening a pathway and bridge structure at the southern end of this section of creek.
Round stone rock weirs and stone hooks will be created which are designed to reduce the
erosion potential of the frequent high flows.
. Placement-of.-round stone .for .fisheries:-RGund stone -of-varying sizes will be placed in the
channel to provide fish habitat.
. Small Wetland Creation: An overflow wetland will be created on the west side of the creek
in order to improve habitat, retain some water during excessive flow events and to improve
park aesthetics. This area is currently manicured lawn.
0224 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
. Riparian zone enhancements on the west side of the creek: The west side of the creek,
which is currently manicured lawn with some trees, will be planted and a more natural
riparian zone will be created.
The estimated cost for the regeneration of this section of Wilket Cr.eek is $150,000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding is available under the 1999 Toronto Remedial Action Plan for the Don River watershed
under Account No. 113-59
Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 262
Date: September 3, 1999
RES.#D61/99 - CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
180-194 Parkview Hill Crescent Erosion Control Project, Don River
Watershed, East York District, eity of Toronto. Construction of the erosion
control works at the rear of 180-194 Parkview Hill Crescent, East York District,
City of Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with the construction
of the erosion control works at the rears of 180 - 194 Parkview Hill Crescent, East York District,
City of Toronto under the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 -
2001" at a total budget of $585,000 subject to receipt of all necessary approvals. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The homes on Parkview Hill Crescent were constructed in the early 1950's and consist of single
family homes. The houses were erected along the crest of the Don River valley. The lots extend
part way down the slope, while the balance of the valley lands are owned by the Authority. A major
slope failure occurred at the site in 1989, Since that point in time, the erosion at the site has been
active and another major slide occurred at the site during the spring of 1998.
September 17, 1999 WATER$HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0225
In 1995" the Authority proceeded to carry out remedial works under the Class Environmental
Assessment, however due to budget restraints, the work did not proceed. In the spring of this year,
Aquafor Beech were instructed to complete the design for the slope remedial works at the rears of
180 - 194 Parkview Hill Crescent following the Class Environmental Assessment for erosion and
flood control works process. An open house/public meeting was held on June 24, 1999 at which
time the consultants presented an overview of their study finding~ and alternatives for remedial
works. Public input from this meeting, in addition to questionnaires that were returned by individuals
who attended the meeting, assisted the consultants in the assessment of the preferred option. Input
on the project was requested from representatives from the approval/commenting agencies. These
include the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Toronto Parks Department, and the Federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The preferred design option includes altering a short section
of the Don River to allow the construction on an engineered slope buttress, and regrading a section
of the bank. The construction access is proposed through Authority owned lands following an
existing informal trail.
RATIONALE
The 180 -194 Parkview Hill Crescent site has been identified in the "The City of Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project" as a priority based on the information gathered through the
Authority's ongoing erosion monitoring program.
The Authority's goal through this project is to:
"Minimize the hazards to Ufe and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley
walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the valley and
lakefront settings"
Several of the key objectives outlined in the Authority's Erosion Control and Lake Ontario Shoreline
Program are:
(1 ) to implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public and
private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion;
(2) to implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect the
natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats
adversely affected by the erosion;
(3) to design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach for the
entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access adjacent to the
water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and enhance aquatic and
terrestrial resources;
(4) to acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of
remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property;
(5) to secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where
the lands are valuable additions to the green space systems;
0226 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17,1999
(6) to protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated terrestrial
and aquatic habitats; and
(7) to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other
environmental protection legislation.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The remedial works consist of altering a short section of the Don River to allow the construction of
an engineered slope buttress and regrading a section of the bank as shown on the attached
drawings. The works include fisheries enhancement structures and extensive planting on the new
slope.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Aquafor Beech Limited, in conjunction with staff, developed a cost estimate of $585,000 for the
proposed remedial works at the rear of 180 - 194 Parkview Hill erescent.
The owners of 180 - 194 Parkview Hill Crescent will be asked to contribute $6,500 total towards the
cost of the work and provide permanent easements on their property for future maintenance work
or transfer to the Authority that portion of their property where the works are carried out.
Account No. 140-01 has been set up for this project and funds are available from the City of Toronto
within the Authority's approved capital budget.
For information contact: Jim Tucker, extension 247
Date: September 2, 1999
Attachments (9)
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0227
Attachment 1
- -.. ._..
0
:"
nQ..,t,ll A'lILL l
:/
, -
TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORI1Y
PARKVIEW HILL CRESCENT
EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE
STABILIZATION PROJECT
LOCATION PLAN
- .. -
0228 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Attachment 2
_._-----~-_. "-- .. --.----
0
~L i ; Ii
~
i
I' < ~ III
cO-I
~ : ] 16
...0: en -' .8
>
~
-
a:
z 0
o I
- ~
~ ::) iIJ
W <{ I- a.
Z 0
a: w JI-
z. 0 U)o
C 0 U) ~~
W
Z - a: JO
( t- O olE:
o ( a: a. muzm
J I-Z i:Ei:WW
J ::::;1;;;:; cc::;;::
I- > - Zo
I 0- :
Z ffi ~ 01- ~ ~~
~
ZN ! e
O. (I) w ~ J~!i~ ~
- oj ..
a: z ") _ I......
- - 3: ~.:uo;3~
~ (t)tD ...0: '1.~"d3
0: g_g 0".
o 0 a: O~ o ~!l~ Q~r
I- 0 ~ a:~ ~ nHiI II
Q, WOO) ::i .:..J"'...."".....
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0229
Attachment 3
.__'.04 ----- -
ij I d I' 11\1,; 'f I i I i' o "" i'
, 'i II jI,II:' r: ~ II 'i J ' ;11 !l !l I' li~ -
I! I! II "!l H ! 111'1 !lll II ~iE ~ 3 i~
,Hi il ~Hl!.ijil; ill'IIr!~!1 ~i i ,I! ,~ ,~ . I "'::> 15 ~
!hl !\ !\ I c< D..
o,g, i
I,ll"" h!.l"Jlli " 1'111 :', :., 1'1, fi Ii
il!ll II W liJ!,I:~ Ii- I ,~; III 'Ill 1::11:11:1 I I 8-< ~ ~
I 1'1'11111" rll'lf.i h~ I.:, Iii '11'1~ Ih3 ~ :i ~~ ~
! ~l !i~1 ~I ~~ ~ll:! !Ill! ~,qlll ~Ii 111 ;1:1 1111' ,'J ," .![.!~ I ....a ,"-
ml illl ill! I I U I
Q
I i
I i i I I
'I I I I I ! I I i I i
h
11'1 ! I,
I , II i I i I I 1 I
1...1. I I I
i!11 I 1 ! I@i
I.~ ,~ 1 J I \ !.'. 8
dill
J !
I
i .
II
,
I
\ I :,
,/I
\:::;:"~,, r!
8 . ~ !I
is m
~
w ~
m
"
~
~
'" '.
g
~
~
w
~
~
u \
~
"
~
~
if
I ill
i !Il
\ i ' hi
i :11
'1 i Iii ,
,
~, Il I
~~ 11 I q i
Ii ! ;. -
I I; I
-, ,
I, :\ \
I! !I I
il . .
0230 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Attachment 4
.----- ---
II ! 11 . III' i 'j , i , IT] I~
i-j I ~ ....
, ' 11'11', I.. III , Ii il ~ ~s 1+
i I! III h~!I~111 i iill!i : I ill I' I' < r=
I .' Ii ' 'II' 'II, Ii I I. I I' .I! I: J: ~ f E
Iii 'II I " ,,',e !\Il!! !! I 0< '"
hnM.in ~1::Illli !!II! ill~:!,:!! ~~ ;:j ll!o
IF''' d~
I;!' h II I I g< ;
H'11111i:' ill!! I:!: II: d. :1i!!"lll I;!I m j:l Ih~ ~ :i ~~ ~2
i H:!'i' I'! !jl!i /l'l,!~ I. i' NI'!!' I: I Iii. ,", "\ ~c!!. : I g ," i'i
I ?-!I ~I ~I ~~ ~ I.. !Iit: ~n!i :1 :~:II ;1:1 lIll ill! ill I
.
e I
i . I
I I
II I
II
II"! I t 1 I
,s.1. l I ~
lilll I -I
'"i"lS I'
III il " --. !
"
,
.
.
---- .
,;
\ I
.
,
0 i;: ,
~ -L. .
~ I I ~
' ~ I. ;
'" I ~ . I :i
I' I, :1.
m , ' ! q
g --t- ,-.
~ ,
I- I .
IC \ , I
'I
~ \ I ,
.
3 I I
\
~
l; a
r: .
~ \ ,
~ ,
0 .
~ i
II I
.
I ~
II
.
I --- II 1
- .
I
I II ,
~I "--- . I, .
~~ 11 I!
Is B
-I I' ,I .
I, I !: ; 1 ~ , '
I! II I' I
if ll. ',' I I . ~
I .
September 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0231
Attachment 5
--- =---1
II. I..l D I js
I/::>-
'Ii ".m :. g~ ~
II 'I' l!:1I ,I wF ... '" n
0'" n
'! ij! li!1 i!ll : ~'1 l'i ",
0'"
;:0 ;j bl..
!"III;:"lll 1 " :J: ~1
,III !I'll liiil~ I g< ~
, P "fl ~ I' a~ ~ 5<
la~! 1i ~l J~ :1 ~o ~
: I 0 1"- I
I illl.I;: 0
i.
I I 'I' !'I
I
I! I I' i : ;:1:
I Ii
i' " 'I : I'!
i ; ~ i I "~i;
! ' i: II I I '
, :. I!, ! . [,
., "I
, , " :'
,
, ,
,I ' ,
" ,
< <Xl
I I
<! CDI
ZI .
I Z I
o. O.
I ~l I. ;:: I
w Ii U
'W
'" j'"
, , - ''I. I
, "
, , : ,
'. ,II
It :; I'
.' I!
" I"
.1 : "
,
I I
.1 d II
, 'I'
, ;: ,~: j I I!, ,: I
, ,I,
't'I:. , I
. " ,
I, : ;:: i;! I 'i i:; i :'. : 1 j
;! ::: ;::!:: :::, ;;; :;:
: ! I r' ! . I I: Ii, ~ I ~ I I
, I I ': I : ' ~ I . : I I
':g::: ::j :i:, j:;: ';~ ' '
!
0232 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Attachment 6
- - - ,----.......-..--- --- --,
! I. , !. iiI D : ~ .. I~
,- ~g ~ T
:1 ~~ III q
l~r.ll ~!:" ~o 1=
, "':J IS J= I :;
II I Jil!' I c< <.>0
I! II /-il,ll ~~ ~ bi.
II \I dl llll!l \i "I!: : f?~ . ~'i'
I. ~~ ~ ou
11111,lh I'll is
Uil~ \I ~~ ~
~ lUi ~Ll1i : I u I I
Q
iillli,'i "T': 'I'I ill:!!i!IF'\ 1I:'JI!,iiJ i ; h
, I , '''I ," " !,' I ,I"
I' \ I :,;i :: ,: ;,:' ',\,;" I' '1'1 'I' ' !' Ii,' ""
11\: I j'll \! ':j ,I"!: : i ;\ : I I ji :111.ii: 'I, ; i il'; \\illl
II 1" ,I: - - :, " I 'T II: I" ", ,,' i
, I:' '~" I I. , ; i' ' .: I i I : . I:; : : ~ ; I
;~ I\ill::: I;;; ::i" l:i: III i' '1:1 ,1111, " I\'! i::i ; I
J I I' I' ,I . I . I I \, I, ' ':;', I": ':'
. II I '\ " , " "'" 'I' \I ~ \ I' II 'i I 11 11 , ! : '\ I,!
I' il! : 'i I : II' : ,:: 'I il II' ,I' -I ,I : II', :!I
I " ' I I ,'I, ! ., ,-;\
I ' \'!' ' :1 I
, I , : Ii'" , ,
· ,: - n : I It: ; ': ;:\'
,: I" :" 'iI
II , - II ,', ',!
Ii 'H ,,', I
i I 'I .' -I '! :: ;"\
. II I
I ' ','I
I I
I ': I,' !
'f :! I I: : -'':
, I
I l!', 'i, : i
I
, ~ ! t '"
d ' .
, I
~' 'r.j
, ~' , ',i !
0 , .
1 .; I w
01 : 1'1 ,
: :tl - ~ ,II ' W!
ZI ll~ '1 Z I
o. ~ '
Gl :: ~c o.
, , G l
w W
tIl !'\~ tIl
.. I.
l ~ . I
." '
, '
",
I,
I I :
I, :1
,
, ' I 'I
I' I J I ii, ::,
- ,I'
,
i'! :
'1'1 ' ,I
I "
II ,
I 'I
I'; . I
I,' . I
, , I : ~ I.' . ,;
I "
. '] : ';'1 ' ,I
. , I
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0233
Attachment 7
-------.- ..-. ---.--
;l Ill! I i:ll i ; In Ii ! ii' i! DO '
I' I ~ ~ I~
;llll I' \' li5 ... T
, B 0.,
II wi!: ~ ~ ~ I'
Jill ~ II H i I ! "I I '1111
!, ,l .1 .: ~i: 'I ';I!i I ;n l~ .I! I: I: : ~~ is ~ ~
j! l~ l! i1111 !. i! ~ I~:I !'l r HI! !I !I O'~ ' l!
"! r ~1
Ii I:; 'I III:~: '1 I jij :li ,; II! 1:1 I;'j . II I I g~ · ~ g
100 I ,~
~ I" II 'llJ'i ~ I.,!!. ill I. 1'1 Iii In! m HI 11~1 ~ :1 ~~ ~ g
i !i! ~il !:! L !Ii~ ~, !i!ill ~G;I ,Ii ! i I' . ,'I ,"
IllI ill! ill! ~.3 : I u I I
.- - ~ Q
I
II I
h
11"1 I
5 l!
lq; l
~~ .d I i i !~~ I
" d
S
.
~'
; ~ ;
! :
I
II I I'
\ I k ! ~~ ~
~ I + ~
: i t ~
I \ S'
t i s
w I, i
m a I
E2 \ I
:5~ I g S ~
<;w .
"'~ ! ! rl
~~ I
~g .q
w ~ I
a~ I
0 I
1;i:'
" ~ ,
~~ U \ ~
~ i~
~ II I
"- "J! ~ r. I
'161
I'l'n il !i!~
i:l~ ! . ,J! I
"- ,;1,." .1 ~ ,.
i:ji!~ n /='
dli !ldul9
.!. J, J, l.J 1 .,
~~
0234 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Attachment 8
--- -- - .. -...- . -....
I rn " E ,. i'
I! II ~~ u <~
I . ~ b S;!: ~ tic'
'~l I "'::> 5 c~ I
ii ii!~1 i 0" lio
I ! ~ I ,I D" " ""
" I' .i I ;: x. u
I e.. ~ ::>@
I, '~ I. II" .il Ul ' . e> g:
ilald(lJ~ a'J] Ii ~~ :> cn~
II, :! ~ ~ f,,'1 ~ n~]~ Ilgl~ I~~
dN'"
.I, I I ~ 1111 I !if
I ~ lo. ~ lo. lo.
iI I
..
~ ; Ii
I
I
U I
I I
i I _t
; I' I
I ~ II I
.
I
I G
I r.
,
! r I
11 I .
z j
,
I
'1 I
I~
'I ~
!.
i
;1.
~ g I
j
i
-~ -- j
~ I'
.rJ i - - --"
.f! '1 - .-
Il.
p, :
11.;1
Iili! l
September 17. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0235
Attachment 9
DO '. I
/:!z \I) I:'
'~- tj ,d .
II ~~ ~ ~ ,t
I "'~ 5 0 f.
~~ ;j g
, 0"' ~ ".
... ." . l ~> W g:
Iii I]~i ~ II ~~ i ~
I' a II! 'll Ii I I .U . II U I a.. I U
v ,I , 11 I I .' I ,
I) i! il ii III ililll.!~ i i i III'! :u I
I, 1! Ii II i,!" li!'i I rl I )1 it Ii' ~ iil I
'I .i " ;: ill il! i5el~ ii! il., .~I I i .
Ii ~ a ~I ~:I !il ~!!Il !w i II :H;diU f · ff
~ :1 ~u ~I ~I! a!, ill .1!i5 'i i,l!1 i !i II 11: li~ll
3 I I IIPi: I: io !ill!i1' !i! j r ( 1111 Ii I Iqll
~ III n ill ~IJlli,I~~ ql! Ii i! 1 'j i Ii I I!,i I 'I II i
~ _ II' !il !,! ~il !~II !ii:! :!~! ~I !i! ~I !!!i ~l;!U! Ilill,f,
I 'I . ~I . i
l.t!.,1
l----II il~ I ~~ ~ 1 i
'II,! ~ ~
1!lll!I~~ !
--
I
I ! ~
z J ; i I
1 ~r
I
I
I
,
.I I
I
~r I
~ I I
I
I I
, \ !
'-\
I
\ II r
\
\ l ,!
I \ I .! H
I II I
I
i .- --_.-
I I i i l
----I
I
I
I
0236 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D62/99 - HIGHLAND CREEK WATERSHED STRATEGY INITIATIVES
Development of a Highland Creek Watershed Strategy and completion of the
State of the Watershed Report: Highland Creek Watershed (August, 1999).
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to circulate the State
of the Watershed Report: Highland Creek Watershed (August, 1999) to community groups,
municipalities, other agencies, members of the public, and elected representatives in the
watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to carry out public education and awareness activities
throughout the watershed within the City of Toronto and the Town of Markham, in conjunction
with the development of the Terms of Reference for the Highland Creek Watershed Strategy
and the development of a mechanism for public involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #5/98 held on June 26, 1998, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 120/98:
"THA T the staff report on the proposed Highland Creek Watershed Strategy be
received for information;
THA T staff be directed to work closely with City of Toronto staff and other agency
stakeholders to develop the terms of reference for the development of the Highland
Creek Watershed Strategy;
THA T the terms of reference be consistent with the environmental initiatives of the
former Cft}' of Scarborough; the current initiatives of the City of Toronto including the
work of the Environmental Task Force and the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Study; and
the implementation of the Toronto Remedial Action Plan;
THA T the terms of reference include a mechanism for public involvement through the
establishment of a task force or equivalent;
THA T TRCA staff, in conjunction with the City of Toronto staff, proceed with the
completion of the Highland Creek State of the Watershed Report and the initiation of
additional studies within the Highland Creek basin to identify opportunities to address
stormwater management (water quality and quantity) subject to available funding;
AND FURTHER "THAT'-s 'copy' of-1h;s"report'-be-pro'Vided -to members of the
Scarborough Community Council. ..
The following is an extract from the City of Toronto Scarborough Community Council report that was
adopted by the City of Toronto Council on November 25, 1998. The Scarborough Community
Council reports having:
September 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0237
62.1 rece;ved a presentation g;ven by Mr. Brian Denney, Director of Watershed Management,
and Ms. Adele Freeman, Watershed Specialist for the Highland and Don, the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, respecting the proposed Highland Creek Watershed Strategy;
and
62.2resolved to support the development of the Watershed Strategy, as proposed by the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
We are pleased to provide to you the State of the Watershed Report: Highland Creek Watershed
(August, 1999), completed in partnership with the City of Toronto. While only a small percentage
of the watershed lies within the Town of Markham, Markham staff participated on the Steering
Committee which assisted with the development of the State of the Watershed Report: Highland
Creek Watershed (August, 1999).
Background data collection and analysis by Authority staff resulted in the development of reports
such as the Highland Creek Fisheries Management Plan, Terrestrial Habitat Analysis of the Highland
Creek Watershed, Highland Creek Surface Water Quality Background Technical Report, and the
Highland ereek Watershed Heritage Study, which act as companion documents to the State of the
Watershed Report: Highland Creek Watershed (August, 1999). The next step is wide-spread
distribution of the State of the Watershed Report throughout the Highland watershed and the eity
of Toronto.
RATIONALE
In order to proceed with the Highland Creek Watershed Strategy, it is recommended that a public
education and awareness program be developed to generate interest and excitement in the
Highland community. This would include, but not be limited to, implementing pilot projects such
as the regeneration of degraded sites; promoting lot level stormwater management practices; and
providing presentations to community groups. This public outreach initiative will lead to the
formation of a watershed-wide task force.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Terms of Reference for the Highland Creek Watershed Strategy are in the process of being
developed, and requires further consultation with the City of Toronto and Town of Markham before
it can be finalized.
A communications plan is being developed to facilitate an extensive public education and
awareness program for the Highland Creek watershed.
Authority staff are working with the City of Toronto staff to address stormwater management issues
in the Highland ereek Watershed. Staff are in the process of identifying and filling data gaps, that
will lead to the identification of stormwater"managemeftt opportunities-throughout the watershed.
Subject to available funding, Authority staff will undertake studies to determine opportunities for
stormwater management in the Highland watershed. This will be accomplished by filling data gaps
that were identified in the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Study Phase I and addressing the accelerated
rates of erosion within the watershed. Examples of the information are still required and the studies
still to be completed include (but are not limited to) a stormwater pond database, the Highland
Natural Heritage Strategy, and modelling of the Highland hydrology.
0238 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding is provided in Account 118-30 for the completion of the Highland Terms of Reference and
the initiation of the public education and awareness program.
Funding for the stormwater management study is available through the Remedial Action Plan 113-64
funding (TRCA capital) to an upset limit of $30,000 in 1999.
Additional Partnership funding is being sought.
Report prepared by: Kristin Geater, extension 316
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: September 3, 1999
RES.#D63/99 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
Springbank Avenue Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Project.
Implementation of slope stabilization and erosion control measures at 39-41
Springbank Avenue, City of Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Milton Berger
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to undertake the
Springbank Avenue Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto, under
the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total estimated
cost of $200,000 .................................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #6/96 held on July 26, 1996, the Authority adopted Res. # A 132/96:
"THA T the Authority endorse the continuation of the Springbank Avenue Slope
Stabilization and Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality
of Metropolftan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" subject
to reaching a suitable agreement with the owners, and in accordance with the
following management strategy:
1) design-and'construction of a slopeiJuttress atthe toe of slope; -the installation
of a free draining rubble and granular blanket , and the installation of
dewatering wells in the vicinity of 39 and 41 Spring bank Avenue
2) the acquisition of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue
THA T staff be directed to proceed to implement the management strategy at a total
estimated cost of $500,000 subject to confirmation of funding.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0239
THA T in light of the unsafe site conditions staff be directed to advise the City of
Scarborough and the owner that the terms of the permit issued by the Authority cannot
be fulfilled and that the site should be secured;
THA T staff be directed to negotiate the acquisition of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue, this
being the only alternative erosion control option to address the hazard;
THA T staff be directed to pursue funding opportunities with the City of Scarborough;
AND FURTHER THAT the owners of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue and Metropolitan Toronto
be so advised. "
The Authority completed the acquisition of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue in 1998 and demolished
both houses at a total cost of approximately $310,000. Authority staff held discussions with staff of
the former eity of Scarborough Works and Environment Department and received their agreement
to contribute 50% funding towards the cost of the remedial erosion control works. With the removal
of the two dwellings, the immediate risk to public safety was removed; however, there was still a risk
to public infrastructure such as the municipal road, services and in particular, a major sanitary
forcemain line.
The erosion of the gully (Figure 1) continues and residents have expressed their concern if no
remedial work is undertaken at this site. A petition, dated March 9, 1998, addressed to the Authority
and signed by several residents along both sides of Spring bank Avenue requested the immediate
implementation of remedial plans for the properties. A public meeting was held with the residents
on April 20, 1999 and the preliminary designs were presented and details of construction, funding
and design options were discussed. The residents supported the eonsultant's recommendations
to top dump with clear stone/concrete rubble material to stabilize the slope.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The geotechnical investigation and preliminary design of remedial options was completed by
Terraprobe Umited in 1995 as part of their study for the Spring bank Avenue Shoreline Management
Strategy. Authority staff will prepare the final design details for the slope stabilization and present
the recommendations to the residents of Springbank Avenue for their comments and input.
The proposed works would consist of the top dumping of 314" clear stone to provide a drainage layer
against the gully face, followed by top dumping of clean broken concrete rubble to secure the slope.
The rubble slope will partially be covered with topsoil and seeded. The existing groyne and beach
system will be upgraded to maintain the required level of protection at the base of the slope. This
will require the placement of sand fill and/or small cobblestones to increase the height and width
of the beach.
This project will be undertaken in accordance with the planning process outlined in the Conservation
Authorities Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects.
0240 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost estimate for the remedial work is $200,000. Funding up to $100,000 is available under the
"City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project" under Account No. 143-01. The City
of Toronto Works and Emergency Services has agreed to contribute up to $100,000 for the remedial
works.
Report prepared by: Nigel Cowey, extension 244
Date: September 3, 1999
Attachments (1)
-.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0241
Attachment 1
Q)
I...-
:J
-
.-
0
\/ LL -
u
/~\ /Q) Q) (1)
'-
o...c 0
o 0 "-
a.
(/)N -
0
'-
-
r:::
0
U
r:::
0
(/)
0
"-
W
"C
c::
ctS
c::
0
-
ctS
N
..0
ctS
-
(/)
,S Go)
...
tl a.
~ 0
a -
'" (/)
"'"
tl (1)
""
~
c:
Go)
>
<(
~
r:::
ctS
""'..0
Go) Ol
"- r:::
:::::J .-
-- Ol"-
. . ._ a.
-l<
" u..CJ)
..,
z
'"
....J
0...
>-
w.
~
0242 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D64/99 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999
Ashbridge's Bay Park, Coatsworth Cut Dredging, Phase II. Undertake the
second phase of dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridge's Bay Park, City of
Toronto.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
second phase of maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut, Ashbridge's Bay Park, City of
Toronto, at a total estimated cost of $100,000 ............................. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #2/99, held on February 26, 1999, the Authority adopted Res. #A59/99:
'THA T staff be directed to proceed with maintenance dredging at Coatsworth Cut,
Ashbridge's Bay, City of Toronto, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration
Project 1995-1999"; at a total cost of $300,000;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with finalizing plans for shoreline
modifications to minimize the need for annual dredging at Coatsworth Cut,
Ashbridge's Bay; in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment process,
under the 'The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1997-2001", at a total cost of $50,000"
Authority staff completed the dredging of approximately 7,500 m3 of sediment from eoatsworth Cut
in July, 1999 at a total cost of approximately $300,000. The work was undertaken on behalf of the
Authority by the Toronto Harbour eommission using marine equipment. The objective of
maintaining a safe navigable navigation channel for the 1999 boating season was achieved.
However, the dredging is only a short term solution to a much larger sedimentation problem in the
immediate area. Additional dredging in 1999 would assist in delaying the need to dredge the
navigation channel for another two to three years.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Since the urgency to dredge the navigation channel in 1999 has been completed, the remaining
sediment can be dredged using standard land-based equipment such as a dragline, loader and
trucks. Approximately 7,000 m3 of sediment can be excavated at a significant reduction in cost
compared to the necessary marine equipment used during the phase I dredging. The work is
proposed to commence in late November during low lake level conditions. All dredged material will
be trucked off site and disposed of at an approved site. The total estimated cost for the second
phase of dredging is $100,000..
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Authority staff continue to pursue options to resolve the long term sedimentation issue at Coatsworth
Cut. Authority staff are currently evaluating a consultant's report on the design options and will be
reporting at a future date.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0243
The City of Toronto recently approved the Mediator's Report of the Main Treatme,nt Plant
Environmental Assessment. Resolution #8 Article 1.2 states:
. The City and other participants agree that serious consideration should be given to the
potential for Coatsworth Cut to be converted into a wetland as part of a decentralized
stormwater management system, in cooperation with the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) , and that a high priority should be given to thoroughly evaluating the
. potential of this option
. In particular, the City agrees that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or
his designate will, immediately upon the ratification of this Mediation Agreement, enter into
discussions with appropriate staff of the TRCA to determine if a joint eity(TRCA Task Force,
including public stakeholders, should be established. The specific objective of the Joint
Task Force would be to complete a feasibility study for the conversion of Coatsworth eut into
a wetland to addr~ss both the serious water quality issue and the serious sedimentation
issue facing the area.
Authority staff will be contacting the City of Toronto to discuss the next steps into undertaking the
above resolution.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Additional funds have been identified under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-
1999. The budget for the phase II dredging is $100,000 within Account No. 211-17
For information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 244
Date: September 8, 1999
RES.#D65/99 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
Embayment A Habitat Creation Project. To provide information on the habitat
creation project within Embayment "A" at Tommy Thompson Park, 1999-
2000.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
project implementation 'upon' reC1;!ipt of"partnership -funding' approval from Environment
Canada Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0244 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
BACKGROUND
In 1998, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners evaluated the feasibility of depositing approximately
35,000 cubic metres of sand dredgeate into the south east corner of Embayment A at Tommy
Thompson Park as a means of addressing a sedimentation issue at the Eastern Gap to the Toronto
Inner Harbour. This work started in mid to late August of 1999, and will involve a conventional
dredging operation to excavate and transport the sand from the source location (the Eastern Gap)
to the Embayment. The TRCA views this work as an opportunity to enhance habitat through the
creation of a shallow wetland in this Embayment as per concepts contained in the approved Tommy
Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment (1995).
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners have completed the planning and have secured the necessary
approvals from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard. The THC has
subsequently commenced the dredging and disposal operations on schedule as of mid August.
The TRCA has submitted a funding proposal to Environment Canada (Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup
Fund) to create a wetland feature in this embayment using the dredgeate disposal as a foundation
for this work. In order to achieve the habitat enhancement benefit through reduced costs, the TRCA
proposes to place clean sand and fill into the south east end of the embayment using conventional
filling techniques in order to bring the lake bottom to a top elevation of 75.0 m IGLD with a gentle
slope (1 on 10) towards the centre of the embayment. The top elevation of the fill is designed to
provide the essential elevations required to establish a emergent wetland vegetation community.
This area will also be underwater enough to prevent the formation of additional colonial waterbird
colony within the Embayment.
The underwater slopes that are suitable for submerged aquatic vegetation will be allowed to colonize
naturally to establish a plant community. The zone suitable for emergent wetland vegetation will be
fenced off to prevent loafing of waterbirds on any shallow sand flats. This area will be planted with
cattails in the Spring of 2000, in a fashion that promotes the rapid establishment of an lacustrine
wetland,
A wetland habitat feature in location is expected to benefit a variety of resident and migratory bird
and wildlife species at Tommy Thompson Park. Specifically it is expected to enhance foraging
opportunities for shorebirds and nesting colonial waterbirds, increase habitat potential for reptiles
and amphibians, and increase the overall productivity of this embayment for warm water fish
species.
Additional "complimentary" habitat structures and features will be incorporated into the project
including; root wads, tree crowns, rock reefs and brush bundles. These features will be designed
and strategically placed in order to provide "critical habitat" components for the species listed
above.
... ..
The goal and objectives of this project are as follows:
Goal:
To create, enhance and diversify the wetland and aquatic habitats along the Toronto Waterfront and
specifically at Tommy Thompson Park through conservation design and the implementation of
specific habitat components.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0245
Objectives:
. Modify the littoral zone in Embayment A to promote the establishment of a variety of native
, aquatic emergent and submergent plants and create conditions that are conducive to the
establishment of a lacustrine wetland habitat.
. Create functional habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife including regionally rare, threatened
and endangered species, through structural habitat diversity.
. Restore the required navigational conditions within the Eastern Gap through operational
dredging
. Coordinate habitat rehabilitation with other organizations using a cooperative approach and
partnerships.
The overall guiding principle in this, and other habitat creation projects at Tommy Thompson Park
is the philosophy that" diversity of habitat, promotes a diversity of wildlife communities". The
function of this philosophy is that habitat diversity will provide the following conditions for both
resident and migratory wildlife communities:
. important nurturing areas for immature, and juvenile individuals;
. reduce predation by improving shelter;
. provide high primary production;
. shelter from harsh conditions; and
. significant foraging areas.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff have undertaken the detailed planning and design required, and has received approval under
the federal Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and screening under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. Funding approval has been received from Environment eanada
under the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund.
Site preparation and grading will be undertaken from November through January, following the
completion of this year's dredging activities by the Toronto Harbour eommissioners. Structural
habitat features and components will be incorporated at this time.
Vegetation planting (aquatic and terrestrial) and regeneration will be undertaken during the 2000
spring planting season. Planting plans and habitat designs outlining the location and extent of
various habitat features will be developed to ensure that the components of the habitat project fulfill
the objectives outlined above. The designs will be planned so that the function of each component
will be enhanced.by the c1ose-proximity-of-another-component.
Volunteer support will be solicited from interest groups to assist with various components of the
implementation and monitoring of the project and community outreach will be achieved through
public planting activities and participation in other components of the project implementation.
0246 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
FUTURE BENEFIT
The anticipated results and benefits of this habitat enhancement project are based on the
deliverables identified to Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, as follows:
. creation and enhancement of 2.0 hectares of lacustrine wetland habitat and associated
riparian community for a variety of wildlife sPE?cies.
. increase the amount of submerged vegetation within the embayment by reducing the water
depth
. creation of seasonal mudflats (during low water years) and wet areas for migratory shorebird
stopover and foraging
. construction of structural habitat features (rock shoals, root wads and brush piles) for
resident and migratory fish, amphibians, birds and aquatic mammals.
. establish native emergent and submergent vegetation that provides shelter and forage
benefit to fish and wildlife
. photographs of pre, during and post implementation conditions provided in a photo CD
format
. conduct baseline and follow-up monitoring related construction and implementation
activities
. provide opportunities for community wildlife monitoring activities at Tommy Thompson Park
. Post construction survey and mapping update.
This project represents one of the long term implementation goals identified and approved in the
Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. Habitat projects like these
will assist the Authority in highlighting the ongoing habitat protection and enhancement of lands
within its jurisdiction and will help to build support for future environmental enhancement projects
by the TRCA and our municipal and local partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this project will be provided by Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund
and the Metro Toronto Remedial Action plan as follows:
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund $40,000
Metro Toronto Remedial Actioo Plan - . -""$30:DOO .
Total $70,000
For information contact: Scott Jarvie, extension 312
Date: August 31, 1999
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0247
RES.#D66/99 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
Reef Construction Project. To provide information on the Underwater (fish)
Reef Construction project within the western embayment at Tommy
Thompson Park, 1999-2000.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
reef construction project at Tommy Thompson Park upon receipt of partnership funding
approval from Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund .......... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Tommy Thompson Park is a large human-made land base that has been under construction since
the late 1950's and was originally intended for harbour related uses. Significant habitat features and
wildlife resources have evolved at the site as the process of natural succession has transformed the
land base. The series of protected embayments on the north-western side of the park have been
found to provide significant thermal refugia for warm water fish species, however, due to the initial
construction process of the site and the original intended use, there is a predominant lack of,
permanent in-water structural features, and a lack of the substrate diversity that would otherwise
contribute to significant fish habitat in these areas.
TRCA staff have proposed a project to design and construct a series of reef structures in the western
embayments in order to provide permanent structural fish habitat for warm and cold water fish
species, and add to the overall structural and substrate diversity. Reefs will be constructed using
a variety of materials and techniques, including rubble, gravel, gabion stone, river stone, woody
material and log cribs. Reefs will be constructed in a manner that promotes vertical relief and
maximizes interstitial spaces. Placement of the reefs will harmonize with other ongoing habitat
creation/enhancement initiatives at the site and will be sensitive to recreational boat activities in the
adjacent waterways.
Native, resident, self-sustaining warm water fish communities represent the primary target for the
rehabilitation of aquatic habitats on the Toronto waterfront, and specifically Northern Pike. Direct
benefit to warm and cold water fish species will be the creation of these critical habitat features for
spawning, nursery and foraging activities. Indirectly, the reefs will further function to reduce water
depth and promote the establishment of submergent vegetation communities and further assist in
the provision of thermal refugia Target species include Northern Pike, Largemouth Bass, however,
many other fish species will benefit from the proposed structural diversity.
Strus et al. (1994) recommended, as part of the Aquatic Habitat Rehabilitation Plan for the Toronto
RAP, the use of -underwater reefs to'Connect'high quality -centres of fish activity within degraded
habitats. Gannon (1990) outlined evaluation guidelines for the use of underwater reefs and shoals
throughout the Great Lakes. Gannon (1990) expressed that reefs and shoals have been identified
as a viable enhancement technique but are considered experimental in nature.
0248 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Goal:
To improve the structural diversity of the open water habitat within the sheltered
embayments at Tommy Thompson Park and provide nodal and transitional habitat
features that will enhance the fisheries use of these areas.
Objectives:
. create a series of underwater reefs in the western embayment using a variety of techniques
and materials
. locate reefs in a manner that creates functional nodal and transitional habitats for a variety
of fish species including forage species and piscivores such as Northern Pike and
Largemouth Bass.
. Document the utilization of underwater reefs by the cool/warm water fish community and
target species, and determine the effectiveness of structural habitat as habitat enhancement
measure.
. Highlight and promote the active habitat improvement projects on the Toronto waterfront
and specifically at Tommy Thompson Park.
. Coordinate habitat rehabilitation with other organizations using a cooperative approach and
partnerships.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff are in the process of undertaking the detailed planning and design required for approvals
under the Federal Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and screening under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Funding has been held in reserve by Environment
Canada under the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, and final approval is expected subject to the
receipt of necessary approvals.
Construction of the underwater structures is anticipated to commence during the fall and winter of
1999/2000 and will include the construction and placement of a single large reef, several small reefs,
log cribs and brush bundles, strategically placed within the embayments at Tommy Thompson Park.
The structures as displayed below will be designed by location and configuration to :
. Provide structural diversity of the substrate, bathymetric diversity, and augment the habitat
provided by the adjacent submerged aquatic vegetation and deep areas of the harbour.
. Provide.ver.tical-relief, irregulaf-0utline, and a variety-of-stone sizes to maximize interstitial
spaces.
. Be located in a non depositional area to maximize the self cleaning ability of fine material
. Not conflict with the navigational uses of the harbour.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0249
Unct.water Reef Log Crib Structure with Branches
P\iwl 'W:w
r~,~ Side Perspective VieW
P.3.rOOny paced tJCI"d'es 2.5m X 2.5m ella, l.tpeeled C8OO' Posts
: U
:~. -" ' -':
, -
- " , ~L
-,'
l');pPQp/~ tbt.
~
Gaba1 Stme Ballast 5Crrm X 203mm Boards
Monitoring of the underwater structures will be undertaken as part of the annual monitoring program
and will assess the fish community response to the habitat structures.
FUTURE BENEFIT
This project represents one of the long term implementation goals identified and approved in the
Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. Habitat projects like these
will assist the Authority in highlighting the ongoing habitat protection and enhancement of lands and
waters within its jurisdiction and will help to build support for future environmental enhancement
projects by the TRCA and our municipal and local partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this project will be provided under the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan and by
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, as follows:
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund $20,000
(on hold subject to (final approvals)
Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan $20.000
Total $40,000
For information contact: Scott Jarvie, extension 312
Date: August 31, 1999
0250 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D67/99 - TORONTO ISLAND
North Shore Fish Reefs. To provide information on the habitat creation
project Toronto Island - North Shore Fish Reefs, 1999-2000.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
implementation of the Toronto Island - North Shore Fish Reefs at a total estimated cost of
$30,000 upon receipt of partnership funding approval from Environment Canada Great Lakes
2000 Cleanup Fund .................................................. CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto Inner Harbour is dominated by a sandy substrate that is reflective of the geological
origins of the Toronto Island and Inner Harbour. Historically, Toronto Bay was bracketed by the
many lagoons and ponds of the Islands to the south, the extensive Ashbridge's Bay wetland to the
east, a natural sandy shoreline in the city centre and a large opening in the western reaches. Much
of the structural habitat and habitat diversity was provided by the numerous sandy reefs and gravel
bars. These features have been altered by a century of modifying the harbour for the needs of a
growing city. Today the bottom of the harbour is distinctly uniform, with deeper navigational areas
centred on the approaches to the east and west gap, and the operational seawalls within the port.
Shallow water habitats exist north of the Toronto Islands and has recently re-colonized with a variety
of submerged aquatic plants.
This project is directed at providing structural habitat in the form of a submerged reef complex in
the transitional area between the shallow near shore and deep navigational areas of the Inner Harbor
adjacent to the north shore of Centre Island. In conjunction with the recently completed shoreline
protection works, this project will provide the important component of offshore structural habitat.
In the end, the habitat in the project area of the Inner Harbour will be diversified by the development
of a variety of near shore habitat and off shore structural reef habitat. This habitat complex will
function as a principle demonstration of habitat restoration techniques suitable for other locations
within the Harbour.
The north shore of the Toronto Islands is a very important restoration zone because of the proximity
of this area to the Toronto Islands and other areas of the harbour. The Toronto Islands complex is
a high quality habitat that acts as a refuge area and centre of production for many species. During
certain periods, especially warm water conditions the fish community of the islands utilizes the other
more marginal habitats within the harbour. These marginal areas over the past few years have
improved dramatically because of improved water clarity and restoration works within the Harbour.
This marginal habitat and the north shoreline of the Inner Harbour are being utilized more frequently
and extensively -by-the local fish -community-includingiarge -adottnorthern pike.
Struss (1994) recommended as part of the Aquatic Habitat Rehabilitation plan for the Toronto RAP,
the use of underwater reefs to connect high quality centres of habitat within degraded habitats.
Gannon (1990) outlined evaluation guidelines for the use of under water reefs throughout the Great
Lakes. Gannon(1990) expressed that reefs have been identified as a viable enhancement technique
but are considered experimental in nature.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0251
Our target fish community for this project includes two major groups; adult piscivores and forage
fish. Northern pike and bass are principally the piscivores that will benefit from this project. The
structural cover, additional feeding opportunities, will attract and hold an abundance of forage fish.
The reefs detailed for this project will provide these components as well as providing an important
transitional habitat area between the Islands and the Harbour. In addition, the reefs are expected
to attract and concentrate a variety of fish species. Principally forage fish are attracted to the cover
provided by the reef materials, but they are also concentrated by the abundance of food items
(algae, zooplankton and invertebrates) and the protected feeding and prey ambush areas that a reef
provides.
The reefs as displayed below are designed by location and configuration to :
. Provide structural diversity of the substrate, bathymetric diversity, and augment the habitat
provided by the adjacent submerged aquatic vegetation and deep areas of the harbour.
. Provide vertical relief, irregular outline, variety of stone sizes to maximize interstitial spaces.
. Located in a non depositional area to maximize the self cleaning ability of fine material
. Not conflict with the navigational uses of the harbour.
Underwater Reef
Plan Vtevv .' .
.'", -. 0"'
: ~:.:~.....~~~..:.:~~''':; '.:~~'.,~ ....-::... . ..'-
" . ....
\~qr ~~
:.:.)::':;: ~:>~ ;'/
...0#
.. .'
"
, .
. .
..
. .
f)ip~/~r) ~
A<m~
~~ ~.~~
'"9rove.l --
The over all project consists of the construction of two fish reefs and the environmental monitoring
requirement to support this activity. The project will test the utility of fish reefs as an important nodal
point between Inner Harbour habitats.
0252 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Given this perspective, the goal and objective of this project is to:
Goal:
Improve and encourage the use 01 the open water habitat in the harbour and provide a habitat node
in the transitional habitat area through the use of an underwater reef.
Objectives:
. Construct two underwater reefs in the transitional habitat zone within the Inner Harbour.
. Document the utilization of underwater reefs by the cool/warm water fish community and
target species and determine the effectiveness of structural habitat as habitat enhancement.
. Highlight and promote the active habitat improvement projects required in the Toronto Inner
Harbour as outlined in the Toronto RAP and the Toronto Bay Initiative.
Restoration of the Inner Harbour has been identified as a critical component of the Toronto Bay
Initiative and Toronto Remedial Action Plan.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff have undertaken the detailed planning and design required, and is seeking approval from the
City of Toronto Parks Department, the Federal Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act,
and screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Funding approval has been
received from Environment Canada under the Great Lakes 2000 eleanup fund on receipt of the
necessary approvals.
eonstruction and implementation is scheduled for late Fall 1999.
FUTURE BENEFIT
The anticipated results and benefits of this habitat enhancement project are based on the
deliverables identified, as follows:
. ereation of two major underwater reefs.
. Increased utilization of the Inner Harbour by native fish communities.
. An increase in the number/biomass of both adult and young of the year fish inclUding
predators and forage species.
. Increased public awareness and educational opportunities related to the quality of the fish
community within the Inner Harbour.
. Foster ongoing partnerships with interest groups, the public, and agencies related to habitat
management,the RAP,.and.the 10ronto Bay-lnitiative.
. Technology transfers to other Great Lakes Areas.
Habitat initiatives like this reef project will assist the Authority in highlighting the ongoing habitat
protection and enhancement waterfront lands and will help to build support for future environmental
enhancement projects by the TRCA and our municipal and local partners.
September 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0253
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this project will be provided by Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund
and the Toronto Remedial Action Plan as follows:
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund . $15,000
Toronto Remedial Action Plan $15.000
Total $30.000
Additional funds and project support is being solicited from interested parties by the Toronto Bay
Initiative and TRCA staff.
For information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension. 246
Date: September 7, 1999
RES.#D68/99 - TOWN OF MARKHAM STORMWATER RETROFIT STUDY
To support and participate in the implementation of the recommendations of
the Town of Markham Stormwater Retrofit Study.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the recommendations contained in
the Town of Markham Stormwater Retrofit Study be supported;
THAT staff be directed to continue working with Town of Markham staff to implement
streamlining of the stormwater management technical review and approval process;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with Town of Markham staff to
facilitate implementation of the study recommendations and ensure that the Authority's
objectives are met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Town of Markham Stormwater Retrofit Study is a broadly-based, planning level study which
addresses the issue of stormwater management on a town-wide basis, using an ecosystem
approach. The study was carried out as a joint initiative by the TRCA and Town of Markham. The
intent of the study was to provide the Town with a framework for a long-term strategy to implement
stormwater quality and ql:laAtity-.controls. within. the -existing 'urbantzed- areas of the Town. It was
recognized that the continuation of development review on a site by site basis, for infill development,
could lead to a proliferation of small facilities throughout the Town and ultimately, an increase in
construction and future maintenance costs.
0254 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
The Town of Markham Stormwater Retrofit Study was undertaken using a three-phased approach.
The Phase I component focused on the review of background information and collection of existing
data. A number of GIS-based maps were produced which provide information regarding the
existing state of stormwater management within the Town of Markham.
Phase II involved the preliminary evaluation of the potential to retrofit the existing quantity control
facilities (Le., flood control dry ponds) to provide improved water quality and additional erosion
control measures. The evaluation was based on engineering feasibility, benefits to the natural
environment, social impacts, and economic effectiveness. Existing, uncontrolled storm sewer
outfalls within the established urban areas of the Town were also investigated to determine the
feasibility of constructing new facilities at these locations.
Aquafor Beech Limited was retained to carry out the Phase III portion of the study. A "Sim'plified
Planning Level Approach", consisting of eight steps, was established to carry out the
screening/prioritization of the stormwater management ponds identified as having retrofitpotentiaJ.
The eight steps include:
1. Determine the possible erosion control benefit to be gained through retrofit
2. Map habitat index of receiving channel
3. Combine steps one through three to determine the priority for retrofit
4. Develop retrofit design criteria for erosion and water quality control
5. Determine the "required" active storage volume for each pond
6. Determine the "required" rating curve for each pond
7. Prepare a cost estimate for each pond
8. Determine the final ranking based on environmental and cost values
Summary of Kev Findinqs
. Eleven existing stormwater management ponds were determined to have potential to be
retrofitted for either water quality and / or erosion control.
. There are eight potential new stormwater management ponds that could be constructed at
existing uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls.
. The preliminary estimate for the retrofit works for the various existing SWM ponds ranged
from approximately $11 ,000 to $320,000, with an estimated total cost of $1,538,000.
Recommendations
The initial group of stormwater management ponds to be considered for retrofit for water quality and
erosion control should include the Bridle Trail Ponds in the Burndennett Creek subwatershed. The
three ponds include-Bridle-Trail Phase '3, -Sridleirail Phase' 4-'and Bridle Trail Phase 5. The
estimated costs to retrofit these ponds are
$28,000, $56,000, and $229,000, respectively.
September 17, 1999 WATER$HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0255
Another outcome of the implementation of the Retrofit Study will be a further streamlining of the
development approval process. Town of Markham and TRCA staff are currently in the process of
developing a memorandum of understanding regarding the streamlining of technical review and
clearance of development applications. Streamlining this process will eliminate the requirement for
'TRCA review and approval of detailed development applications in those areas where an approved
stormwater management plan which meets current TRCA criteria is in place. These overall SWM
plans will still be reviewed by TReA staff at an earlier stage of development, but the review and
approval of detailed engineering submissions will be undertaken solely by the Town. With the
implementation of the Retrofit Study, this streamlining approach will now also be applied to infill or
redevelopment applications within existing urbanized areas where the stormwater controls in place
do not meet current TRCA criteria. In these instances, the TRCA will no longer review and approve
development applications (unless a permit is required or the development abuts a stream / valley
corridor or other area of TRCA concern).
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding mechanisms to implement the Retrofit Study include financial contributions from infill /
brown field development, special project funding (eg., the York Region Natural Heritage Project) and
the Town's Engineering reserve fund.
I n recognition of the need to avoid a proliferation of smaller SWM facilities and the benefits of
retrofitting older urbanized areas without SWM controls, TRCA staff retained the engineering
consultant Sabourin Kimble and Associates in 1998 to determine an appropriate cash contribution
to be paid by development proponents in lieu of on-site SWM controls on smaller, infill sites. Upon
surveying the construction costs of approximately sixty existing ponds throughout the GTA, the
following unit costs were determined:
i) For quality control only: $21,900.00/ impervious hectare of development;
ii) For quality and quantity control: $29, 000.00/ impervious hectare of development.
It is emphasized that this approach is intended only for infill development areas where a retrofit
study is in place. As infill developments proceed, the Town or TRCA staff will collect the financial
contribution from the proponent and direct these funds toward the implementation of the retrofit
strategy. (There also remains the option to provide on-site SWM controls if the development
proponent can demonstrate that the proposed measures will meet the required SWM criteria.)
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will be working with the Town of Markham staff to implement the recommendations of the
Retrofit Study.
For information contact: Darlene Conway, extension 278
Date: August 12,.,1999
Attachments (2)
0256 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17,1999
Attachment 1
i/:: ",',:' ':::::,::,:,:S:::::::::::::::::::::::::':"...::::':;::.:::::\':::::~:,:' .", .".. "" " "" ,,,',,' '" '" :;r::::.::,):(::":::':, ..,,:.....::: ':':"';}::::"\::;:':::-':"::':.
'''''::':::: ,:.:,'" ',: ': " ",,',:'.' "'," .',,:, '" ., ," '.'." ",,'," ."" :::.' "'.":" '. '... ,:
,:,..:,::::::::';.",,::,,::;':::'::,::':, '/,:::' ". "., :"'.' :/,:T~~A,,:::'MABKMAN,t::,REJRQf~T:P.9NO$.:;~::::::'::::::,;.:-::....,:,::::::::::::,,</':';',\..:.: ',:.'.', :":,:
~::f~~+:; "'~~~~r~~IHI;\~;;~~L~;1t:llji~~,,;~j~;~:=~f:,&
1 a SE Quadrant I Water Quality ID 276000
Brown's Corner
12.0 Walden Pond. I Erosion I~ 317000
Markvllle ~
80.0 Leitchcroft Farm Water Quality/Erosion D 140000
Pond 2'
82.1 Beaver Creek Water Quality/Erosion CJ 135000
Pond 3
87.0 Hagerman Water Quality/Erosion D 144 000
Estates
88.0 Bridle Trail Water Quality/Erosion D 28000
Phase 3
88.1 Bridle Trail Water Quality/Erosion CJ 56000
Phase 4
882 Bridle Trail Water Quality/Erosion D 229000
Phase 5
90.0 RaymeNille Water Quality/Erosion D 202 000
Community Pond
98.0 Unionvi1le B-3 Erosion 5 11 000
Subdiv~ion
Total Estimated Cost 1 538 000
Note: Pond 82.0 was identified as a potential pond to retrofit; however, it is not included in this table
because of insufficient data.
September 17, 1999 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0257
Attachment 2
,:'.::;::::'.:,'::::;,::.:",;,'::"':':::::':":::,,:.:' , ":,": ':::"iA13f.t;:2::::POTE~TIAL':NE~,F~9iuli.'E~::,::::::,:::.,.:.:::::::j\;,;::,::.~',,: :\\: ':" ,,::":
:::':'::i~~~t::,:::::,': l~aU!~~\%"II;~~h~;fl :;::::::-,::'Aitia:::<;f::i:::::::, ,::::::.::);t~~ ::::.:';?::
i~~~$~':::'
',' .,....'.. ........ ........'......... ':', ...:.... ..,'.........
" ::",: ',,: ': . ::::.;':::,:'\;~r':' .:,,::..:::'.. :. ..:,:..~:.:',:":':":, . . . ': .:;::::.;r::.:~"
1 Green Lane and L~ Local Gov't
Leslie Street parkland!
Public Utilities
2 Summerdale L~ Local Gov't
Drive and 14th parkland!
Lane Public Utilities
3 Bercy (Wycliffe) LJLJ Local Gov't
Park - Bucks parkland!
Green Road Public Utilities
4 I Spyeourt ILJ~ Local Gov't
parkland!
I Public Utilities
5 Coleman Road ROUGE 14.0 ha Local Gov't
and Blackwell parkland!
Court - Just north Public Utilities
of Hwy #7
6 Rodick Road and ElL:] Ontario
Miller Ave. (North Hydro!
of 14th Ave) Industrial Area
7 SpringdaJe Park - ElL:] Local Gov't
Brookbank Court parkland!
Public Utilities
8 Tuclor Lane ROUGE 77.8 ha Local Gov't
parkland!
Public Utilities
D258 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D69/99 - PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-005
TO THE REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN TO INCORPORATE
POLICIES CONCERNING COMMUNAL SERVICING
To provide comments on the proposed Region of Durham Official Plan
Amendment to incorporate policies respecting limited use of communal
sanitary sewer and water supply systems to service development in rural
areas.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
WHEREAS policies of the Durham Official Plan would permit, subject to the completion of a
feasibility study, development to be serviced by a communal system when it is determined that
the proposal meets the overall urban and rural settlement policies;
WHEREAS the Region has completed the feasibility study and it concludes there is no need
for additional growth within the Region outside of the designated Urban Settlement
Boundaries;
WHEREAS a proposed Official Plan Amendment, as recommended by the Tri-Committee of the
Region of Durham, would allow for the consideration of communal servicing on a case by
case basis should the development demonstrate significant benefit to the Region;
WHEREAS the proposed Official Plan Amendment would appear to promote additional urban
growth outside of the designated Urban Settlement Boundaries on a site by site basis without
the benefit of broader studies on a region or watershed basis to determine the impacts of such
new development;
WHEREAS the Board of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has raised similar
concerns and has suggested that a consolidated opinion be d~veloped with the other four
Conservation Authorities within the Region of Durham, namely the Toronto and Region, Central
Lake Ontario, Kawartha Region and Ganaraska Region Conservation Authorities;
WHEREAS this Authority is concerned that the proposed Tri-Committee Official Plan
Amendment would encourage more development in the rural areas outside of the currently
designated Urban Settlement Boundaries with the associated impacts on the natural
environment;
AND WHEREAS the Authority is willing to take part in discussion with the other Durham Region
Conservation Authorities to determine if a joint position can be developed;
- . -
THEREFORE THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to take
part in discussions related to the development of a joint position by the other Conservation
Authorities within the Region of Durham;
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0259
THA T The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority indicate to the other Conservation
Authorities that it has concerns with the Region of Durham Tri-Committee's proposed Official
Plan Amendment supporting the consideration of communal systems outside of the
designated Urban Settlement Boundaries and would recommend against such an Official Plan
Amendment unless:
. the development has been reviewed in context of the overall urban and rural
structure established by the Regional Official Plan; and
. the technical review for the development and that of the communal servicing
takes into consideration the cumulative impacts which could result over the
subwatershed or watershed;
THA T The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority indicate to the other Conservation
Authorities that it does not object to an amendment to the Durham Region Official Plan for the
limited use of communal sanitary sewer and water supply systems where it is necessary to
deal with a health or environmental problem caused by failed private wells and/or septic
systemsj and only after all other options to address the problem have been exhausted;
THAT upon meeting with the other five Authorities within Durham Region, staff report further
on the joint recommendation;
AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Durham be forwared a copy of this report. . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Regional Municipality of Durham is considering an amendment to the Durham Region Official
Plan to incorporate policies respecting the use of communal sanitary sewer and water supply
systems to service development in the rural area under the following circumstances:
1. Where Regional Council deems it necessary to deal with a health or environmental problem
caused by failed private wells and/or septic systems, and only after all other options to
address the problem have been exhausted; and
2. Where Regional Council may wish to consider, on a case by case basis, and by amendment
to the Regional Official Plan, the approval of a privately owned and operated communal
system required to service development that is deemed to be of significant benefit to the
Region. The policy does not apply to development located on the Oak Ridges Moraine and
the Permanent Agricultural Reserve Areas as designated in the Durham Regional Official
Plan.
In accordance.with..the .Qurham-Offidal'~ani{he.firm~f. Proctor--& -Redfern Ltd. was retained to
undertake a Technical Feasibility Study for the Region of Durham. Recommendations of the
Feasibility Study include:
. Communal systems may be appropriate as a last resort to remedy a health problem or rectify
environmental degradation, only after all other methods to rectify problems with existing
private systems have been exhausted.
0260 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
. There are more than adequate development opportunities within the established rural
settlement structure of the Official Plan without the need of permitting additional rural
development on communal systems.
. The majority of growth in Durham is directed to fully serviced urban areas. Rural growth is
limited.
. Permitting rural developments on communal servicing would undermine both the urban and
rural structure established in the Regional Official Plan, by directing growth from urban areas
and encouraging unplanned growth in rural areas.
. The Region would have ultimate responsibility for any communal system installed in
Durham.
. Use of communal services owned and operated by the Region could have significant overall
impact on the Region's uniform development charges and user rates.
. Rural development on individual private wells and septic systems is the least expensive
servicing approach.
. The cost of servicing low-density residential development on communal systems is higher
than on private systems or urban systems.
A Region of Durham staff report was prepared for consideration by the Region's Tri-Committee
(Commissioners of Planning, Works, Finance and Medical Officer of Health) at a March 3, 1999
meeting. Staff's recommendation, given the results of the Feasibility Study, was to initiate an
amendment to the Official Plan to provide policy only for the consideration of the use of communal
servicing to remedy a health problem or rectify environmental degradation.
In consideration of the proposed policy, Tri-Committee expressed the need for an additional policy
that would also provide the opportunity for Council to consider, on a case by case basis, the limited
use of privately owned and operated communal systems for development that Regional Council
deems to be of significant benefit to the Region. The proposed policy prepared by Regional staff,
in this regard, will be considered at Regional Planning Committee in October 1999.
Comments from other Conservation Authorities and Municipalities within Durham Region
Authority staff has received correspondence from The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(CLOCA) which identified the adoption of an Authority resolution which supported Amendment 1
but did not support Amendment 2. CLOeA's resolution is attached as Schedule 1.
The Lake Simcos.R89ion Conservation..AuthGrity(L-SRGA}-supportednthe-concerns raised by CLOCA
and requested a joint review with the TRCA, GRCA, KRCA and CLOCA be held to establish a
consolidated opinion to be presented to Durham Region. The resolution from the LSRCA is
attached as Schedule 2. We have consulted with KRCA and GRCA and staff have indicated that
their proposed recommendations are consistent with CLOCA's.
Correspondence from the Township of Uxbridge and the Town of Ajax supports the CLOCA position.
We have no formal position from the Town of Pickering.
September 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0261
RATIONALE
AMENDMENT 1
Wrth regard to the first proposed amendment which provides policy to consider communal servicing
'as an option to remedy or rectify an existing health or environmental concern which results from
failed septic systems or wells, staff feel this is a reasonable solution provided that communal
servicing has been determined as the best technical and environmental option available. Other
servicing options, including providing full municipal servicing, should not be excluded from
consideration in determining the appropriate and best technical solution for an area experiencing
existing problems. Therefore, staff have no objection to the first proposed amendment.
AMENDMENT 2
With regard to the second amendment, it is staffs opinion that now that a Feasibility Study has been
undertaken, the policies of the Durham Official Plan would allow for the consideration of many
servicing options includin,g communal servicing once the overall growth management policies of
the Plan have be adequately addressed. Further, from a land use perspective, staff are concerned
that the policies promote a perception that the potential for considering development applications,
outside the existing settled areas, will be rationalized because they can be supported through a
servicing option that is available and generally accepted by the municipality. Finally, in reviewing
the technical issues, staff do not recommend policies which promote the consideration of these
types of facilities on a case by case basis. Communal servicing may be a viable option in some
instances, however this needs to be evaluated on a watershed or at least a subwatershed basis.
Land Use
Both the Durham Official Plan (DOP) and the Feasibility Study determined that there is no need for
additional growth within the Region outside the designated urban boundaries. In fact there is a
surplus of existing vacant lots within the urban areas and within approved country residential estate
subdivisions. The focus of the Official Plan and those of the local municipalities is to provide for
additional growth and services to the urban settled areas. Policies within the DOP dealing with rural
settlements clearly identify that Regional Council not consider country residential development
amendments to the Plan unless a municipal wide analysis has been prepared which demonstrates
the need for and amount of development within a municipality and assess the long term cumulative
impacts on municipal servicing costs and the natural environment.
If Regional Council were to consider an amendment to permit a development, after considering the
need for additional growth, the policies would not now preclude the use of communal servicing
systems as one potential option to service and implement the project. The proposed amendment,
which specifically highlights this servicing option as being generally acceptable, appears to place
the ability to technically accommodate a proposal ahead of the objectives of the growth and
settlement policies. This amendment would increase the potential for additional surplus lots and
pressure on the local -municipalities and .Gonservation .Atlthorities-to allow uncontrolled growth.
In order to make a development supported by a communal system economic;:ally viable, the
Region's Feasibility Study stated that there needs to be a sufficient number of units to justify its use;
generally in the order of 100 units and greater. Therefore, the types of development contemplated
by this servicing option are large scale in the context of a rural setting. In addition, the development
would be more dense than the typical estate development on individual septic systems.
D262 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
The Durham Official Plan currently provides adequate policies to allow for growth within the context
of the urban and rural structures. By incorporating policies specific for case by case analysis of
communal servicing in support of a large development application, it suggests the opening up of
existing policy to allow for these types of developments outside urban settlements rather than
narrowing them as intended by the existing policy of the Official Plan.
The proposed amendment which may encourage the creation of unplanned rural cluster
development over the long term will place pressure on the natural heritage features and their
functions and ultimately may compromise the goals of the Region's Major Open Space System.
These lands contain environmentally significant forests, valleylands associated with the Duffins and
Carruthers Creeks and wildlife movement corridors. Additionally, that portion of the Major Open
Space System occupied by the Lake Iroquois Shoreline exhibits sensitive shallow groundwater
characteristics which contribute to the occurrence of unique vegetation areas and baseflow to
watercourses.
Technical Issues
Beyond the land use implications, the proposed amendment allows for evaluating communal
servicing on a case by case basis. While the option of communal servicing itself is not
objectionable, the cumulative implications of these types of facilities must be considered on a
broader basis. Communal systems are small scale water collection and sewage treatment plants.
They collect water from a common source, typically ground water, which, after treatment, is
discharged at a point source back into the surface rivers and streams. This system contrasts to
individual water and septic systems in which the water is being returned to a similar area in which
it was initially drawn. Given the potential technical implications of a communal system it must be
reviewed on a watershed basis or at least a subwatershed basis. The following are the majpr
technical issues which need to be addressed in reviewing a communal servicing option.
Flood Hazard Management - The Authority's hydrologic models are run on a watershed basis and
are based on the land use projected in approved Official Plans. The impacts of unplanned
development at the scale required to accommodate communal servicing may result in cumulative
flooding impacts on the subwatershed or watershed.
Point Source Discharge of Effluent - The impacts of point source discharge on flooding, erosion and
water quality should be comprehensively considered to avoid/minimize impacts on the features and
functions of the valley system and associated habitat. Broad consideration of these issues will allow
for optimal siting of discharge infrastructure.
Siting of Facilities - Gravity based systems are generally the most economically desirable, however,
they usually necessitate the siting of infrastructure within, or adjacent to, valley systems. In addition
to the location impacts discussed above (Point Source Discharge of Effluent), the impacts of
infrastructure on .broader -open .space-goalsj, including-public access -and natural and cultural
heritage conservation, should be assessed on a larger scale. The Province advocates locating
sewage treatment plants outside valley and stream corridors. Opportunities to locate these facilities
away from natural systems is more effectively assessed at a wider scale.
Groundwater - A comprehensive assessment of areas of sensitive and vulnerable groundwater
function should be undertaken in order to manage the cumulative impacts of various servicing
options on the resource.
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0263
CONCLUSION
Staff have no objection to an Official Plan Amendment which allows for the consideration of
communal servicing, as one option, to rectify an existing health or environmental concern which
result~ from failed septic systems or wells.
Staff would also have no objection to permitting development served by communal servicing
provided that:
. the development is reviewed in the context of the overall urban and rural structure
established by the Regional Official Plan; and
. the technical review of the communal servicing takes into consideration the cumulative
impacts which could result over the subwatershed or watershed basis.
It is staff's opinion that the current policies of the Durham Official Plan would allow for the
consideration of many servicing options, including communal servicing, once the overall growth
management policies of the Plan have been adequately addressed. From a land use perspective,
staff are concerned that the amendment as proposed, promotes a perception that the potential for
considering development applications, outside the existing settled areas, will be rationalized
because they can be supported through a servicing option that is available and generally accepted
by the municipality. Further, in reviewing the technical issues, staff do not recommend policies
which promote the consideration of these types of facilities on a case by case basis. Communal
servicing may be a viable option in some instances, however this needs to be evaluated on a
watershed or at least a subwatershed basis.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will meet with the other Conservation Authorities within Durham Region in the interest of
achieving a consolidated opinion to be presented to Durham Region. If a consolidated position is
not achieved the recommendation contained within this report will be forwarded to Durham Region.
If a change in the above position is recommended based on further information from the
Conservation Authorities, staff will report further to the Board.
For information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 214
Date: September 9, 1999
Attachments (2)
0264 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Schedule 1
" --.-- r-~~
,n1fA? SC:-ledule 1
~-r:rf Central 100 Whiting Avenue
,( I. ."r~,-~ Oshawa. Ontario
~ 1-;~' ';'~~:-'i Lake On tario L 1 H 3T3
, Tel: (905) 579-0411
Conservation Fax: (905) 579-0994
June 16, 1999 'RECfEBVED
JUN 2 1 1999
Chief Administrator's Office
CAO/General Manager: U'oronto and Region ~rvation Authority'
Lake Simcoe Region rvation Authority
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Kawartha Region Conservation Authority
Subject: Planning Issues Related to Proposed Official Plan Amendment 99-005
to Incorporate Communal Servicing Policies into the Durham Official Plan
CLOCA Staff Report #4348-99.
The CLOCA Board of Directors, at its meeting on June 15, 1999, adopted the following
resolution:
Res. # 84/99 Moved by 1. Harrell
Seconded by D. Hamre
THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised thaJ the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority SUTJTJorts an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan to
incorporaie policies r~specting the limited use of communal sanitary sewer and water supply
systems to service development in the rural area under thf! following circumstances:
1) where Regional Council deems i1 necessary to deal with a health or environmental problem
caused by failed private wells and/or septic systems, and 01l1y after all other options to address
the problem have been exhausted; and,
THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised thai the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation AuthoriJy does not SUrJDort an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan
to incorporaie policies respecting the limited use of communal sanitary sewer and waler
supply systems to service development in the rural area under the following circumstances:
2) where Regional Council may wish to consider, on a case by case basis, and by amendment to
the Regional Official PlaII, the approval of a priValely owned and operaled communal system
required to service development t/wi is deemed to be of significant benefit to the Region; and,
THAT Staff Report #4348-99 constitute the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
response to the Region of Durham on this matter; and,
THAT Stnff Report #4348-99 be circulaJed to the area municipalities and participating
Conservation Authontles in Durham Region.
CARRIED
cont'd.... .2
VVhat we do on the land is mirrored in the water @
September 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0265
..y
,)'
, / Central Lake Ontario Conservation
/
.~
./
,
./ June 16, 1999 Page 2
,.
./ A copy of Staff Report #4348-99 is appended. Please bring this matter to the attention of your
" ,.
., Board of Directors. We would appreciate being advised as to the Board's disposition of same
.' and of the position taken by your Authority in regard to Durham Region OPA 99-005.
Yours truly,
~p~
J .R. Powell,
Chief Administrative Officer
JRP / IllS
Attach.
s:\russI99.00S cas
0266 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
Schedule 2
,
'r ~. ~ch.ec-qle 2
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
120 Bayvlew Parkway, f\Jewmarket. Ontario L3Y 4X 1
Telephone: (905) 895-1281 Fax' (905) 853-5881
August 27. 1999 RECEIVED:
Mr. 1. R. Powell
Chief Administrative Officer SEP 0 2 \999
Central Lake Ontario Conservation
100 Whiting Avenue Chiel Ad;nini~,tIalor's Office
Oshawa, Ontario
LlH3T3 ~
D~ :
Subject: Proposed OPA to the Durham Official Plan - OPA ~9-005
On August 27. 1999, the Board of Directors of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
considered the attached Staff Report No. 74-99-BOD regarding the above noted matter. As a result,
the Board approved the following resolution:
That the Region of Durham be advised that the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority has concerns regarding the approval of OPA 99-005
similar to tbose raised by CLOCA wbereby Durham Region may consider
a communal system for a proposal that is deemed to be of significant benefit
to the Region. The LSRCA would request a joint review with the TRCA,
GRCA, KRCA and CLOCA be held and a consolidated opinion be presented
to Durham Region.
Russ, I would suggest that we discuss how best to co-ordinate such a report and will contact you in
the ne future regarding this.
,D. Gayle Wood
Chief Administrative Officer/
Secretary-Treasurer
cc CAO's - TRCA. GRCA, KRCA
Susan Para, Durham Regional Councillor
Regions of Durham and York
-
Your Land . Your Water . Your Future
September 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0267
RES.#D70/99 - ANNUAL CLEAN WATERS SUMMIT: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1999
Special Focus on the Oak Ridges Moraine: The Source of Water for our
Streams and Rivers. An update regarding the 1999 Clean Waters Summit
and its focus on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the information regarding the date,
time, and focus on the Oak Ridges Moraine for the 1999 Clean Waters Summit be received
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On Saturday, November 20, 1999 the Second Annual Clean Waters Summit will be held from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at a location to be confirmed. The theme of the 1999 Summit is The Oak Ridges
Moraine: The Source of Water for our Streams. Participants will learn about the significance of the
Oak Ridges Moraine to the Greater Toronto Bioregion, Lake Ontario, and contribute ideas for
collaborative management of this valuable resource.
The Summit is one of the deliverables identified for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) in the
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Memorandum of Understanding. The Summit is seen as an important
mechanism for public consultation into the RAP and a venue for prioritizing issues.
TRCA has been asked to assist by preparing a "Backgrounder" on the Moraine that describes its
form, function, values, trends and forecasts. The WRT is developing a "Pledge" that all parties will
sign to recognize the significance of the Moraine and work together on its protection.
The Remedial Action Plan
In 1972, eanada and the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). The Agreement was renewed in 1978 and in 1987, a protocol to the Agreement identified
42 Areas of Concern (AoCs) which are some of the most severely degraded areas of the Great
Lakes. The Toronto Region is one of the largest and complex of the AoCs in Ontario. The 1987
Protocol also required that for each AoC in their jurisdiction, the governments develop and
implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and that the public be consult,ed in all actions taken.
The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Ecosystem (COA) provided a
framework for systematic and strategic coordination of the shared federal and provincial
responsibilities for environmental management in the Great Lakes Basin, and outlines Canadian
efforts to fulfil Canada's obligations under the GLWQA.
In 1991, the Metro Toronto RAP Team, prepared and submitted the Stage 1 RAP Report to the
International Joint Commission as,equired under th'e G'CNQA. "Subsequently, they developed the
Report "elean Waters, Clear Choices" containing 53 recommendations for action to "restore the
polluted waterways and waterfront in the Metro Toronto Region, from Etobicoke Creek in the west
to the Rouge River in the east".
0258 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
The report, "Clean Water, Clear Choices" recommended Lead Implementors and Partners to
address specific remedial actions. In November 1995, the Ministry of Environment Metro RAP office
retained the LURA Group to assist in the development of a organizational structure to advocate, co-
ordinate and facilitate these actions. A draft proposal was presented at a multi-sectoral workshop
that recommended the consideration of the TRCA and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust as "co-
stewards". The consultation process and results from the workshop confirmed that a strong base
of support existed within the RAP area for the Authority and the Trust to proceed as "Co-Chairs".
At Meeting #5/96 held on June 26, 1996, the Authority adopted Resolution #A30/96:
'THA T the staff report concerning the Authority's proposed role as Co-chair with the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust to implement the Metropolitan Toronto Region
Remedial Action Plan be received;
THAT the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and
Environment Canada be advised that the Authority is prepared to accept a joint lead
role for implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto
Region provided that adequate provincial and federal resources are available;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to negotiate a suitable Memorandum of
Understanding among the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Environment Canada and
the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOU) and submit the proposed MOU to the
Executive Committee for approval. "
Immediately following the direction from the Authority, staff met with representatives of the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada. In late
October the Memorandum was signed.
1998 Clean Waters Summit
On Saturday, November 21, 1995, 150 involved citizens, elected officials, and government and
agency staff from across the six major watersheds, Toronto Bay and the waterfront, gathered
together at the Metropolitan Hotel in downtown Toronto for the first Clean Waters Summit.
Some of the key themes from the Summit included public education to shift attitudes; the need for
effective partnerships and innovative approaches to funding.
Related Initiatives
The RAP and the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) of the International Joint Commission
(IJC) held a public workshop on watershed monitoring and management in Toronto on May 13,
1999. The WQB is principal advisor to the IJC on all matters relating to the Canada-United States
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The public workshop was one in a series of workshops to
support the RAP processin-Toronto'and'ftllfitled an iJCTequirement of the WQB to improve public
involvement and consultation.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will proceed to finalize the Oak Ridges Moraine "Backgrounder" to support the planning and
execution of the Cleans Waters Summit on Saturday, November 20, 1999.
September 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 0269
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The TRCA has agreed to produce and print 2,500 copies of the Oak Ridges Moraine
"Backgrounder"at a cost of approximately $2,500. Funds are available through account code 118-
03-364.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 334
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: September 8, 1999
RES.#D71 /99 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #4/99. The minutes of Meeting #4/99 held on July
29,1999 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for
information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam Mceonnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #4/99 held July 29, 1999 be received. . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record
of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members
informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty
Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: September 8, 1999
0270 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/99 September 17, 1999
RES.#D72/99 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #3/99 held on July 20, 1999. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting#3/99, held on July 20, 1999, are provided for
information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed
Alliance meeting #3/99, held on July 20, 1999, as appended, be received ...... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and adopted by
the Authority at meeting H4/97 held on May 30,1997 by Resolution HA66/97, includes the following
provision:
Part 1 . Section 1 ,1 .Mandate
The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on the progress of
implementing activities.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211
Date: September 7, 1999
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:58 a.m., on September 17, 1999.
Cliff Gyles Craig Mather
Vice Chair Secretary Treasurer
/ks
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99
October 22, 1999 Page D271
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/99, was held in the Humber Room, Head
Office, on Friday, October 22, 1999. The Vice Chair, Cliff Gyles, called the meeting to order at 10:05
a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon ............................................................ Member
Milton Berger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Ila Bossons .......................................................... .'. . . . Member
Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair
Irene Jones ............................................................... Member
Pam McConnell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Dick O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Chair, Authority
Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
David Barrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Lorna Bissell .............................................,................,. Chair
Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member
RES.#D73/99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/99, held on September 17, 1999, be approved . CARRI ED
DELEGATIONS
(a) Mr. Michael McMahon of Glenlake Avenue, Toronto, speaking in regards to King City
Community Plan OPA 54.
RES.#D74/99 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Mike Tzekas
THAT the above-noted delegation (a) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0272 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated October 7, 1999 from Michael McMahon of 2901-299 Glenlake Avenue,
Toronto, in regards to King City Community Plan OPA 54.
(b) A letter dated October 11, 1999 from J. Bruce Craig, King Township Environmental Coalition,
in regards to King City's O.M.B. and OPA 4 and OPA 54.
RES.#D75/99 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Milton Berger
Seconded by: I rene Jones
THAT the above-noted correspondence (a) & (b) be received ................ CARRIED
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D273
Correspondence (a)
Michael McMahon
2901 - 299 G/enlake Avenue . Toronto ON M6P 4A6 . Canada
416 767- 8597 (ph. + fax)
7 October 1999
Madelaine McDowell
Chair, Humber Heritage Committee,
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontano,
M3N 1 S4
Dear Ms. McDowell,
Further to our telephone conversation of last week, I am writing to update you on the
evolving situation in King City, especially as it concerns the Toronto Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Humber River.
An alliance of concerned citizens has recently been formed to better fight various official
plan amendments which, if passed at the Ontario Municipal Board (the hearing starts
November 22), Will have negative impacts on Canada's newest heritage river. The King
Township Environmental Coalition includes King City Preserve the Village Inc.,
Concerned Citizens of King Township Inc., S.T.O.R.M. Coalition, Nobleton Alert, and
The Safe Sewage Committee, amongst others. The first four of these groups are
"parties" to the appeal of official plan amendments No. 54 and No.4 to the OMB.*
Where is the TRCA in all of this? It was recently listed by King Township solicitors as an
official supporter of OPA No. 54, which is the King City Communrty Plan, expanded
well beyond "community" desires. The background to the latter action, as I understand It,
is as follows. The TRCA "signed off' on the King City Community Plan In the first half of
1997, before York Region's September 1997 passage of thiS plan (conditional on
financial arrangements for regional sewage servicing), and before Fisheries and Oceans
Canada raised concerns about the environmental implications of "big pipe" servicing in
late 1997. These implications were subsequently seen to include a hit on Humber River
base flows out of King City, to the extent of minus 10 to 30 percent. Back of all this,
the historical sequencing was as follows: the King City big pipe connection was given "In
principle" approval by King Township in November of 1995. Then approvals of the King
City plan followed in 1996 and 1997, as something of a support measure. Under York
Region policies, at least 10,000 people are deemed to be needed to pay for regional,
big-pipe services. And as we know from our history, once the pipe is in place,
* OPA..54 isaJocal a>nendment that wiU aUow King City's population.to grow from 5000
to 10,000 by 2016. OPA 4 is an amendment to the York Region Official Plan which
reallocates a portion of the region's 1994-2021 aggregate population allowance to King
City. This regional amendment goes hand in hand with OPA 54, and related moves to
extend the York Durham Sewer service area west from the Yonge Street Corridor, and
north from Maple.
0274 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
-2-
the servicing capacity will somehow be found to rationalize further planning
amendments. In fact, such amendments (above and beyond OPA's 54 & 4) are already
in the works.
As I believe you know, the York Region Commissioner of Planning requested and
received conditional "notices of decision" regarding the above amendments, eartier
this year. Mr. Livey's request to the Province went hand in hand with (i) his recognition
that the pipe would damage the base flows of the Humber River, and (ii) his indication
that York Region was willing to explore plans to mitigate these damages. I expect these
mitigation plans are currently under discussion, but I understand that the TRCA is not
officially party to these discussions. In tum the TRCA, while on record as approving
plans which have negative base flow implications given the associated servicing
"solutions," remains officially blind to the problematic consequences of its actions. At
best, the TRCA will be commenting from the margins.
I will not burden you with my frfty page history of the saga of King City, which I have
subtitled "Our Chinatown with a Difference?" The substantive issues boil down to the fact
that the Humber will be further degraded, rather than maintained and enhanced along
the lines indicated in the Aurhority's A Call to Action, if the York-Durham Sewer System
is expanded in the manner being proposed. As to the matter of the TRCA's related
positioning, I have to report that a TRCA staff member indicated to me in the spring that
the TRCA "does not take sides" in controversial matters such as these. At the time, I
suggested to him that it was not a matter of taking sides, but one of ensuring that a full
environmental assessment was done so that all the sanitary treatment options for King
City would be on the table. But now, if only by bureaucratic default on the one hand, and
aggressive legal actions on the other, the TRCA is seen to be "taking sides," and the
wrong one to boot. This is a problem for the good name of the Authority, especially in
the wake of recently renewed commitments to the goal of protecting and enhancing the
health of the Humber River (Le., all those good words at the sunrise ceremony of
September 24). What is to be done to bring words and actions into better alignment?
Congratulations for all the work you and your family put in to getting the Humber River
designated a Canadian Heritage River. I hope we Will be able to speak of positive follow
up actions, in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
/1/Idcu./ /?7c.~
Michael McMahon
c. The Honourable Sheila Copps
Minister of Canadian Heritage
./ Craig Mather
CAO, Toronto Region Conservation Authority
Lyn and Hamish McGregor
Co-secretaries, King Township Environmental Alliance
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D275
Correspondence (b)
King Township Environmental Coalition
c/o 236 Banner Lane, King City, ON, L7B lID
Coordinating Chairman J. Bruce Crmg; Co-secretaries Lyn McGregor, Hamish McGregor
Telephone (905) 833-5593, Fax (905) 833-1874
Uniting And
King City Petitioning Residents Nobleton Alert Residents Association Inc.
Kmg City Preserve the Village Inc. Snowballs Chance ResIdents Group
With
Concerned Citizens of King Township Inc. RECE~VED
STORM Coalition
The Safe Sewage Committee
October 11, 1999 OCT f) 1 1999
Chair Dick O'Brien
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ClUe! i~$~ill!s:ratJ;t5 Otilt!!
5 Shoreham Dr.
North Yark
Dear Sir:
Re: King City's O.M.B. and OPA 4 and OPA 54
We would like to know where exactly the members of the Board for the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority stand on the issue of the extending the York Durham
Sewage System (Y.D.S.S.) to King City. We understand that the TRCA has signed off
on the King City plan. Does this mean that the official position taken by the authority is
in support of the extension of the Y.D.S.S. or that the official position is a neutral
position (i.e. that the TRCA does not take sides)?
Are you aware that Aird and Berlis, King Township's solicitors and TRCA's solicitors,
have listed TRCA as in support of OP A 4 and OP A 54? This implies support for the
extension of the Y.D.S.S. to King City.
By not taking at least a neutral position with regards to the extension of the Y.D.S.S. for
King City, TRCA isjeoparclizing the objectives put forward in TRCA's A Call to
Action. These objectives include sustainable development, conservation of ground water,
groundwater recharge, protection of the headwaters and avoidance of depletion of the
aquifer.
We would appreciate a letter that clarifies your position on this matter.
SillO"d '~G .'
J. Bruc C 'g
Enc. py of Schedule C will h lists Parties and Participants in support of OP A 4 and
OP A 54 and Parties and PartIcipants in Opposition to OP A 4 and OP A 54
c.c. Craig Mather, CAO, Toronto Region Conservation Authority
0276 WATERSI;-iED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
'-~---'.-
SEP 20 1999 18:34 FR RIRD & BERLIS 416 863 1515 TO 20226382311905859 P. 20/25
SCHEDULE C
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
l. PARTIES IN SUPPORT OF OPA 4 AND OPA 54
AND SITE SPECIFIC APPEALS (excluding Humber Meadows)
Region ofY ork
Township of King
King City Securities (Western) Limited
Victor Culotta and 1302553 Ontario Limited
King Dufferio Development Inc., King North Development Inc.
Oldfield (Formerly Actrest Inc.)
Kings Cross Inc.
Frank Dipede!Dominic Baldassarra
Lavis Inc.
Hickory Hill Investments Inc.
Joseph Kreiner Real Estate Ltd.
Seneca College (as required)
COWltry Day School (as required)
2. PARTICIPANTS IN SUPPORT OF OPA 4 AND OPA 54
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Voice oOZing Area Landowners (V.O.K..A.L.)
Allen Mayer
King City Seniors Housing Corporation - John Vincent
Vision King Coalition
King City Chamber of Commerce - Don FennlMargaret Miller
3. PARTIES IN OPPOSITION TO OP A 4 AND OP A 54
AND HUMBER MEADOWS SITE SPECIFIC APPEALS
King City Preserve the Village Inc.
~--
WATER$HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5;99 D277
t October 22, 1999
s
- ..
SEP 20 1999 18:34 FR AIRD & BERLIS 416 863 1515 TO 202263823~905859 P.21/25
Concerned Citizens of King T ownsbip
Save The Oak Ridges Moraine
Nobleton Alert
Humber Meadows: 514051 Ontario Limited
514052 Ontario Limited
95 King Group
667635 Ontario Limited
4. PARTICIPANTS IN OPPOSITION TO OPA4 AND OPA54 AND HUMBER
MEADOWS SITE SPECIFIC APPEALS
Ted Murphy and Robert Salna
James Mcgregor
Ian Lovett
Jane Underhill
J. Gordon Elder
Bruce Craig
Robert Martin
Rob Wilson - Snowballs Chance Residents Group (not incorporated)
JdfLaidlaw
Safe Sewage Committee - Karey ShinnIDebra KyleS
King Rural Ratepayers Association - Dona Cain
5. REPLY
Region of York
Township of King
::ODMA\PCOOCSIDOCS\756664\1
~.-
D278 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Presentation by Cynthia Wilkey, West Don Lands Committee, in regards to the West Don
Lands Flood Control Project.
RES.#D76/99 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THAT the above-noted presentation be heard and received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work with the West Don Lands Committee on
appropriate plans for development in the West Don Lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
RES.#D77 /99 - RENEWAL OF THE CANADA ONTARIO AGREEMENT (COA) AND THE
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM FUNDING
The Canada-Ontario Agreement for the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes
Clean Up Fund expires in March 2000. TRCA calls on Federal and Provincial
Governments to act quickly on renewal negotiations and to establish funding
to continue Great Lakes protection and regeneration.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: I rene Jones
WHEREAS the Great Lakes Basin plays a pivotal role in the health, quality of life, wealth and
prosperity of 9 million Canadians, fully 25% of Canada's population;
WHEREAS the Great Lakes are the direct source of drinking water for these Canadians;
WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is the
primary vehicle for the fulfilment of Canada's obligations under the Canada-United states
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
WHEREAS the 1994 COA agreement has only partially achieved its three key objectives being
the restoration of degraded areas, particularly the seventeen Canadian and Binational Areas
of Concern, the pr91l.ention..and~ontrol,of-polkJtion, including. a 90% elimination in the use,
generation and release of persistent toxic substances identified in the Agreement, and the
conservation and protection of human and ecosystem health in the Great Lakes Basin;
WHEREAS the Toronto and Region has been designated as one of 12 Ontario Areas of
Concern based on the impairments and loss of beneficial uses of the waters and habitats
within the watersheds and along the Great Lakes Shoreline and in particular within Toronto
Bay;
October 22. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D279
WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario Agreement and the Great Lakes Cleanup Fund expire in March
of 2000;
WHEREAS it is imperative that the Federal Government renew its program funding for the
restoration of Great Lakes water quality and habitats at a level sufficient to enable an
aggressive program that will provide measurable results;
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority calls on the Governments of Canada and Ontario, the Federal and the Provincial
Ministers of the Environment to ensure that the negotiations on a new Canada-Ontario
Agreement are completed in time to be in place and signed when the current Agreement
expires in March 2000;
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority calls on the Federal Government and
in particular the Ministers of the Environment and Finance to ensure that program funding is
in place to aggressively address remaining and emerging Great Lakes issues;
THAT the TRCA calls on the local Greater Toronto members of the federal and provincial
governments to ensure:
. THA T the Parties commit to the basic goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement including the elimination of the use, generation and release of persistent
toxic substances within the Great Lakes Basin;
. THAT the agreement and funding program embodies the critical linkage between
tributary watershed health and the health of the Great Lakes;
. THAT the agreement and funding program provides for the continuation of remediation
of the Areas of Concerns, and the restoration and maintenance of the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes System;
. THAT the agreement and funding program makes provision for addressing emerging
issues, such as endocrine-disrupting substances;
. THAT the agreement continues the current practice of providing specific targets and
benchmarks in relation to the achievement of the Agreement and specifies the
responsibilities of the parties including the allocation of resources, subject to approval
by Parliament and Legislative Assembly of Ontario;
. THA T the agree~ent and funding program recognizes and supports the role of
municipal governments, conservation authorities and aboriginal governments and
communities in the achievement of the Agreement's objectives;
AND FURTHER THAT the TRCA acknowledges its support of the recommendations made to
the International Joint Commission and the Water Quality Board dated May 12, 1999 by the
Chairs of the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council for:
0280 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
1. the development of an "urban runoff annex" to the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement and to ensure priority be given to assisting local municipalities, agencies,
and others to deal with stormwater management infrastructure funding, research, and
monitoring;
2. the acceleration of efforts to address the serious issue of air borne pollutant deposition
within the Great lakes Basin recognizing that this issue cannot be resolved through
local community actions;
3. program development and federal funding for environmental education and awareness
stressing new approaches such as community-based social marketing to foster
personal behaviour change and ensure that support be focussed on innovative
partnerships with school boards, other agencies and community based groups for
effective delivery at the local level;
4. the sharing of timely information on costs and ecologically effective technologies and
creative solutions for addressing common causes of use impairments among "like"
Area of Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). The Agreement was renewed in 1978 with the purpose of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. In 1987, a protocol
to the Agreement identified 42 Areas of Concern (AoCs) in the Basin where one or more beneficial
uses have been impaired. Of these 42 Aoes, 5 were shared between eanada and the United States
in the connecting channel areas, and 12 were within the Province of Ontario. The Toronto Region
is one of the largest and most complex of these 12 AoCs in Ontario. The 1987 Protocol also
required that for each AoC in their jurisdiction, the governments develop and implement a Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) which shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to
restore and protect beneficial uses in the AoC. The Protocol also required that the public be
consulted in all actions taken.
An agreement signed between Canada and Ontario, The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
the Great Lakes Ecosystem (eOA) , provides a framework for systematic and strategic coordination
of the shared federal and provincial responsibilities for environmental management in the Great
Lakes Basin. It also outlines Canadian efforts to fulfil Canada's obligations under the GLWQA. This
includes the development and implementation of RAPs for which Environment Canada and Ministry
of Environment are the lead agencies.
Under the direction of CO~, in 1991, the Metro Toronto and Region RAP Team, a collaboration of
government implementing agencies and members of the public and supported by advisory groups,
prepared and submitted the Stage 1 RAP Report, identifying impaired uses and their causes, to the
International Joint Commission as required under the GLWQA. Subsequently, the Team developed
the Report "Clean Waters, Clear Choices". This Stage 2A Report contains 53 recommendations for
action to "restore the polluted waterways and waterfront in the Metro Toronto Region, from
Etobicoke Creek in the west to the Rouge River in the east".
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D281
In the ten years since the process to develop a Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto Region
commenced, a great deal of good work has been done to identify problems and suggest
appropriate remedial measures. Many important implementation projects have been completed or
initiateQ to address critical issues. In particular, projects to deal with combined sewer outfalls and
habitat enhancement have been undertaken by many municipalities. Some federal and provincial
support has been available to assist in these projects. In 1996 as a result of a growing frustration
among the public and within public agencies at the relatively slow pace of action to progressively
restore the health of the rivers and lakeshore within the Toronto and Region a new approach was
developed for the Toronto RAP.
At Meeting #5/96 held on June 26, 1996, the Authority adopted, in part, Res:#A30/96:
'THA T the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and
Environment Canada be advised that the Authority is prepared to accept a joint lead
role for implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto
Region provided that adequate provincial and federal resources are available;"
In 1998/1999, the TRCA delivered a number of programs utilizing funding provided through the RAP
MOU including:
. Conservation Education Programs - RAP on Wheels school visits.
. Stormwater Management Headwaters Studies on potential opportunities for enhancing water
quality and quantity management through stormwater pond redesigns.
. Watershed Monitoring including both development of a Watershed Monitoring Framework
and field monitoring of aquatic communities.
. Watershed Planning activities including the completion of the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
State of the Watershed Report.
. Co-ordination of the Great Lakes Funding Applications for the Toronto RAP area.
RATIONALE
The TRCA has been an ongoing partner in the protection and regeneration of the watersheds and
the Lake Ontario shoreline within its jurisdiction. It has been a consistent advocate for a "watershed"
approach for planning and consultation to address the impaired uses. For many years the TRCA,
on behalf of its partners, has carried out regeneration projects along the Lake Ontario Waterfront that
have restored wetlands and aquatic (fisheries) habitat. In its new role as co-co-ordinator with the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust for the Toronto Remedial Action Plan, it has accepted additional
responsibilities for education, monitoring, remedial action planning and Great Lakes Advocacy.
These efforts have been supported through financial resource provided primarily by the Federal
Government and to a lesser degree by the Province.
The renewal of. the.. Canada-Ontario,'-Agreement 'is 'imperative ..to continue and accelerate an
aggressive attack on the issues that must be addressed at the international, federal and provincial
levels. Air borne pollutants that are a major source of contaminant loading cannot be dealt with at
a local basis. The renewal of the Great Lakes Program funding to continue regeneration efforts is
equally critical. It is imperative that the regeneration investment in the Great Lakes be continued
to provide the quality of life and health necessary to support these anticipated growth rates.
D282 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22. 1999
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Copies of the recommendation will be sent by the TRCA Chair to the parties identified. Staff will
provide briefing opportunities for GT A MPs and MPPs.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Without a secure Great Lakes Canada Ontario Agreement and commitment to the continuation of
Great Lakes Basin regeneration it is anticipated that the health, quality of life, wealth and prosperity
of the Toronto region will decline. Significant growth is anticipated within the Great Lakes Basin.
The Canadian population is expected to grow by about 1.5 million by 2025, assuming current
immigration policies. Most of this growth will be in urban areas and will increase pressure on land
use and shorelines. The Great Lakes Basin plays a pivotal role in the health, quality of life, wealth and
prosperity of 9 million Canadians.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The TRCA will continue to assist its member municipalities, the federal government and the province
in its role as RAP co-co-ordinator subject to the availability of funding. TRCA will continue to
contribute to the protection and regeneration of the region through its watershed strategies and
programs and its lake Ontario Waterfront initiatives.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: October 13, 1999
RES.#D78/99 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Appointment of Members. The formal appointment of watershed residents,
interest group representatives, agency staff, municipal councillors and the
Authority's Chair to the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Task Force.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the appointments, as set out in the
report, be confirmed, effective immediately, the period ending June 30, 2001 ;
THAT the Authority reserve the right to revoke any appointment for any reason prior to the end
of the term;
AND FURTHER THAT all persons who applied for the Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Task
Force be thanked'for their interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #6/99, held on June 25, 1999, the Authority adopted Res. #A 166/99:
THA T the membership selection, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force, as described in the report
dated June 1999 (attached), be approved;
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D283
THA T the Authority direct staff to confirm, with local and regional municipalities within
the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, the appointment of a council member
and alternate to the Task Force by September 1, 1999;
THA T the Authority direct staff to request selected federal and provincial agencies to
appoint a senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force by September 1, 1999;
THA T the Authority direct staff to invite applications from the Etobicoke and Mimico
Creek watershed residents to participate on the Task Force;
THA T the Authority direct staff to invite community groups, residents associations, and
education representatives to apply for membership on the task force;
THA T the Authority authorize staff to take all other necessary actions to form an
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force to prepare an Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy;
THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership of the Task Force
for endorsement and formal appointment.
AND FURTHER THAT Councillor Cliff Gyles, City of Mississauga and Councillor Irene
Jones, City of Toronto, assist in the interview process for citizen members of the Task
Force.
The Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and
Mimico ereek Watersheds Task Force were approved at Authority meeting #6/99, held on June 25,
1999.
Letters were sent to the local and regional municipalities, and federal and provincial agencies,
requesting they appoint delegates to the Task Force. A Stakeholders Workshop was held in May
to seek input into the strategy development and task force initiation process. Advertisements for
watershed resident representatives were placed in four local newspapers. Three public information
sessions were held in June at various locations throughout the watersheds. These information
sessions provided general information to individuals interested in knowing more about the Authority,
watershed strategy development or becoming a watershed resident on the Task Force. Thirteen
applicants were interviewed by a Selection Committee comprised of Lorna Bissell, Chair of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board; Irene Jones, Watershed Management Advisory Board
Member; and Brian Denney, Director of the Watershed Management Division.
A few members are yet to b~ confirmed. It is anticipated that all appointments will be completed for
the Authority meeting scheduled for October 29, 1999.
The attached chart shows the individuals recommended for appointment to the Etobicoke and
Mimico Watersheds Task Force.
For information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: October 5, 1999
Attachments (1)
D284 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
Attachment 1
0 c
()
Co co
C .c C
w :z: co
t- o 0) c 0)
<t: E c ~ E
z c t:: (lJ t:: (Jl
co E 0) co
a: co .:.:: co '0
w (Jl 0. ro co 0. C
::J 0) iii (lJ (lJ 0 c
t- (f) CiiO 0 ~ co ~
...J ~ C .:.::0 ~
<t: 0 ~OJ o 0 .Q ~ OJ (lJ ro
::J c :t ::J
co C = (Jl CD ._ (lJ ~ :z:
"u (f) .- .- 1Il 'u
C () 11l (lJ C J co
C "D C C.a c > c .c c ro
::J "D co ::J ~ ::J (lJ~ W co <u
0 ~~ o 0 0 -Q ~
0 00 0 (J) ~ (lJ 0
-
Z'
"?3
.c
-S
w <{
0 c
a: .Q
0 ro
u.. ~ Cii
::.::: 0) c
(J) (Jl co
~ C Q
<t: 0
t- O) 0 2:-
0 .c c 0) 0
w E 0 0) (Jl
:r: Q) OJ (Jl ~ .E ">
~ 'E C E "D
(J) (lJ (Jl <{
a: >- Cij a: Q) a. (lJ E
w () "D "D ::J () 0 Z'
t- Z c.. c 'iij 0 Z' () .c
<l: w '13 ro Q) (; ::J
~ c.:l 'c 0 a: .c 2:- E
::J 0
<l: ::J C '0 U; E (Jl E
0 :z: 0 Q) Q) E 'S; 0
() 0 .c ~ "D 0
'0 (Jl Q) 0
~ c r- ~ 'E .:.:: 0 <{ Cij
<t: Q)
0) iii - (lJ (ij (ij c
~ .c ill C
Cij r- ~ 0 :s 0)
0 c co 11l 0) E
"D 11l ro E
Z .!:! C OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 ::; C
<l: OJ co c C C ::J ::J C C ::J ::J () () c e
Q) 0 0 0 ro co 0 0 0 co ro E 0 "S;
w a: 0 0.. 0.. "D 1Il 1Il 0 Cii 0 "D 0.. (Jl (Jl ::; ~
~ c 0) "~ "~ c c c 0) l/J l/J 'S; C
E E (lJ (ij E "Ui :z: :2: C w
0 0 (ij l/J l/J 0 Q 0 0 l/J
0 co co 0 l/J l/J 0 0 0 0 co l/J l/J '0 c w C
() ro ro '0 ro :z: :2:
t- '0 :2: :z: t- t- t- '0 ~ 0 c 0
iD c '0 l/J 0.. 0 li
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 w "D '0
0 c .Q c u.. c E ill E
t- >- Z' Z' 3 "q Z' ~ OJ Z' C 3 :c- :c- :c- o .!!! ({/ (ij co
w U U U 0 U ill U U 0 U U U 0 U: ill 0 ro
t- o U a: t-
-
Cii
1Il l/J 0.
0) "D 0 0)
(J) c E m 0 () l/J Cii
0) ro 0 ~ 0) (Jl
w .C: .c l/J
(lJ I () 0) ill ~ C (Jl
~ ii c >, 0 CD ~ 0)
<l: b ro Q J ill .c c .:.::
Z -0 Cii "ti CJ co ill III .J::. ID 0 ()
.:.:: c ~
.2 c W i :::: .(if C 0 l/J "D .J::. (Jl E
ro ~ :!:: C ill C ro .c:
0 (J) Q U <3 :z: -l ill .J::. 0 co Co Co 0) (Jl
c (5 () Q 0) ?: 0) C 0
.Q .Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co U l/J 0 ~ I (ij 0
~ :z: ID Cii (J) (f) >- 0:
'u .u .u .0 0 .0 .0 .0 (lJ co I '0 '0 co -l
ro ill c (ij co C 0)
C C C C C C C C l/J C C .J::. C co c C
::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ~ C .J::. '(0 'C: C () 0 N .c >-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 ::J 0 .c co 0 co
0 U U U U U U 0 0 a: J W CJ 0 :2: a: a: J J
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D285
UJ
l-
~
Z Ul
a: t
UJ OJ
l- -D
0
...J a:
~ c
0 c
0 OJ
.c
c Q.
OJ
OJ iiJ
:.:::
c
0
~
"0
0
(/)
Ul
~
(/)
c
OJ
:Q
Ul
OJ t: t::
a: III UJ
.. UI 0 0
C '0 Ql ro a. UJ OJ
>- 0 c C Q. 0
0 Ctl '(ij 'E .. ~ OJ "~
ro Ul 0
Z (/) ~ Ql C en "2: OJ
UJ "0 Ui CD III Ctl - en
" 0 >- C Ql OJ ca OJ c
Ul Ctl 'tl ... 0 rJ)
~ Ul Q. C .~ a. tl 0 iiJ "c
~ c OJ ~ OJ Ql III C UJ
0 ro .c 2 a: ill ~ '0 lti "c ::J -':::
Ul ~ OJ >- ::; 0 .:: c c E 0
C a: ";:; ... ~ :i >- ~ Q) Ctl a. ::J E
Q) "0 ro en 0 c '0 E 5:
'0 0 0 E Ul 0
'0 0 C ~ t "~ t: Ul 0 OJ E
"(jj Ul 'tl 0 OJ Ql OJ .. C "~ C U 0
c OJ 01 ro Ctl 0 ~ 0 ~
Q) Ul 0 C Q. ~ a: Q) :0
a: ~ (f) - ... ~ ill '0 .c ::: u m Ctl
~ Q) <i: '0 <ii Ctl ;; Ul ~ OJ ~ OJ
Ul Ul a. c c c CL
(f) ~ u: C ::J ~
'0 C OJ 0 Ctl C OJ Ctl W 0 .. ~
E <lJ m m
0 \l) '0 a: C '0 0 ro OJ u <lJ '0 0. Ul 0 ill Ul
0 Ctl OJ oJ Q) Ul C Ul
'0 0 ~ C .c <lJ
5: ~ -(jj ll.. C 0 C z n: - C E "(jj 0 CL Ul
0 oJ '0 C OJ '0 Ctl Ul 0 (/)
'0 iiJ Q) ill l- 0 ill E OJ 0
a: -':::~ ro '0 E OS :2 :2
c 0 o~ ill Q) C 0 c C l-
Ctl c 0 c -t: t C
un: a ll.. 0 '0 '0 '0 '0
:g ro -9 iin: ::J ro (/) .~ OJ u:; Ctl 0
'0 ill -;;: c Q.
Ctl C rn all.. w Q) <5 c ro c .c .~ OJ >-
:2 0 :2 -w :2 OJ 5: c ~ OJ D G OJ G
UJ ~ .. " CL :2 w 0 U n:
en
w
::: '0
~ ill OJ
>- Ul Ul Q)
Z .c Q) :s Q) ~ m Q) E
u c U Ul -~ -'::: Q; '0 C ...
Ul 0 C ID ro (/) Q) Ctl Ctl i
Q) 0 0 u ~ '0 E u .c -D
'0 a: 0 '0 :2 ill CD Ctl ::J "E c (f] ~ 0
CD 0 u c C <1l Q) Ctl 0
2 0 2 "w c 0 OJ <ii 2 rJ) Q. r.t c
'tl ll.. '0 a: Ctl c en OJ
>- 0 c :.::: Ctl -D
~ OJ OJ Ctl u E OJ c
en Q) Ctl Ctl C Ctl "E
Ui ::J ~ C > 0 C N E > .c -0 0
0 0 '0 co co OJ ::J ill C 0 Ctl l-
C9 0 0 w a: 0 z :.::: en a: iiJ CD --, E 0 ..
D286 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
RES.#D79/99 - DERRY WATERSHED 2 STORMWATER RETROFIT PROJECT
Derry Watershed 2 Storm water Retrofit Project, Etobicoke Creek Watershed,
City of Mississauga. Preparation of detailed design and implementation.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT TRCA staff be directed to carry out
the implementation of the retrofit project as prepared by Winter Associates, and intended to
maintain existing water quantity control and provide for water quality improvements and
erosion control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In November of 1995, the City of Mississauga completed a Storm Water Quality Control Study. An
emphasis of that study was to review the performance of existing stormwater management facilities,
and to identify those facilities with retrofit potential. The retrofit evaluation criteria took into
consideration engineering, natural, social and economic environment aspects.
Derry Watershed 2 Storm Water Management Pond was identified as a candidate for retrofit because
of the potential for its expansion, low social impact, low downstream sensitivity and its potential high
cost effectiveness.
The existing stormwater management facility is located northwest of the Highway 410 interchange
at Courtney Park Drive in the City of Mississauga. This pond was constructed in the 1980s and
receives drainage from a 305.3 hectare catchment area known as Watershed 2. The pond outlets
to a tributary of the Etobicoke Creek. eurrently, the existing pond provides for quantity control only.
The main objectives of the proposed retrofit are to provide water quality treatment, and optimize
erosion control benefit without impacting the facility's existing quantity control function.
The City of Mississauga has commissioned Winter Associates Umited to undertake this project. The
project is administered by a Steering Committee with members from the City of Mississauga
Transportation & Works Department and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the
Ministry of Transportation.
The retrofit project was subject to formal planning and review under the Environmental Assessment
Act, therefore, the detailed design for the facility was required to meet the Schedule B requirements
of the Municipal Engineer's Association Class EA for Sewage and Waterworks. According to the
requirements of the EA, a number of alternative designs were presented for the project. The
preferred alternative is hybrid pond design (combination wetland and wet pond design).
Details of the preferred alternative include:
. excavate existing pond bottom to provide permanent pool storage (shallow wetland area and
deeper wet pond component);
. provision of a sediment fore bay to capture larger sediment particles at the inlet to reduce
maintenance costs;
. provision of a maintenance access road;
. modify the existing outlet structure to provide for extended detention storage; and
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D287
. development of a landscaping plan.
Staff from the Environmental Services Section of TRCA have the resources available to undertake
the construction of the retrofit works and are scheduled to begin construction in early November of
this year. Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented and monitored throughout the
construction process.
RATIONALE
The Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual Update (Aquafor Beech
Limited, Draft Report, June 1998) discusses a number of the negative impacts associated with
stormwater runoff, including: an increase in runoff and frequency of runoff events, a reduction in
annual base flows, an increase in velocity of flows, significant downcutting of stream channels, an
increase in sediment loads, an increase in water quality problems, and destruction of freshwater
wetlands, riparian buffers and springs.
The intent of current stormwater management criteria is to recommend specific water quantity,
quality and erosion control measures which will reduce or eliminate the severity of these impacts.
The intent of retrofit works is to modify existing facilities to improve their treatment capacity and
function so that the treatment provided by the retrofit facility is consistent with current stormwater
management criteria to the extent practical.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Based on the funds currently available, Phase 1 of the project construction will begin late in 1999
and will include excavation works. Construction of the remaining works including landscaping, etc.,
will be completed in 2000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
A total of $50,000 has been provided by the Peel RAP funds and will be used toward implementation
of the project. Additional funding will be provided by the City of Mississauga.
For information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
Date: October 6, 1999
0288 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
RES.#D80/99 - PEEL NATURAL HERITAGE PLAN
Claireville Reservoir Wetland Creation Project - Phase 1. Approval is
required for the Phase 1 activities of the Claireville Wetland Creation and
Habitat Regeneration Project. This project will create significant wetland
habitats and improve wildlife habitat within the Conservation Area.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: I rene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Claireville Reservoir Wetland
Creation Project - Phase 1 be allocated $30,000 in support from the Peel Natural Heritage
account;
THAT staff be directed to initiate the project in coordination with the Humber Watershed
Alliance and the West Humber Subwatershed Committee;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to secure additional funding for the Phase 2 wetland
creation activities to be implemented in 2000 ............................. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Clajreville Conservation Area is an 848 hectare (2,100 acre) parcel of land owned by the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The area is located in the West Humber subwatershed
of the Humber River watershed. Within Claireville, the Salt Creek converges with the West Humber
River, north of Highway #7, to form a very wide and powerful river, one that is subject to frequent
floods.
In 1957, the TRCA acquired the Claireville lands to construct a dam and reservoir to control the
flooding that was occurring in the Lower Humber River valleylands. The Claireville dam and
reservoir were built in 1964 and the lands acquired for Claireville represent almost 15% of the lands
owned by the TRCA in the Humber watershed today. Claireville is one of the largest tracts of land
the TRCA owns. It contains significant natural and cultural heritage features. It is highly accessible
to the public, and has outstanding recreation, tourism and education facilities and programs.
RATIONALE
The Claireville Conservation Area was identified as one of the most important recreation,
interpretation and destination areas in the GT A in the 1964 Claireville Master Plan, the 1980 MTRCA
Watershed Plan, the 1989 MTRCA Greenspace Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area, and the 1996
Humber Wate(shed Strategy. This project fulfills the objective of the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan that states "Natural and cultural heritage resources will be protected and
enhanced" and is situated in the nature reserve zone as identified by this plan.
At the Claireville Reservoir the creation of wetland and riparian habitat will be achieved through a
combination of developing riparian wetlands and modifying the water level management practices
within the reservoir.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Claireville Wetland Creation Project will be implemented in a two phased approach. The first
phase involves the following activities and is slated for December 1999 implementation:
October 22, 1999 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D289
. Development of a four hectare bermed wetland upstream from the reservoir on the east
bank of the Humber River.
The existing landform on the east bank of the West Humber River north of the reservoir consists of
a series of old river meanders, oxbow ponds and depressions. The opportunity exists to strategically
build a low elevation berm (less than 0.50 metres) around a portion of this landform to create a four
hectare shallow wetland. The wetland would be fed from surficial drainage and a shallow ditch that
currently drains into this area A water level control structure would be incorporated into the design
of the berm to facilitate the development of the wetland. We propose to incrementally increase the
water level within this bermed area over the course of two to three years to allow for the gradual
change from a meadow into a wetland. The existing pockets of wetland vegetation would provide
the seed source for this newly created wetland.
The retention of water within this wetland will impact the flood storage capacity of the reservoir and
downstream flood protection. The loss of flood storage equates to 0.5 percent of the total capacity
of the reservoir and is considered nominal and acceptable in light of the habitat enhancement
potential. Ukewise, the flood protection characteristics downstream are modified to the extent that
any changes will not likely be measurable.
Phase 2 activities scheduled for 2000 focus around the development of wetland habitats and include
the following activities:
. Lower the water levels of the reservoir to create areas suitable for wetland plants by
exposing roughly 1/3 of the total surface area;
. Establish a wetland complex within the exposed substrate of the reservoir through
transplants, seeding, and renaturalization;
. Establish critical habitat components to improve wildlife biodiversity and productivity;
. Evaluate and monitor restoration techniques.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The base costs of construction, project management are estimated at $30,000. The contribution
from the TRCA Peel Natural Heritage 1999 account has been budgeted at $30,000 and will be used
to construct the berm and water control structure. Staff will work with the Humber Alliance to secure
the additional funds and partnerships required to complete the plantings and wetland seeding.
For information contact: Gord MacPherson extension 246
Date: October 13, 1999
D290 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 - October 22, 1999
RES.#D81/99 - RECOMMENDATION OF THE TRCA WITH RESPECT TO GRANTS FOR
EDUCATION AND RESTORATION PROJECTS
TRCA requests its member municipalities consider providing grants to
community groups for environmental education and restoration projects,
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Councils of its member
municipalities consider the establishment of environmental categories for the purpose of the
distribution of grants to Community Groups to support environmental education and
restoration projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In March 1 99S, Toronto City Council formed the Environmental Task Force (ETF) to establish a plan
for municipal sustainability-with a healthy, sustainable environment, community, and economy that
meets today's needs without compromising opportunities for future generations. A major activity
of the Task Force is to recommend an Environmental Plan for the eity of Toronto. The
Environmental Plan will include a chapter on public education and outreach.
In April 1999, an Education and Awareness Workgroup was formed to investigate and make
recommendations about environmental/sustainability education and outreach in Toronto. The
Workgroup consisted of City Councillors, City staff, representatives from school boards, agencies,
community organizations, and interest groups. It was chaired by ETF members Councillor Irene
Jones and Dr. David Bell, Director of the York Centre for Applied Sustainability. Adele Freeman and
Karen Puhlmann from the TRCA co-ordinated the Workgroup.
The ETF Education and Awareness Workgroup report provides an umbrella under which a broad
range of environmental/sustainability education and outreach activities can be developed to
complement recommendations made in other chapters of the Environmental Plan ----sustainable
energy, sustainable transportation, green economic development, governance, air, land, and water.
Education was broadly defined to include formal, nonformal, and informal modes of instruction and
learning. This Workgroup identified that environmental education and public outreach programs
are currently being delivered by the City, non governmental organizations, agencies, businesses,
the academic community and others. Many of these programs could be improved through stronger
partnerships, strategic marketing and promotion, and increased accessibility.
At Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting #4/99, held September 17, 1999, Councillor
Irene Jones presented the recommendations of the Environmental Task Force Workgroup and a
request to the TRGA-to 'cof'lSider"holding-an-annual education iorum -to "facilitate environmental
education efforts and to strengthen the partnerships called for in the Workgroup report. Members
of the Board acknowledged that the TRCA could provide a vital link between all the member
municipalities. At that meeting it was resolved:
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D291
Res,#D56/99
'THAT staff continue to provide support for the Education and Awareness Workgroup
and to the Environmental Task Force until December 2000 to assist in the
implementation of workgroup recommendations;
AND FURTHER THAT staff establish a steering committee to proceed with planning an
education forum to be held in 2000."
There was also considerable discussion on the importance of community groups providing
environmental/sustainability outreach and small project implementation. The particular opportunities
these community groups have to develop partnerships, attract non-governmental resources,
financial, in kind, and volunteer was also noted. A recommendation was made that all member
municipalities consider the establishment of environmental categories for the purpose of distributing
grants to community groups to enable them to leverage other resources was discussed and moved
by Councillor lIa Bossons and seconded by Milton Berger. Inadvertently this recommendation was
not included in list of Section I items to be approved by the Full Authority on September 24, 1999.
At this time this recommendation is brought forward.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: October 13, 1999
RES.#D82/99 - PARTNERS FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION PROGRAM
Associate Membership
Joining the Partners for Climate Protection Program, a joint program of the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY that the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority become an Associate Member of the Partners for Climate Protection Program.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
For the last few years, the Authority has been considering how to best address the issue of Climate
Change. In addition to looking at energy conservation, constructing the Living Mach1ne at Kortright,
and developing an environmental management system, the Authority is hosting an important
Symposium on Climate Change and Watershed Management on November 10, 1999, targeted for
the most part at our municipal partners. In addition, Authority staff are participating in the City of
Toronto Environmental Task Force, where climate change, reduced energy emissions, and
sustainability are key issues.
D292 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
Similarly over the last few years, two respected organizations developed separate climate protection
programs. These were the 20% Club of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Cities for
Climate Protection program ofthe International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. In March,
1999, these two programs were merged into the Partners for Climate Protection Program. Over 60
Canadian cities are now members of the Partners for Climate Protection Program, and many more
will likely become members soon.
By joining this program as an Associate Member, the Authority will both have a window into the
Climate Change policies and actions of municipalities across Canada, including our own municipal
partners, and have an opportunity to address our goal of being recognized as an innovative leader
in watershed management in Canada.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Complete the attached resolution form and forward same to the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
. Insight into Climate Change policies and considerations of municipalities.
. Receive information from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Program.
. Ability to distribute information to the members of the Program.
. Ability to profile the expertise of the Authority with respect to Climate Change and Watershed
Management
. Ability to raise long-range concerns about managing watersheds through improved policies
and procedures to protect greater percentages of woodlots, headwaters, and wetlands from
agricultural and urban development.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Associate membership has no cost.
For information contact: Andrew McCammon, extension 5307
Date: October 6, 1999
Attachments (2)
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D293
Attachment 1
FCM Page I of I
National Activities
Programs
/f.:f"c<-oJlow<",,\
Model resolution '!t'
Participation in the Partners for Climate Protection Program
FOT a B~tter
WHEREAS a global reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) IS Q=Ii'Y of Lift
necessary to protect against climate change and possible adverse effects on human health,
the physical environment, economy and qualIty of life;
WHEREAS industrialized countries, gathered at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development in 1992, ratified a Convention on Climate Change
committing countries to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year
2000;
WHEREAS industrialized countries, realizing initial commitments were madequate to
protect the Earth's climate system, agreed in December 1997 to the Kyoto Protocol which,
if ratified, commits Canada to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions six per cent below
1990 levels between 2008 - 2012;
'WHEREAS current forecasts predict that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions could be in
the order of 13 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000 if no action is taken, thus
fallmg short of its cOlIl1l11tments;
WHEREAS Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives have established a Partners for Climate Protection to provide a
forum for municipal governments to demonstrate their leadership on climate change Issues .
and undertake to share their knowledge and experience with other municipal governmentsf ~ j
WHEREAS Partners for Clrmate Protection members commit to working towards
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in municipal operations by 20 per cent below 1990
levels, and at least six per cent reductions below 1990 levels throughout theIr municipal
area within ten years of joining the program; cc~e;J/ ;ti:I:rl.v Ir(,i7jfe:/2.1:- /'(
--- -re~ fC i' f<.Ei1JA:J/u
BE IT RESOLVED THAT llie ml:l'ftici!3ality of communicate to
FCM its support for the Partners for Climate Protection Program and its interest in
participating in the PCP Program,
Signed Dated
http://www.fcm.calenglish/national/programs/club/resolution.html 9/17/99
0294 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
Attachment 2
Draft Agenda
Symposium on Climate Change and Watershed Management
Wednesday, November 10,1999
Black Creek Pioneer Village, Toronto
7:30 - 8:30 Arrivals I Registration / Networking over Coffee
8:30 - 9:00 Welcome and Greetings
9:00 Global Climate Change Dr. Jim Bruce, GCSI Inc
Dr Bruce, a senior associate with Global Change Strategies Inc and a
past Chair of the Canadian Climate Program Board, will provide an
overview of Global Climate Change with respect to both international
scientific inquiry and probable impacts on the municipal and natural
resource sectors.
9:30 Regional Trends and Impacts Heather Auld, Environment Canada
A description of some of the data emerging from Environment Canada's
Climate Change mapping program, which shows probable impacts on
headwaters, wetlands, & woodlots; fisheries, agnculture, & terrestrial bio-
diversity; as well as how increased storm intensities may result in reduced
groundwater re-charge, reduced stream flow & water availability, and
requirements for re-designed stormwater infrastructure and revised
building codes.
10:00 Watershed Level Implications Robert Walker, EBNFLO Environmental
Robert Walker is a watershed management specialist who has developed
a comprehensive water management tool for the Bay of QUlnte watershed
and applied that tool to climate change impacts. He will summarize the
results of two investigations aimed at quantifying both first order
hydrological impacts of climate change (water quantity) as well as
second and third order impacts (water quality, wildlife, and socio-
economics, etc) for that watershed,
10:40 Break
11 :00 Practical Issues Facing Municipal & Natural Resource Managers
Hydrological Infrastructure Don Haley, TRCA
Rural and Urban Land Use Planning * / M MAH
Managing Terrestnal Habitat Paul Gray, MNR
Protecting Aquatic Habitat Donna Wales, MNR
* InVitation accepted. Individual TBA
,
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D295
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Mitigative and Adaptive Management Techniques Don Haley, TRCA
1 :30 Breakout Group Discussions
Four groups addressing a broad range of climate change I watershed
management concerns for natural resource and municipal staff. Breakout
themes, as introduced in the morning, are'
* Hydrological Infrastructure
* Rural and Urban Land Use Planning
* Managing Terrestrial Habitats, and
* Protecting Aquatic Habitats
3:30 Break
3:45 Reports from Breakout Groups
4:30 Response to Reports
Federal Minister or Delegate (Accepted. Individual TBA)
Provincial Minister or Delegate (Accepted. Individual TBA)
Municipal Politician (Invited, Individual TBA)
5:00 Adjournment
For More Information: Call Andrew McCammon at 416-661-6600 ext 5307
To Register: Either send an e-mail to amccammon@trca.on.ca, or,
fill out and send this form via fax to 416-661-6898
Name
Title
Organization
Phone / Fax /
E-mail
Note: To ensure effective participation in the breakout groups, symposium
registration will be limited to 100 attendees.
D296 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
RES.#D83/99 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE TRCA
Establishing corporate policy and management directives to guide the
development of a TRCA Environmental Management System.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the proposed corporate
Environmental Policy Statement be adopted;
AND FURTHER THAT the proposed framework for implementing an Environmental
Management System be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Over the past year, TRCA staff have been researching the potential implementation of an
Environmental Management System (EMS) for the TRCA. An EMS is basically a system by which
an organization can effectively monitor and control the environmental impacts of its day to day
operations.
Staff have discovered that an EMS can be tailored to fit within any organization's existing
management regime in order to help that organization manage its environmental performance.
While an EMS can be virtually as simple or as complex as an organization wants, and can address
one, several, or all aspects of that organization, it must consist of the following elements:
. the establishment of a corporate environmental policy, including the identification of a senior
staff member responsible for environmental management;
. the setting of targets, following an initial environmental review, to manage an organization's
most significant impacts on the environment;
. initiating the program, which includes establishing the appropriate procedures, resources,
and staff communications or training as required;
. establishing benchmarks, taking measurements, and pursuing actions in .the pursuit of
selected targets; and,
. ensLJring management review and an organizational commitment to continuous
improvement.
RATIONALE
The EMS has been identified as an integral part of the "Living City" which is the key component of
our corporate business plan for the future. The Living City recognizes our ground breaking
watershed work, increases our role as a regional environmental leader and promotes environmental
responsibility and standards. The EMS is a necessary component of the Living City because its
adoption will establish the.::f.RGA-esa leader'in-eorporate-environmental performance. As the trend
toward voluntary and/or industry governed environmental performance standards becomes more
entrenched, our partners will increasingly look to the TRCA for leadership in this area. The EMS is
one very important method for demonstrating our environmental concern and providing that
leadership.
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 D297
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Policy Statement
A corporate Environmental Policy Statement is a key component of an EMS, as it articulates and
communicates the organization's commitment to its environmental performance in much the same
way that a corporate Safety Policy commits an organization to the pursuit of a safe workplace. The
proposed Environmental Policy Statement for the TRCA is as follows:
"As a provincial / municipal partnership established to help manage the renewable
natural resources of the region's watersheds, the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority IS committed to managing its operations and activities in an
environmentally responsible manner through the institution of a corporate
Environmental Management System.
Through the es1ablishment of this EMS, the TRCA will strive for continual
improvement in all facets of its environmental performance.
The corporate responsibility for the EMS will reside with the Director, Watershed
Management. In addition, each and every employee will be committed to the
protection of the environment in the normal performance of their duties."
Implementation Framework
The following process for impl~menting an EMS is proposed:
1 , A consultant be retained to perform a walk through audit at Head Office and the Kortright
Centre. The purpose of the audit and subsequent report is threefold:
I) To gather a complete list of operations which have negative impacts on the
Environment;
ii) To identify those impacts which we are addressing progressively and those for which
we are not meeting accepted statutes or standards;
ii) To make first contact with involved staff members and promote the idea of the EMS.
The audit is essentially performing what the industry calls a "GAP analysis". The intent is to
identify all the possible impacts the day to day operation of your organization has on the
environment. Once our impacts are understood, we (the TRCA) can choose which impacts
we can reasonably control and implement progressive programs to reduce our impacts in
those areas. This audit will also tell us what additional accounting, staffing or other
administrative support would be required to successfully implement the EMS and address
the impacts-of highest-eoncern:' Kortright-C~ntre and Head Office have been selected for
the first audit in order to keep the initial auditing costs down. Since Kortright and Head
Office perform most of the operations with which the TRCA is involved, it w(1I be possible to
extrapolate the program to other areas of the TRCA without the use of additional consulting
services. However, Black Creek Pioneer Village and our construction services are likely to
require a separate audit at some time in the future. It is common for organizations to
implement an EMS at a section or facility level and progressively expand it across the
organization.
0298 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
2. Once our major impacts are known the TRCA will be able to set its own priorities for
environmental improvement. New programs (e.g. an energy conservation program) will be
implemented and the EMS will set targets to be achieved, monitor the program's progress
toward the targets and annually reassess the performance of the program making any
necessary improvements.
3. A decision will be made whether or not to pursue certification, during which a third party
auditor would audit the performance of our EMS against established standards and certify
us. ISO 14000 is one such EMS certification standard.
It is important to note that the TRCA retains control of its EMS throughout the process. If the
mitigation of certain impacts is not practically achievable, the TRCA can set that impact as a low
priority until such time that addressing the impact becomes more feasible.
For information call: Brian Dundas extension 262
Date: October 12,1999
RES.#D84/99 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
Snowdump. To provide information on the use of the baselands at Tommy
Thompson Park by the City of Toronto as an emergency snowdump location
during January 1999.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority respectfully request that
the lands associated with Tommy Thompson Park not be considered by the City of Toronto
for future disposal of snow during normal or emergency snow conditions ...... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The severe, record breaking snow conditions within the City of Toronto during January of 1999,
necessitated the disposal of over 100,000 truckloads of snow by City of Toronto staff. In the haste
to dispose of the tremendous volume of snow, the base lands at Tommy Thompson Park were
selected for disposal due to their central location and ease of access. During the selection process
Authority staff were consulted, however, the approved area further south on Tommy Thompson Park
(near the existing lakefilling activities) was not used.
Unfortunately, this site represents a component of one of the TRCA's designated waterfront
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA #130) and is the gateway into one of the waterfront's most
popular passive recreational areas. In addition, due to the timing of the snowfall events and street
cleanup activities, the snow disposed of at the Park contained a substantial amount of household
garbage, litter and other debris.
October 22. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 0299
In short, the highly visible snow piles, the quantity of litter and debris embedded in the piles and the
disturbed soil and damaged vegetation associated with the snow disposal operations caused a
significant amount of public concern, both from members of the public at large and the primary
interest group associated with Tommy Thompson Park - Friends of The Spit.
On April 19th Authority staff met on-site with representatives from the City of Toronto Transportation
Services to discuss the public concerns and outline the process for short and long-term remediation
of the site. At this meeting it was determined that soil conditions were too wet and unstable to
commence clean-up with heavy equipment at that time. It was therefore determined to proceed with
the cleanup of garbage and debris by hand, and to undertake regrading activities at a later date as
conditions permitted.
With the cooperation of City Works staff, the litter and garbage was removed from the site as the
melting snow receded and the material was exposed. This work was ongoing on a weekly basis
from approximately early April through mid June. TRCA staff, with input from friends of the Spit
considered a restoration program for the site that included re-grading disturbed areas, replacing
piles of topsoil and importing additional fill into the area to cover rubble that had been exposed. The
large mudflats and ponded water that had occurred as a result of the snowdump were viewed as
a habitat benefit and were left in-situ.
final remediation of the site was undertaken by City staff under the direction of TRCA between June
14th and June 25, 1999. During this time, an equipment operator contracted by the City of Toronto
and working under the direction of TRCA staff re-graded the disturbed areas and replaced topsoil
and fill that had been scraped away during the snowdumping operations. Trees and shrubs to
replace damaged and removed vegetation were not replanted on site at this time. At the request
of friends of The Spit, the site was left following the replacement of the soils so that vegetation re-
establishment would be the result of natural succession.
It should be noted that in spite of the physical appearance of the disturbed snow dump area, there
was a benefit to the birdlife at Tommy Thompson Park. Specifically, the large expanses of mudflats
that were created by the vegetation removal and grading activities, and a large pond area created
by the melting snow piles were used extensively by migrating shorebirds and a variety of waterfowl
during the spring and early summer. The Authority received several comments from birders
regarding the benefit of these "unexpected" habitat features that resulted from the snowdump
activities.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to monitor the area over the next few seasons in order to assess the ongoing
natural succession and renaturalization of the site. The site will also be re-examined during future
updates of waterfront ESA's in order to determine if the disturbed vegetation communities have
restored themselves through the1)rocess-of-l"latural succession.
0300 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Cost to the City of Toronto to remediate the snowdump at Tommy Thompson Park is not known at
this time. The cost to the TRCA in dealing with this issue and the site remediation is estimated at
approximately $1 ,500.
For information contact: Scott Jarvie, extension 5312
Date: October 8, 1999
RES.#D85/99 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #5/99. The minutes of Meeting #5/99 held on
September 30,1999 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided
for information.
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: I rene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #5/99 held September 30, 1999 be received .... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record
of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members
informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty
Steps to a New Oon" and to regenerate the watershed.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238
Date: October 13, 1999
RES.#D86/99 - BLACK CREEK RENATURALlZATION STUDY
To authorize ajoint feasibility study between the City of Toronto, The Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, the Lambton Golf Club and the Black
'Creek-Project. addressing "technical-issues Telated to naturalization and
rehabilitation of the Lower Black Creek channel and floodplain (between Jane
Street and the Humber River).
Moved by: Mike Tzekas
Seconded by: I rene Jones
,
October 22, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 0301
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff be authorized to prepare a
Terms of Reference to define the technical feasibility of naturalization options for the Black
Creek channel from Jane Street to the Humber River;
THAT private firms be invited to quote on undertaking the feasibility study;
AND FURTHER THAT the name of the firm recommended to undertake the feasibility study be
brought to the Authority for approval .................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Throughout the 1980s, local and international concern for Great Lakes water quality led to a series
of studies which resulted in the International Joint Commission (IJC) designating the Toronto
waterfront as one of 42 Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes drainage basin. The environmental
impacts of local water taking and wastewater discharges (point sources), as well as stormwater
runoff and watercourse discharges (non-point sources) are well-documented for the Toronto area.
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed to identify and mitigate the impacts of these
sources to restore beneficial uses and, ultimately, to delist Toronto from the IJC designation.
Detailed studies of each watercourse that discharges to the Toronto waterfront have provided
recommendations addressing both point and non-point sources. The RAP recommendations also
identified that much of the watercourse lands are not in public ownership and that actions on private
lands were to be encouraged through partnerships,
Water from the Humber River impacts the western portion of the waterfront. The Humber watershed
within the City receives flow from the Slack Creek subwatershed. Slack Creek has been identified
as the most degraded subwatershed within the Humber system. It is fully urbanized and has been
channelized in concrete to accommodate storm flows. Remedial efforts to restore a natural channel
meander, with aquatic habitat and improved water quality, has been hindered by lack of adequate
valley width due to the proximity of private lands.
The City and TRCA have been approached by the Lambton Golf Club, private owners of the lower
Slack Creek floodplain, to consider a partnership to remediate the lower Slack Creek by naturalizing
the existing concrete channel.
This proactive offer by private owners to consider naturalizing a degraded watercourse through
partnership with the City and other agencies, is an unexpected opportunity to improve local water
quality, improve aquatic habitat and reduce the water quality impacts on the Humber River and the
western waterfront. These benefrts are all within the context of the RAP recommendations and assist
in moving forward in the IJC delisting process.
Site specific consideration"'f-bas~w;,,?eak storm-l10w,'soil 'conditions, local elevations, grade
issues, off-line wetland or pond opportunities, available land area and flooding potential need to be
addressed through a feasibility study. This study would be conducted within the context of the
Environmental Assessment planning process and ultimately recommend options that maximize
water quality improvements, provide adequate flood management, restore aquatic habitat and
resolve ownership issues of maintenance, operation and liability.
0302 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/99 October 22, 1999
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Finalize the Terms of Reference.
. Invite private firms to quote on the study.
. Select a firm to undertake the study.
. Consult with agencies, interest groups, residents and the owners on
feasibility of renaturalizing the channel.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of the feasibility study is estimated at $60,000 and will take about six months to complete.
TRCA will provide up to $25,000 and the City of Toronto will be the lesser of $35,000 or 50% of the
total cost.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: October 18, 1999
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :00 a.m., on October 22, 1999.
Cliff Gyles Craig Mather
Vice Chair Secretary Treasurer
jks
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99
November 19, 1999 Page D303
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/99, was held in the Humber Room, Head
Office, on Friday, November 19, 1999. The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10:07
a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon ............................................................ Member
Milton Berger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair
Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair
Irene Jones ...................................................,........... Member
Pam McConnell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
David Barrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Ila Bossons ............................................................... Member
Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member
Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES.#D87 /99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/99, held on October 22,1999, be approved. . . . CARRIED
RES.#D88/99 - DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEKS WATERSHED STRATEGY
Report on the Work Plan, Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures,
Budget Requirements, and Draft Terms of Reference for the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces. Direction to proceed with the
development of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Strategy.
Moved by: ' --Pam-McConnell
Seconded by: Bas Balkisson
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority direct staff to request
funding from local and regional municipalities and provincial and federal agencies within the
Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds to support the work required to accomplish a
comprehensive watershed strategy;
0304 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
THAT the draft work plan, membership selection, reporting procedures, budget requirements
and draft terms of reference for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces, as
described in the report dated October, 1999 (attached), be received;
THAT two members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board be selected to assist on
a selection committee to review watershed resident applications;
THAT the Authority direct staff to confirm with local and regional municipalities within the
Duffins and Carruthers watersheds, a council member, and an alternate to represent their
municipality on the Task Forces and to request names of those community groups and
individuals who Council feels should be considered when interviewing watershed residents
for the Task Forces;
THAT the Authority direct staff to request selected federal and provincial agencies to appoint
a senior employee and ~n alternate to the Task Forces by March 1,2000;
THAT the Authority authorize staff to take all other necessary actions, including the
preparation of a State of the Watershed Report, to achieve a Duffins and Carruthers Creek
Watershed Strategy;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed work plan and
membership of the Task Forces for endorsement and formal appointment in the spring of 2000
AMENDMENT
RES.#D89/99
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT Councillor Jim McMaster and Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor
be selected to assist on a selection committee to review watershed resident applications.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ................................ CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting 4/99. held on April 30, 1999, the Authority adopted Res. #A 112/99:
THA T staff request the regional and local municipal governments (Region of Durham,
Region of-York,-P-kJkering, -Ajax,-Markham,4Jxbridge;" Whitchurch-Stouffville); major
land holders; provincial agencies represented by the Ministry of Environment, Ministry
of Transport, and Ministry of Natural Resources; and federal representation from
Environment Canada; to participate in the development of a work plan and investigate
funding opportunities for the development of a watershed management strategy for
Duffins Creek.
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0305
AMENDMENT
Res, #A 114/99
THA T the Carruthers Creek Watershed Management Strategy be done simultaneously
with the Duffins Creek Watershed Management Strategy.
In August 1999, the TRCA hosted a strategy session for municipalities, provincial representatives
and federal representatives. The strategy session was conducted by a professional facilitator who
assisted the group in airing issues, developing a work plan and coming to consensus on key steps,
sequencing and preliminary timing.
Based on the differences in watershed size, current land uses, proposed development and the
amount of information and studies conducted to date on the Duffins Creek, it is proposed that two
task forces be formed, one for the Duffins Creek and one for the Carruthers Creek. Both Task
Forces would be supported by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A Watershed Executive
Committee will be initiated to provide integration and information sharing between the two task
forces and the T AC.
In anticipation of developing a watershed strategy for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds,
the TRCA formed a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) representing a group of
"scientists/experts" who have conducted studies and research in the watersheds and/or are familiar
with state-of-the-art watershed methods and models. The TAC members represent topics such as
ground water, surface water, terrestrial resources, fisheries, climate change and land use planning
from municipal, regional and consultant viewpoints.
TRCA then conducted follow-up meetings with staff at each local and regional municipality within
the watersheds to further review the work plan and discuss opportunities for funding. It became
evident during these discussions that there was support for developing a watershed strategy and
agreement to continue discussions related to funding the process.
During the above noted meetings, the values of developing a watershed strategy for the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek watersheds were perceived as follows:
. It will not hold up development proposals.
. It will provide the ability to evaluate environmental impacts on a watershed basis rather than
a site by site basis.
. It will provide various growth scenarios and the potential impacts of each scenario on the
environment.
. Criteria will be set in advance of development.
. The work plans for the Duffins and Carruthers Creeks will be separate.
. The lack--of inform ation--available . on .-the-Garruthers - will - not-detain the Duffins from
proceeding.
. The process will move to implementation as soon as possible.
Development and implementation of TRCA watershed management strategies normally proceeds
through three phases:
0306 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
Phase 1: The production of a State of the Watershed Report (SOW) that identifies issues and
describes key environmental, social, and economic conditions of the watershed, with
the primary focus being environmental.
Phase 2: The strategy development. A multi-stakeholder watershed task force is established
to oversee development of the strategy. The SOW Report and community
consuttations provide a knowledge base for the Task Force to develop the strategy.
The strategy recommends actions necessary to protect, regenerate and celebrate
the watershed.
Phase 3: The implementation of the watershed strategy and monitoring progress toward
regeneration which is guided by a committee of watershed stakeholders.
It is suggested that the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Strategy develop over a period of
18 months as described in the report dated October, 1999 (attached).
The Duffins Creek Task Force will consist of approximately twenty-three members and Carruthers
Creek Task Force will consist of approximately fourteen members. Membership will include elected
municipal representatives, provincial and federal agency staff, and representatives from business
and industry, community groups, ratepayers associations, education, and residents within the
watersheds. This cross section of interests, background and expertise will help to build the strong
partnerships needed for planning and implementing the strategy.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Request funding as outlined in the financial details.
Request that two members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board and one senior Authority
staff member form a selection committee to review watershed residents applications.
Request that local and regional municipalities within the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds
confirm a Council representative and recommend community group representatives who should be
considered for an interview for the Task Force.
Forward requests to appropriate federal and provincial agencies for the names of their
representatives.
Prepare advertisements for local papers inviting watershed residents interested in serving on the
Task Force to submit applications.
Conduct public information sessions to launch the development of the Duffins and Carruthers
Watersheds Strategy-and..provide information .abol:Jt-becoming-a Duffins and Carruthers Creek
Watersheds Task Force representative.
Prepare applications and information kits for distribution to those residents interested in applying
to become a task force member.
A staff report will be prepared recommending to the Authority the work plan and membership of the
Task Force and subsequently, the persons selected to the positions of Chair and Vice Chair.
November 19, 199!L WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0307
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Watershed strategy development has traditionally been funded through programs such as the
Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds are outside of
the RAP Area of Concern and are therefore not eligible for this type of funding.
Alternative funding sources have been pursued. Authority staff have met with local and regional
governments as well as provincial and federal agencies to discuss funding. These discussions
focused on funds required for strategy development.
In determining the level of funding requested, 'Iand base and the extent of urban development was
taken into account for each municipality and region. The cost of the strategy development has been
estimated at approximately $340,000 for 2000. Local and regional municipalities are being asked
to contribute a combined sum of $140,000 and federal and provincial agencies are being requested
to contribute a combined sum of $200,000. The strategy cannot proceed without the contributions
of both municipal and agency funds.
Local and regional municipalities are being asked to contribute a combined sum of $140,000 which
includes the Regions of York ($10,000) and Durham ($25,000) and the municipalities of Ajax
($20,000), Pickering ($20,000), Markham ($5,000), Whitchurch-Stouffville ($5,000) the Township of
Uxbridge ($5,000) and the TRCA ($50,000).
Some of the strategy components associated with the $140,000 will include:
. Completion of a State of the Watershed Report (SOW)
. Public Outreach
. Support for the Watershed Task Force
Federal and provincial agency funding of $200,000 is being discussed with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Transport Canada. These funds would be used to undertake project specific work
such as the development of a fish management plan, a water budget for the watersheds, a Natural
Heritage Strategy, and a Cultural Heritage Program. It would also allow priority projects, identified
as the strategy is developed, to be implemented in a more timely fashion.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5334
For information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 and Dave Dyce, extension 5250
Date: October 12, 1999
Attachments (1)
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0307
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Watershed strategy development has traditionally been funded through programs such as the
Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds are outside of
the RAP Area of Concern and are therefore not eligible for this type of funding.
Alternative funding sources have been pursued. Authority staff have met with local and regional
governments as well as provincial and federal agencies to discuss funding. These discussions
focused on funds required for strategy development.
In determining the level of funding requested,"land base and the extent of urban development was
taken into account for each municipality and region. The cost of the strategy development has been
estimated at approximately $340,000 for 2000. Local and regional municipalities are being asked
to contribute a combined sum of $140,000 and federal and provincial agencies are being requested
to contribute a combined sum of $200,000. The strategy cannot proceed without the contributions
of both municipal and agency funds.
Local and regional municipalities are being asked to contribute a combined sum of $140,000 which
includes the Regions of York ($10,000) and Durham ($25,000) and the municipalities of Ajax
($20,000), Pickering ($20,000), Markham ($5,000), Whitchurch-Stouffville ($5,000) the Township of
Uxbridge ($5,000) and the TRCA ($50,000).
Some of the strategy components associated with the $140,000 will include:
. Completion of a State of the Watershed Report (SOW)
. Public Outreach
. Support for the Watershed Task Force
Federal and provincial agency funding of $200,000 is being discussed with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Transport Canada. These funds would be used to undertake project specific work
such as the development of a fish management plan, a water budget for the watersheds, a Natural
Heritage Strategy, and a Cultural Heritage Program. It would also allow priority projects, identified
as the strategy is developed, to be implemented in a more timely fashion.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5334
For information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 and Dave Dyce, extension 5250
Date: October 12, 1999
Attachments (1)
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0309
THE DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK
WATERSHED TASK FORCES
1.0 DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
The goal of the Authority through the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Task Force is to
develop a management strategy for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds which will be
understood and endorsed by municipal and agency politicians and staff; community groups;
business and industry; watershed residents; and the general public.
The watershed strategy must provide a venue for everyone to become actively involved in
watershed management, stewardship and community activities. The development and
implementation of a comprehensive communications plan will raise public awareness of watershed
issues and provide a better understanding of proactive environmentally sensitive planning.
2.0 TASK FORCE MANDATE
The task force mandate is to focus on developing a watershed management strategy. This mandate
does not include commenting on development proposals in the watersheds.
Develop a watershed management strategy to help ensure a sustainable and healthy Duffins Creek
and Carruthers Creek watersheds.
It is anticipated that the Task Force will recommend policies, criteria and guidelines related to the
following topics and others as they arise:
. land
. life
. water
. air
. recreation
. heritage
To accomplish this task each task force will:
. consult and involve individuals, technical experts, interest groups, business and industry;
. develop a vision for the watershed;
. discuss, refine, and prioritize Key 'watershed issues;
. set goals to achieve the vision;
. set measurable, definable objectives to achieve goals and provide benchmarks for success;
. establish specific actions that are required to achieve these objectives;
0310 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
w c:
W 0
0::: E ~ C
:r: .9
'" .~ lD "0
r- I:: ., C '" ",ro
I1l _(I) 0 '"
.ecE C~U iii c o.U
w E 01 ","'a en ~o
I:: =ELL c:- -> 0:2 at::
CI) ~ '6 $-a~ ".;:]31:[) 01" "0 .~"O aio
_<D "'~
-< c. c: ~~e "'0' 0'0. C:c >0.
E :J lil.s~ <D~ a:~ 00 <D<D
:r: LL :Qc::o.. Do.. :::;U Dc::
0..
July 2001 )
o/l", a.
"'''' :c <D
C:11l en en ~
Oc: '51l -e
'OJ11l ., '" CD aJOI en 13~
'" :; cO' 3: "E8
"'... c 01 ~.g OIC 5Q
u'" .Q ~6' 2,ga: <Dc mo ~~
.- 3: -+ -~ ,S wlY ~~ 001 0-
Z 5~ Cii -g:5 JJJ!l.?;o _0.. e: CD~ orl
a; "2 " cC:c alii ~~ Iii 0 a)e OlE
:S E,!:: :::; .eN ","", co'" "'''' "':J
E~ " UlOl EEE Eco "0'" ,gJ!l .S E CE
ELi ~e: "", II
n. %55i :0 ~'C E.B1 E -b ",co cE ""E
O:J :J 3:~ 00.0 0.:J aiR 00 60
~ on. .soC:: 0.. u.sU .so C:::J 00 00
0::: C
0 '" ",,12 "0
~ 0 N c .tSiii '"
~ 'in c: '" :fiE "U; '" c
'" ,9 E .eo Q; 0"
t I1l :S iii '" ~5 ti 5- cE
- ClI ~ :J en '" -:J
Iii a.'" -g~ -OJ
W ~ ~.; ::;a '" "'"0 E~ :Jo
~ > ., C ""5 0.0
CI) L1J Cii "'Ul -c E~] .S
<( I:: In E-+ "" a. en :::;0 ",0 "'''' ~g;
'c>E ~'" 0 ~ "C ,,~ rn~ Eenen
0 :r: "'" ",CD .213 aCC!!
U"O 0 ~E a;Ul Cc -x >-
0.. ~ ~u ~~ ~a iii -=" "'" "''' "c", eJg
I "'" ~ci5 >"= "''''b
~ o~ CJ) 0'" L1JLlJ C:::::;(I) 0..(1)
W "0 '"
W '" " en
c. ~E Cl~l!! " Iii
0::: 0 a. g Iii >
u; e:'" .c e:'" " > 0
0 "e: :g~.!!!.
'" ~~ x~ ""(I) 0 5-
Q) "''' "'" ~~J: E- 5- .:t",
(J) u (l)e: ~.o oai a.
0 0 ""e: m~g 0- <('"
0::: 0= _m OIC .eoC ~~ :>,01 ~~
5.~ "'E '"
W u. ~:::;"" me: ,!!l"U; ~ _OJ
a.- - Dl '~iij "e
-'" -... u c.. u~ "'m" ~-c :0 g." a. co
I '" :g~ .- 0 E,," Ec ~~ ~-
~ Co. 00:::; ~~ .E 0 0.. Oco oC/)
I- :Jo. Ulc:5.s 0:2: <(a 0'0
:::::l 0.."" :::;'" u.u.<>:I
0::: January 2000 ) June 2001
0:::
<(
0 o/lln i:: a. co
-- :c
(J) ,,-
"'''' Ul " '" ro~ Ul ~.~
Z I::ClI ~ ::a "E e:
01:: e: "'e: 0..- ~g
0 ""o1l 8~ I~
"..;jQJ c::::::: .,; 3:..!!l :J-
LL '" ... ~~ ~*~ '" C 20.. gl'l o~
LL .!:: ~ ~,,~ lD':Z 0-
-+Cl c ~e ~:5 ",Cii e: C
m"= m:J m:J
:::::l 5~ <D:J o.c., ~~l f~ ,,-0; roE roE
tjE ::JC/jii) oco roC::: <II
0 Iii E c: ~~~ ~~ o.E o.E
E~ ~" E ~ en Eo Eo
~8a: >0. m:J om
ED o..LLZ .s3: ~ .so DO U LL CD 0..0 o..U
O:J .
On. '" m .:g
~~ m C
m= = ~n
w .0.0 h
Eu; ..s "''''
z C1) IDa :s: '" c :H'
0 ~~.s ~ 5r ei", g.a "'", 80 "'0.
, co." Em -'0 o-
W Uo:= c:l>> (I) I!! 2 ~"" f"'> .~ ~s ~
- - CI) 'E arE-f~.. ~2~ .g'" or= ~~
I;:mU
-< ~> E ",,,, 0. 0.:J cE 5~~ ~'>o co",
"00 0;2 '" co rr ",,3 "'~
:r: ~.c III ~&!ui
~~U De o..oc:: :2':: u:::;o "00
0.. --
'"
Ol ~ C ..9'<l
c <>:I"'t:: Cii~
U
:a '" e: g'c:i ,S; =.5g, >~
:; :J 5'~ g- oo'"
c: ""E LL :;:J(I) '" Ci.ll..-o
"'~ 0..>< c: S
~ c: co '- E XC: o.c oQ..U)
~ .E Ci& L1Jo (B.g o 0. Ol <{~~ ~ci
~~ m= _<( e: CF-
]' ~ ~ ~~ _CIl €~ ~g~ "ClD~ III '
:Jm .a.E O-:J 0..(1)
u.... lDU ~-2 Eo c:~ a",:J ..c.~ c- EO::
mO >c ~-E '" OlLL ~-ga: (~.5
(lJ~ ,95,l' oco 0- oc':;:'""
uo.. ue:
September 1999 . December 1999
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0311
. review and comment on draft Task Force documents including this Draft Terms of
Reference;
. attend community group/service club meetings with TRCA staff and make presentations on
behalf of the Task Force;
. follow the Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to purchasing, hiring of
consultants and all other matters;
. set priorities for protection, enhancement, and regeneration; and
. provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by June 30, 2001.
3.0 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP SELECTION
Members of each Task Force will be appointed by the Authority for a term ending September 28,
2001.
4.0 TASK FORCE STRUCTURE (see attached diagram)
Based on the differences in watershed size, current land uses, proposed development and the
amount of information and studies conducted to date on the Duffins Creek it is proposed that two
task forces be formed, one for the Duffins Creek and one for the Carruthers Creek. Both Task Forces
would be supported by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). A Watershed Executive Committee
will be initiated to provide integration and information sharing between the two task forces and the
TAC.
4.1 Duffins Creek Task Force
The Duffins Creek Task Force shall consist of approximately twenty-three (23) members
representing:
One elected representative from each of the five local and two regional municipalities within the
Duffins Creek watershed which include:
. Town of Markham (1)
. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (1)
. Township of Uxbridge (1)
. Town of Ajax (1)
. Town of Pickering {1)
. York Region (1)
. Durham Region (1)
0312 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
I TRCA Board I
t
Watershed Executive Committee
Co-chairs, Duffins & Carruthers Task Force (2)
Vice-chairs Duffins & Carruthers Task Force (2)
Watershed Specialist (1)
TAC Co-chairs (2)
DFO, Environment Canada, Transport Canada (3)
i
State of the Watershed Report (SOW)
., .., if
Duffins Creek Carruthers Creek
Task Force Task Force
TRCA Watershed Specialist (1) TRCA \Natershed Specialist (1)
Markham (1) Durham Region (1)
W1litchurch -Stouffville (1) Ajax (1)
Uxbridge (1) Pickering (1)
York Region (1) Residents (5)
Durham Region (1) Agriculture Rep (1)
Ajax (1) Education Rep (1)
Pickering (1) Business/lndustry/UDI (3)
Residents (8)
Transport Canada (1)
Agriculture Rep (1)
Education Rep (1)
Aggregate Rep (1)
Business/lndustry/UDI (3)
.
)~ )...
-
Technical Advisory Committee
~ ""
..... r
(TRCA staff, MNR, MOE, MTO,
Environment Canada,York U., U of T etc..)
... )". ~
, Duffins & Carruthers Creek ~
Watershed Strategy
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0313
Other representatives include:
. TRCA Watershed Specialist (1)
. Transport Canada (1)
. Agriculture (1)
. Education (1)
. Aggregates (1)
. Business/lndustry/UDI (3)
. Residents (8)
The Chair and Vice Chair of the Duffins Creek Task Force will be elected from among its members.
4.2 Carruthers Creek Task Force
The Carruthers Creek Task Force shall consist of approximately fourteen (14) members
representing:
One elected representative from each of the two local and one regional municipality within the
Carruthers Creek which include:
. Town of Ajax (1)
. Town of Pickering (1)
. Durham Region (1)
Other representatives include:
. TRCA Watershed Specialist (1)
. Agriculture (1)
. Education (1)
. Business/Industry/Urban Development Institute (3)
. Residents (5)
The Chair and Vice Chair of the Carruthers Creek Task Force will be elected from among its
members.
4.3 Watershed Executive Committee
The Watershed Executive Committee will meet on as required basis to provide the umbrella for
integration and information sharing between the two Task Forces and the TAC. This committee shall
consist of approximately ten (10) members including:
. The co-chairs of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Task Forces (2)
. The vice-chairs of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Task Forces (2)
. The TRCA Duffins and Carruthers Creeks Watershed Specialist (1)
. The co-chairs of the Technical Advisory Committee (2)
. A representative from Environment Canada (1)
. A representative from Department of Fisheries and Oceans (1)
. A representative from Transport Canada (1)
0314 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
4.4 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
In anticipation of developing a watershed strategy for the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds
the TRCA form ed a Technical Advisory Com m ittee (TAG) representing a group of
"scientists/experts" who have conducted studies and research in the watersheds and/or are familiar
with state-of-the-art watershed methods and models. The T AC members represent topics such as
ground water, surface water, terrestrial resources, fisheries, climate change and land use planning
from municipal, regional and consultant viewpoints.
The TAC work plan includes writing sections of the State of the Watershed Report based on existing
information, identifying gaps in information, analysing and integrating information and producing
a set of preferred management scenarios such as policy, criteria, guidelines and projects to be
forwarded to both Task Forces. TAC members will be asked to make presentations and provide
technical guidance to each Task Force.
4.5 Reporting Relationship
The Task Forces will communicate to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory
Board. The Task Force Chairs will be required to coordinate communications to this Board with the
assistance of Authority staff.
5.0 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Task Force membership will be solicited through correspondence to local and regional governments
and federal agencies and public information sessions.
5.1 Federal Agency Representatives
Selected federal agencies will be requested by the Authority to appoint a senior employee and an
alternate to the Task Force. Alternate members will have voting privileges on all matters of business.
Participation by federal agency representatives does not signify endorsement of the final strategy
document.
5.2 Provincial Agency Representatives
Selected provincial- agencies are currently represented on the Technical Advisory committee
including the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment.
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be requested by the Authority to appoint a senior
employee and an alternate to each Task Force: Alternate members will have voting privileges on
all matters of business.
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0315
5.3 Local and Regional Municipality Representatives
The local and regional municipalities will be requested by the Authority to confirm the participation
of a council member(s), and an alternate to the Task Forces. A municipality may appoint a current
Authority member. Alternate municipal Task Force members will have voting privileges on -all
matters of business.
5.4 Watershed Residents
An advertisement will be placed in local papers requesting interested residents within the Duffins
and Carruthers Creek watersheds to apply for appointment to either Task Force.
The selection of residents from each watershed will be carried out by a three person committee
comprised of two members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, and one senior Authority
staff. During the selection process there will be a conscious effort to balance the representation of
individuals, active interest groups and ratepayer association on each Task Force.
To ensure a broad range of representation from key groups on each task force, local and regional
municipal councils will be asked to recommend groups that should be contacted for an interview.
In the Spring of 2000 a number of public information sessions will be scheduled to launch the
development of the Duffins and Carruthers Watersheds Strategy. These information sessions will
provide general information to residents interested in knowing more about the Authority, watershed
strategy development or becoming a member of either the Duffins or Carruthers Creek Watershed
Task Force. The Duffins Creek Task Force will include eight residents and the Carruthers Creek
Task Force will include five residents.
5.5 Other Representatives
The formal education sector will be invited to have representation on each Task Force.
Watershed businesses, industry and the Urban Development Institute (UDI) will be requested by
the Authority to confirm the participation of a representative and an alternate to each Task Force.
6.0 SELECTION CRITERIA
In recommending citizens for appointment, the Selection Committee will take into consideration the
following:
. demonstrated interest and/or active participation in watershed management, community and
heritage issues;
. the ability of the applicant to meet the potential time commitments;
. representation of rural, urban, environmental, recreation, education, heritage and business
interests.
0316 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
The Selection Committee will take into account similar criteria for representatives of community
groups and residents associations.
7.0 TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis. It is anticipated that evening meetings will
be held approximately every six weeks for each Task Force. Members unable to fulfil this
commitment will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings to ensure broad and effective
representation on watershed issues.
It is anticipated that the first 3-4 meetings will be conducted as joint meetings of the Duffins Creek
Task Force and the Carruthers Creek Task Force with presentations from the Technical Advisory
Committee.
Special project working groups will be required to deal with specific issues. Additional meeting time
will be required in these cases.
8.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE TASK FORCE
The Task Forces are charged with creating a Watershed Strategy document by June of 2001. In
order to meet this ambitious deadline the following resources are available to assist.
8.1 TRCA Secretariat
The secretariat will include:
- Watershed Specialist;
- Watershed Resources Planner;
- Administrative Assistant Support.
The secretariat's role will be to attend all meetings and to assist the Task Forces in all activities
related to the development of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watersheds Strategy.
9.0 FUNDING
Watershed strategy development has traditionally been funded through programs such as the
Toronto Remedial1\ction "Plan"1RAP):The-Dl1ffins-and Carruthers-CreeK watersheds are outside of
the RAP Area of Concern and are therefore not eligible for this type of funding.
Alternative funding sources have been pursued. Authority staff have met with local and regional
governments as well as provincial and federal agencies to discuss funding. These discussions
focused on funds required for strategy development.
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0317
In determining the level of funding requested, land base and the extent of urban development was
taken into account for each municipality and region. The cost of the strategy development has been
estimated at approximately $340,000 for 2000. Local and regional municipalities are being asked
to contribute a combined sum of $140,000 and federal and provincial agencies are being requested
to contribute a combined sum of $200,000. The strategy cannot proceed without the contributions
of both municipal and agency funds.
Local and regional municipalities are being asked to contribute a combined sum of $140,000 which
includes the Regions of York ($10,000) and Durham ($25,000) and the municipalities of Ajax
($20,000), Pickering ($20,000), Markham ($5,000), Whitchurch-Stouftville ($5,000) the Township of
Uxbridge ($5,000) and the TRCA ($50,000).
Some of the strategy components associated with the $140,000 will include:
. Completion of a State of the Watershed Report (SOW)
. Public Outreach
. Support for the Watershed Task Force
Federal and provincial agency funding of $200,000 is being discussed with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural
Resources and Transport Canada These funds would be used to undertake project specific work
such as the development of a fish management plan, a water budget for the watersheds, a Natural
Heritage Strategy, and a Cultural Heritage Program. It would also allow priority projects, identified
as the strategy is developed, to be implemented in a more timely fashion.
10.0 COMPENSATION OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS
For regular Task Force meetings, members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority
policy.
11.0 RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE TASK FORCE
The Task Force will follow the Rules of Conduct of the Authority (The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority), as adopted by Resolution #3 of the Authority Meeting #2/86, or as
may be amended. A quorum will consist of a majority of the members of the Task Force.
0318 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
RES.#D90/99 - CANADIAN MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Historic Humber River Proposal. Endorsement of the Historic Humber River
proposal approved for funding by the Canadian Millennium Partnership
Program.
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Milton Berger
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Historic
Humber River Millennium Project be approved;
THAT letters of thanks be sent to the Honourable Herb Gray, MP, Deputy Prime Minister and
local MP's who supported the Historic Humber River proposal with a contribution of $400,000
as announced on October 25, 1999;
AND FURTHER THAT appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take
whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the signing of a Millennium
Bureau of Canada contribution agreement and other documents as may be necessary.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Canadian Millennium Partnership Program is designed to help Canadians mark the new
millennium in meaningful and creative ways. The program encourages Canadians to create
initiatives that explore our heritage, celebrates our achievements, builds our future and leaves a
lasting legacy.
The Government of Canada will provide funding for community-oriented activities as well as national
and international activities until December 31, 2000.
The program helps support projects that meet one or more of the following themes:
. Celebrate achievement so that Canadians are inspired to know and appreciate our past and
to welcome the challenges and opportunities of the future;
. Support a sustainable environment and new ways of showing our respect for nature while
we progress as a leading economy;
. Stimulate interest in communities large and small, and bring our youth together to support
the evolution of these communities;
. Advance Canadian~nnovation that-will.benefit individuals-and-communities contributing to
our collective well-being;
. Demonstrate, through artistic and cultural expression, our heritage, our way of life and our
aspirations for the future.
November 19, 1999 WATER$HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0319
At meeting #4/98, the Humber Watershed Alliance endorsed the submission of an application to
the Canadian Millennium Partnership Program to secure funds to support work at specific
community action sites. An application titled, "The Historic Humber", was submitted by the Humber
Watershed Alliance to the Millennium Bureau of Canada on October 31, 1998.
Specific project locations are summarized below:
Citv of Toronto - Raymore Park, Humber Discovery Walk
City of Vauqhan - William Granger Greenway
City of Brampton - Claireville Conservation Area
Town of Caledon - Palgrave and Bolton Community Action Site
Town of Richmond Hill - Lake Wilcox Community Action Site
The five activities planned for each site are:
1 . Environmental Enhancements(Trees and Shrubs
2. Instream Fishway Enhancements
3. Trail Enhancements
4. Interpretive Plaques(Trail Discs
5. Celebrations/Canadian Heritage River
On October 25, 1999, the Humber Watershed Alliance was informed that their proposal was
approved for funding in the third phase of the Canadian Millennium Partnership Program. The
Millennium Bureau received 3,400 applications for Phase III.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Complete the Canada Millennium Partnership Program Environmental Impact Questionnaire;
. Complete the contribution agreement with the Millennium Bureau of Canada;
. Finalize details for specific projects;
. Pursue and confirm contribution$ by other partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Canadian Millennium-Partnership Program . has. confirmed a contribution of $400,800 for the
Historic Humber River project. The federal contribution is for the period June 1, 1999 to March 31,
2001 and must be matched. Other revenues have been received or expected from the following
sources:
0320 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
TRCA - Humber Watershed Management $260,000
TRCA Acquisition of Enderes Property $325,000
TRCA Claireville Trail $100,000
York Region/City of Vaughan $170,000
Ontario Trillium Foundation $50,000
Peel Region $125,000
MNR - Fish Habitat Compensation $40,000
Ontario Main Street Millennium Fund $100,000
City of Toronto Discovery Walks $50,000
Canada Trust Friends of the Environment $48,000
MNR - Weirs $20,000
MNR - CFIP $11,000
Palgrave Rotary Club $25,000
Toronto Sportsmen's Show $10,000
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters $7,500
Petro Canada $6,000
TOTAL $1,347,500
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: November 10, 1999
RES.#D91 /99 - INLAND FILL QUALITY PILOT PROJECT
Implementation of an inland fill quality pilot project at select fill sites within the
Authority's jurisdiction.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to implement a four
month pilot project to monitor inland fill quality for Watershed Protection at selected sites in
the Authority's jurisdiction within the Town of Caledon;
November 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0321
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with the results and recommendations.
................................................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority developed the Improved Lakefill Quality Control
Program (ILQCP) in 1988 at the request of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to respond to a
concern about the quality of soil being used in lakefill projects.
The ILQCP provides environmental controls on the quality of soil to be deposited at lakefilllocations.
It is designed as a decision-making framework for assessing the acceptability of surplus excavated
soil for placement at lakefilllocations. The ILQCP has operated successfully for eleven years and has
pre-approved all soils prior to acceptance at such waterfront projects as Colonel Samuel Smith Park,
Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Humber Shores, and Tommy Thompson Park (Leslie Street
Spit).
Pre-screening of sites through the extensive review of soils reports has resulted in the rejection of
large volumes of excavated soil that do not meet the required fill quality criteria as set by the Ministry
of Environment. It is known that a significant volume of this rejected material, some contaminated,
is diverted to inland locations, where environmental controls may not be as stringent.
Currently, fill quality issues, with the ~xception of fill sites operating under a Certificate of Approval
issued by the MOE and those regulated by certain municipalities, are left to the discretion of the
property owner. Property owners who accept fill mayor may not be aware of the consequences of
accepting fill of unknown origin or chemical composition. The MOE's role in regulating the quality
of fill material that is disposed of at inland locations is extremely limited. As a result, there is a
potential economic incentive for haulers to dispose of contaminated fill at inland locations.
One municipality that is experiencing increased fill placement is the Town of Caledon. Authority staff
have met with By-law Enforcement staff of the Town to review the feasibility of conducting a pilot
project at selected fill sites to test fill quality. The Town of Caledon has a fill placement by-law "To
prohibit or regulate the alteration of the grade of land and the placing or dumping of, fill in areas of
the Town of Caledon". In terms of fill quality, the by-law requires that "the fill to be placed or
dumped is clean and free of unsafe, hazardous or contaminated material".
In discussions with Town staff, it is clear that fill quality monitoring or auditing is not being
undertaken actively and an interest was expressed in a pilot project being implemented to sample
and test fill at selected sensitive sites in the Town of Caledon and within the Authority's jurisdiction.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The implementation of a short term pilot project would require the following actions:
. Obtain a list of fill sites from the Town of Caledon where fill is being placed, or has been
placed. Town of Caledon staff have agreed to identify sites of concern and obtain the
consent of the land owner prior to taking of soil samples. Obtain a list of fill sites under
permit by the Authority.
. Authority staff will conduct site visits of fill placement and collect random samples for
laboratory chemical analysis in consultation with Town of Caledon staff and TRCA
Enforcement staff.
0322 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
. Develop a chemical parameter list comprised of organic and inorganic compounds using
the MOE's "Guidelines for the Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario". Consult with MOE staff
to determine which parameters should be the subject of analysis and to establish acceptable
limits for such parameters based on land use applications.
. Notify the MOE, the Town and the property owner if test results identify contamination in any
fill which exceeds applicable guidelines.
. Document the results of the site visits and test results and provide a summary and
recommendations for future consideration by the Authority and the Town of Caledon.
. Allocate one ILQCP staff person approximately one day per week for the pilot project to
undertake site visits, collect of sample(s) and prepare a final report.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The objective of this pilot project is to provide useful information on fill quality issues at selected sites
in the Town of Caledon and on TRCA Fill Permit sites, with the goal of ensuring the long term
protection of the water re~ources within the TRCA's jurisdiction.
Implementation of an Inland Fill Quality Program may provide an incentive for other Municipalities
to consider participating in a similar pilot project if fill quality issues prove to be a concern. There
may also be an opportunity for the Authority to develop an overall program to monitor fill quality for
watershed protection.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds to implement a four month pilot project are available in the lakefill account 242-01.
The estimated cost of the project is $20,000.
For information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 5244
Date: November 4, 1999
RES.#D92/99 - KING CITY COMMUNITY PLAN
Servicing Implications. Potential impacts of the King City Community Plan
(OPA 54), and associated sanitary servicing, on the ecological health of the
Humber River.
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Bas Balkissoon
. , -
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status update on the King City
Community Plan and associated sanitary servicing be received for information. . CARRIED
November 19. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0323
BACKGROUND
At meeting #5/99 of the Watershed Advisory Board, Authority staff was directed to report back on
the potential impacts of the King City Community Plan (OPA 54), and associated sanitary servicing,
on the ecological health of the Humber River. This report is in response to a delegation to the
Authority by a concerned citizen and the Board's agreement to respond to his questions. Below is
a summary of the works that have been completed by the Township and Region in support of the
Community plan, and Authority involvement in the same. ~
King City Sanitary Sewage Servicing Study - Class EA
In 1995, the Region of York and Township of King jointly completed the King City Sanitary Sewage
Servicing Study - Class Environmental Assessment to consider servicing options for the Community
of King. The EA concluded that the best design option for sanitary waste disposal for this
community is to connect to the York-Durham Sewer System which would take effluent to the Duffin
Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. Comments were provided to the Region and Township by
Authority staff through this process. In addition to ensuring proper identification and protection of
Valley and Stream corridors when considering potential alignment options for servicing
infrastructure, staff commented on the potential for improvement to water quality within the East
Humber River by introducing a sanitary servicing alternative.
Upon conclusion of the EA, concerns were raised by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for
the loss of baseflow to the Humber River system as the result of the diversion of effluent. This matter
was referred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), for review under the Fisheries Act,
in September 1997. Since that time, RV. Anderson and Gartner Lee Umited have been working with
MNR and DFO to resolve the issue.
King City Community Plan (OPA 54)
In late 1995, early 1996, the Township initiated the Proposed Official Plan Amendment number 54,
the King City Community Plan. Authority staff participated in several workshops in support of the
preparation of this plan. Detailed comments, on the "Environment First" plan, were provided to the
Township in August 1996. These comments included recommended buffers from Valley and Stream
corridors, provisions in the plan for appropriate SWM control and ensuring that TRCA was noted as
a review agency for matters of resource management. In 1997, staff advised that The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority had no objection to the approval of the amendment.
York Durham Servicing Master Plan (YDSS)
In September, 1997 the Region of York adopted the York Durham Sanitary Servicing (YDSS) Master
Plan. Authority support for the YDSS is outlined in the attached report received by the Watershed
Management Advisory BGafd on-F.ebruary -2+j-199S,.Potential ~mpacts to natural features resulting
from modifications to the groundwater regime, and alignment routes are of interest to the Authority.
As such, support for the plan was largely premised on the opportunity for staff to work with the
Region on subsequent Environmental Assessment documents to ensure that our policy and
program interests are addressed as the recommendations of the report are implemented.
0324 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
Concerns have been expressed about the possible net loss of flow in the East Humber as a result
of continued use of ground water as water supply for King City and the exportation of sanitary
sewage from the watershed. Ground water supplies are extracted from a deep aquifer system. Due
to the depth of this regional aquifer, baseflow contributions from this groundwater system are likely
to only occur in the Lower Humber where the invert of the watercourse is at a comparable elevation
as the aquifer. As such, impacts to the East Humber, or the entire Humber watershed are unlikely.
Potential Impacts to the Humber River System
In May 1998, the Region of York adopted Regional Official Plan Amendment 4 (ROPA 4). The
purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the implementation of the King City Community on the
basis of full municipal services, in accordance with Amendment 54 to the Township of King Official
Plan, and satisfy the requirements of the Regional Official Plan governing expansions of the York
Durham Sanitary Sewer.
Based on concerns expressed by MNR and DFO, with respect to impacts on Fish Habitat, the
Region of York modified ROPA 4 to require that a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan be prepared to
the satisfaction of the two agencies prior to expansion of the YDSS to King City.
In October 1999, Gartner Lee Umited prepared a "King City Sanitary Sewage Servicing Fish Habitat
Impact Assessment" for the Region of York and Township of King. Based on a substantial and
quantitative baseflow analysis, the report concluded that expansion of the YDSS will not result in a
harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD). This conclusion was reached by
analysing the maximum potential amount of baseflow contributed to the East Humber by the septic
systems in King City, in relation to the quantity of baseflow in the receiving system. The maximum
potential drop in water level predicted was 2 cm, which did not have a significant impact on the
wetted perimeter (fish habitat) of the channel. In a letter dated November 5, 1999, the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans advised that the October 1999 report has addressed their concerns and
that they are satisfied that the project will not result in a HADD.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, Authority staff support the King City Community Plan (OPA 54), as it is an
Environment First plan that represents good environmental planning. Official Plan Amendment 4 to
the Regional Official Plan includes a modification specifying that a compensation plan will be
prepared to address the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD)
associated with the proposed connection of King City to the YDSS. To address this requirement,
the October 1999 Gartner Lee Umited report was prepared concluding that the proposed servicing
alternative will not result in a HADD. It is staff's opinion that implementation of the King City
Community Plan, and associated sanitary servicing, will not negatively impact the ecological health
of the Humber River Watershed.
.. .- - .-- ---- -
For information contact: Sandra Malcic, extension 5217
Date: Report Date November 9, 1999
Attachments (1)
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0325
Attachment 1
RES. #A44/98- YORK REGION LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY AND YORK/DURHAM
TRUNK SEWER MASTER PLANS
Receipt of two Master Plan documents on the long term water supply and
sewer system for the Region of York and potential impacts on policies and
programs of the Authority.
Moved by: Ron Moeser
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THAT the staff report regarding the York Region Long Term Water Supply and York/Durham
Trunk Sewer Master Plans be received;
THAT a copy of the report be forwarded to the Region of York as the Authority's comments
with respect to the proposed projects;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with the Region of York on subsequent Class
and Individual EA to ensure that our policy and program interests are addressed. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At meeting #9/97 held on November 21, 1997 the Watershed Management Advisory Board deferred
the York Region Master Plans, requesting additional information be provided regarding the plans.
Res. #D120j97
"THA T the above item be referred back to staff for a further detailed report on the
various issues related to the long term water supply and sewage treatment plans of
the Region of York."
Additional information was requested on the impacts these plans may have on groundwater,
diversion of surface and groundwater, Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority response, and the role
of the TRCA in groundwater relating to these Master Plans.
The Region of York has circulated the York Region Long Term Water Project, July 1997 and the
York/Durham Trunk Sewer Master Plan, July 1997, for Authority review and comments. The Long
Term Water Supply Project was initiated to identify a preferred water supply strategy to
accommodate project future growth to the. year 2031 in the Region of York. As a guiding approach
to determine the preferred long term water supply, the Master Planning process, as outlined in the
Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment was adopted. The York Long
Term Water Suppty-project has-oompleted Phases-1-and 2-of the Class EA process and establishes
the basis for projects arising therefrom.
The York/Durham Trunk Sewer Master Plan was initiated to identify and review sewage servicing
alternatives necessary to meet current sanitary sewage servicing needs and future growth, to the
year 2031, as identified in the Regional Official Plan. The Master Plan follows the Class
Environmental Assessment process and identifies an environmentally responsible approach to
servicing future growth in York Region.
0326 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
Executive Summaries of the York Region Long Term Water Project Master Plan (July 1997) and the
York - Durham Trunk Sewer System Master plan Class EA (July 1997) are attached for information.
A previous staff report and recommendations regarding the Region's Long Term Water Supply
Project were considered by the Executive Committee at meeting #11/96 and the Committee
resolved:
"Res. #B 188/96
'THAT the staff report regarding the Region of York Long Term Water Supply Project,
Class Environmental Assessment - Summary of Alternatives, dated December 4, 1996,
be received;
THA T a copy of the report be forwarded to the Region of York and Consumers Utilities
as the Authority's preliminary comments with respect to the proposed project;
THA T staff be directed to pursue these concerns with the proponents and to report
on this matter to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory;
AND FURTHER THAT representatives from the Region of York and Consumers Utilities
be invited to be present at the Advisory Board meeting. ..
The following areas were of interest to the Authority at that time:
. the use of the Class Environmental Assessment process for a project of this potential
magnitude;
. the impact of this proposal on growth and settlement patterns in York Region and on the
watershed management interests of the Authority, including stormwater management;
. the consideration of alternatives that involve a diversion of water from one lake basin to
another, (i.e. Georgian Bay Independent; Georgian Bay with expanded Metro Supply);
. the potential environmental impacts of the routing of the proposed pipelines on the natural
environment resource base, particularly the valley and stream corridors and the Oak Ridges
Moraine, and the potentia] impacts on any Authority owned land~. The Authority has had an
opportunity, to review and comment on any of the background technical reports that address
potential impacts on the natural environment;
. how the overall water supply strategy meets the relevant objectives of the Authority's
watershed-management strategiesiw{i:€. Forty-Steps-to-e:New Don; Legacy: A Strategy for
a Healthy Humber) and further, how the water supply strategy meets the goals and
objectives of the Metro Region Remedial Action Plan; and
. the proposed methods of treating and managing wastewater.
Staff forwarded the report and the Executive resolution of the York Region Long Term Water Project.
Authority staff received a reply, dated March 3, 1997 with the following comments:
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0327
1. The development of a long term water supply strategy is a necessary step in implementing
the Region's Official Plan. It is generally the Region's intent to supply major urbanized areas
with water from the Great lakes, thus freeing up ground water resources for agricultural, rural
and recreational uses and optimizing emergent flow into creeks, stream and rivers.
2. The use of the Class Environmental Assessment for this project is appropriate. The
documentation for the Class Environmental Assessment describes water projects of this
nature as activities subject to the full planning process of the Class EA. The Class document
addresses the issue of Master Plans which involve an overall system approach rather than
a project specific one.
3. Details with respect to pipeline routing can be addressed later in the project. The one
kilometre wide corridors provide considerable flexibility in actual pipeline location. The
general intent is to follow existing road allowances. No construction is proposed in or along
valley and stream corridors.
Authority staff have met with Region of York staff on two occasions to discuss the process being
followed for the two Master Planning exercises and the nature of our concerns with the Long Term
Water Supply Project and Sewer System Master Plan.
The Process
Region of York staff have confirmed that they are following a Master Planning Process under the
Class EA. These master plans are intended to fulfil Phase I (identify and describe problem) and
Phase II (identify and evaluate alternative solutions and establish the preferred solution) of the Class
EA process. At this time, support is being requested for the preferred solution to water supply and
waste water management within the Region. Methods of implementing the preferred solution will
be subject to subsequent EA processes and detailed comments will be addressed at that time.
The Plans
The preferred long term solution for water supply recommended that the expansion of supplies to
the Region be viewed as a phased strategy comprising of four steps.
. Expansion of Water Supply from Metro Toronto - involves the continuation of the expansion
of water supplies from Metro Toronto to 57 MIGD (average day). This will provide a bridge
until 2004 and will support the Region's growth. The Region will undertake a modelling
study in cooperation with Metro Toronto to optimize the infrastructure and capital and
operating cost requirements for the increased supply from Metro.
. Implement a Water-Use Efficiency Program - will produce water savings up to 4 MIGD. Two
key components of the water use efficiency program are a leakage reduction program and
a demand management program targeted at both residential and non-residential
consumers. This step will be implemented at an early date in order to make immediate cost
savings for the Region and its area municipalities as well as defer capital expenditures.
. Construct-Lake-Simcoe. Water Treatment .facility. - construction of a new water treatment
facility in Georgina to replace the Sutton Filtration Plant which is nearing the end of its useful
life. This component needs early attention to service the expected growth in the Town of
Georgina. The Region will assume the Class Environmental Assessment for the Project at
Phase 3 as soon as possible. Lake Simcoe studies conducted also identified the opportunity
to withdraw water from the lake and supply it to areas south of Georgina in the Region. This
source could provide up to 20 MIGD but water taking of this magnitude will need further
discussion.
0328 WATERS.HED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
. Complete Long Term Great Lakes Supply - taking water supply from Lake Ontario via the
western part of Durham Region (Durham West solution). The scale of this project may vary
due to a number of factors including: the realization of the additional supplies from Lake
Simcoe which could feed areas south of Georgina, the availability of groundwater resources
in York Region and, the possibility of cooperation with Durham Region. Subsequent
planning for this Long Term Great Lakes Supply will be undertaken as an Individual
Environment Assessment. There is also a contingency plan for a Great Lakes source of
supply involving Peel Region which could be introduced.
In the short and intermediate term, the project involves maximization of water supply from existing
groundwater based sources.
The preferred planning alternative to meet the sewage capacity needs of York Region was identified
as a system that will increase the conveyance capacity of the York Durham Sewage System,
incorporating water use effi.ciency/sewage reduction measures and, potentially, using wet weather
detention at a location in proximity to the Aurora pumping station. The preferred servicing solution
includes diversion of sewage to Peel Region with a new parallel system. Implementation of the
Preferred Alternative has been categorized into priority projects, strategic projects, monitoring and
triggering mechanisms, as well as system phasing, Debt servicing must also be addressed prior to
implementation of a the new York Durham Sewage System infrastructure.
Authority staff have consulted with external professional hydrogeological expertise and are not
opposed to the Region continuing and refining the preferred alternatives through the Environmental
Assessment process, as set out in these documents providing the following concerns are addressed
through subsequent phases:
. The Authority supports efforts to reduce water supply demand through water efficiency
measures and public consultation and would like to assist the Region in this regard.
. Implementation of the preferred alternatives as set out in the Region's strategy documents
must meet the relevant objectives of the Authority's overall watershed management
strategies and individual management strategies for the watershed impacted.
Transfer Between Watersheds
. Potential impact of pumping of groundwater and/or surface water hom one watershed, with
disposal of treated sewage into another. The potential consequences to be considered
include: 1) potential loss of baseflow or net flow in receiving bodies, and 2) potential long-
term water quality impacts associated with water transfer.
Installation of Underground Services
. Potential impact of groundwater levels (lowering of groundwater) through drawdown and
infiltration into.services. .- ..
. Potential change in groundwater flow directions and transfer of groundwater between
watersheds caused by lowering of water table as a result of drawdown arol,lnd services.
. Potential loss of baseflow in streams and wetlands as a result of lowering of the water table
caused by installation of underground services.
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0329
. Potential physical disruption of significant landforms, including watercourse crossings as a
result of construction. The Authority will be looking for mitigating measures, through the EA
process as well as processing and issuing any necessary permits under the Conservation
Authorities Act.
. More detailed alignment information is required for the preferred alternative for the York
Region Water Supply Project, the Durham West alignment, as the valley and stream
corridors, lands either owned or of specific interest to the Authority are impacted.
For each of the above potential impacts, a range of mitigating measures should be examined.
Where mitigating measures are not appropriate or not feasible, then other types of compensating
measures should be examined or different route alignments should be selected.
Impact of Increased Groundwater Supply
. The potential drawdown of water levels and loss of baseflow in streams as a result of
increased groundwater extraction and changes in groundwater flow directions.
. Potential impacts of lowering of water table on terrestrial habitat (e.g., drying up of wetlands).
Impact Created by Decommissioning of Water Supply Wells
. Potential impact of rising water levels on terrestrial and aquatic habitat. These impacts may
be potentially negative or positive.
A significant tool for minimizing impacts will be long-term monitoring programs. These programs
should assess the actual impacts of the servicing, and allow for future mitigation or improved route
selection and construction techniques for future phases of the project. This will require careful
monitoring of existing or baseline conditions in sensitive areas including:
. Gauges of stream flow.
. Monitoring of local and regional groundwater levels.
. Biophysical inventory of sensitive areas such as wetlands, woodlands, and the like.
. Monitoring of surface water quality.
These baseline conditions should be established early as part of the site inventory and investigation
conducted during the Environmental Assessment.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) provided comments to the region on the
Long Term Water Supply Project in December 1996 (letter attached). The concerns expressed by
the LSRCA are comparable to those highlighted above relating to ground and surface water
diversions, water level fluctuations and water quality.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to workwitl=t-the Region on subsequent Environmental Assessment documents
to ensure that our policy and program interests are addressed as the recommendations of these
plans are implemented.
Report Prepared by: Sandra Malcic (extension 217)
For information contact: Dave Dyce (extension 250)
0330 WATERSI:iED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
RES.#D93/99 - TRILLIUM FOUNDATION PROJECT
Multicultural Environmental Stewardship. Continuation of the TRCA's
Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program to involve new Canadians
and visible minority groups in watershed management activities.
Moved by: Cliff Gyles
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT funding agencies be recognized and
thanked for their support to the program;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek support and funding to continue the project.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The integration of diverse communities into mainstream environmental activities by agencies and
institutions has been poorly developed despite the fact that these communities make up a large and
growing portion of the GT A's population. The GT A's new immigrant communities or new Canadians
make up 48 per cent of the population, but they continue to be under represented in important
positions of influence and on issues and policies that have an impact on their lives. According to
the latest report on diversity in Toronto by the Toronto Star (June 7,1998). visible minorities will
make up 54 per cent of the population of Toronto by the year 2000. The TRCA, in partnership with
multicultural environmental and multi-service groups, seeks to address the lack of formal
mechanisms for engaging minorities in environmental restoration activities.
Objective:
The key objectives of this project include:
. initiate ongoing education and awareness of watershed management issues;
. identify and eliminate barriers between delivery agencies and community;
. help new Canadians in developing skills in facilitation, ecological restoration, and site
planning;
. increase opportunities for employment;
. ecologically restore and rehabilitate identified Community Action Sites; and
. establish sustainable stewardship initiatives.
At meeting #12/97 held on January 30, 1998, the Authority adopted Resolution #A315/97 which,
in part, states:
'THA T staff be directed to proceed with the implementation of the Multicultural Environmental
Stewardship Project-including-the execution of any documents--and obtaining other necessary
approvals to give effect thereto. "
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0331
Accomplishments to Date:
Wrth the support of the Trillium Foundation and Environment Canada ecoAction2000, TRCA initiated
this unique program in December 1997. Currently, the CDMES (Community Development for
Multicultural Environmental Stewardship) project is one of the few environmental programs that has
been able to make valuable in-roads within the growing ethnic community of Toronto and
surrounding regions. Working together with diverse ethnic groups, social service agencies, ESL
(English as a Second Language) and UNC (Language Instructions for new Canadians), the COMES
project has accomplished the following to date:
. Community Outreach
- The project reached out to approximately 200 multicultural groups, social service
agencies and schools.
- Over 2,000 ESL and UNC teachers were contacted through the Adult Education Board.
- Established a Steering Committee with representatives from organizations working
on environmental/visible minority issues.
- Seven Community Action Site Leaders were hired and trained in TRCA's watershed
management practices, ecological restoration, and community action site process.
- Two summer students were also hired and trained.
- Volunteer opportunities were provided to youth willing to seek work experience in the
field of environmental restoration.
. Restoration Activities
- Successfully planted over 12,000 native trees, shrubs, wetland plants and wildflowers
at various action sites.
- Over 500 volunteers devoted approximately 2,000 hours to the project.
- Over 800 adult ESL students (new Canadians) became involved in our outdoor
recreation and environmental education activities.
- 120 bird boxes were built and placed at various action sites.
. Events and Celebrations
Ten community events have been hosted to date to fostering community participation and
awareness.
1. Community Environmental Awareness Day at Sun Row Community Action Site with
Somali Multiservice Center.
2 Community Tree Planting and Picnic at Morningside Action Site attended by over 100
people.
3. ESL Environmental Visioning Workshop attended by over 100 people.
4. Community Action Day at Riverdale Farm Ponds. 30 bird boxes were built and placed.
5. Humber Community Nature Celebration at Humber Arboretum attracted over 300
people.
6. -Community AwarenessDaY--af.ldPlaAting at. Humber-Mede-site attendeq by 100 local
ESL students and school children.
7. Community Environmental Action Day at Mimico Creek. Creek clean-up and tree
planting.
8. ClaireviUe Canoe and Nature Hikes attended by more than 100 adult ESL students from
Humber College.
9. "Down to Earth" Enviro-Fair at Driftwood Park Community Action Site attracted over 100
families from the local neighbourhood.
0332 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
10. Humber Creek Enviro-Fair at the Sun Row Community Action Site attended by over
200 community members.
. Watershed Stewardship Tours
These tours have helped the project reach out to new Canadians and promote
environmental education and stewardship. A tree planting or some other 'hands on'
activity is often incorporated depending upon people's interests. The following groups
have participated in these tours so far: Somali Canadian Association; Victoria Park L1NC and
ESL Centre; Jane and Finch Community Centre; Muslim Community Services of Pee I;
Chinese Environmental Ambassadors; Malton Neighbourhood Services; Filipino
Association; Yee Hong Centre; Toronto Committee on Ethnic and Race Relations; and
African Youth Advocacy Group.
. Conference Presentation
Presentations were made at the following conferences to promote the goals, needs and
opportunities of the project:
- Urban Issues, 1998: Creating Sustainable Urban Communities.
- Trillium Foundation's "Caring Communities" Conference.
- Sustainability Network's "Diversity: Looking Inwards and Reaching Out" Workshop.
- Another presentation will be made at the upcoming Youth Challenge Conference titled:
'Watch your Step: Reducing your Ecological Footprint" (December 2000).
- York University, Urban Studies Program Conference "Planning in a Multicultural Region"
(February 2000)
FUTURE INITIATIVES
. Continue the CDMES program and reachout to social service and settlement agencies. Since
there is lack of environmental organizations within the diverse ethno-racial communities, the
COMES project will target groups and agencies dealing with issues related to new immigrants.
. Develop resource material for ESL and L1NC programs. While working with the Adult ESL and
L1NC groups, the need for an interactive and hands-on curriculum based on environmental
education was identified. This motivated us to initiate work on developing resource materials
for ESL and L1NC classes. In 1998, the Toronto Area L1NC and ESL program had over 65,000
participants at approximately 600 centers across the GT A. A project like this may have the
potential to reach-out to new Canadians in a very positive way while, at the same time, improve
their language skills through interactive and hands-on activities. We are seeking support and
funding to develop a resource guide for adult ESL and L1NC classrooms in the future.
. Develop communication material (translated) relating to stewardship activities,
DETAILS OF WORK-TO BE-OONE
. Seek support and funding to continue the project in the year 2000. A proposal has been
submitted to Environment Canada, however, there is a need to seek funding from other sources
as well.
. Initiate work on curriculum guidelines for adult ESL (English as a Second Language) and L1NC
(Language Instructions for New Canadians). A proposal is to be submitted to the MinistrY of
Citizenship and Immigration to develop a resource guide for ESL and L1NC classrooms.
November 19, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 0333
. Develop a resource video on Outreach Strategies to share our experience and learning with
NGO's and environmental organizations seeking to engage in outreach work.
. Develop and finalize products such as the Chinese-translated Fish Poster, TRCA Watershed
Stewardship Brochure and other communication materials.
. Prepare and submit the final report to the Trillium Foundation and Environment Canada.
. Recognize the contribution of funders, steering committee members and other partners through
a partners event in the Spring of 2000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Sources of funding for this project are as follows:
SOURCE BUDGET STATUS
Trillium Foundation $150,000 Confirmed
Action 21 (Environment Canada) $100,000 Confirmed
TRCA $10,000 Private donation for trees and shrubs
TRCA $40,000 Staff in-kind services
TOTAL $300,000
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: November 11, 1999
RES.#D94/99 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP
The formal appointment of watershed residents to the Humber Watershed
Alliance.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS-'-O THE -AUTHORITY THA T the~ollowing individuals be included
as watershed resident members of the Humber Watershed Alliance for a one year term
effective November 23, 1999:
Raphael Djabatey Yvette Fournier
Herbert Koring James Mann
Barbara Nagy Angela Orellana-Schwalm. . . . . CARRIED
0334 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/99 November 19, 1999
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, were approved at
Authority meeting #4/97. Membership included twenty five unaffiliated residents from across the
watershed. Over the past two years, three watershed residents have resigned. Over the same
period, a number of residents have expressed an interest to participate in Humber watershed
activities.
At meeting #8/99, the Authority approved the extension of the Humber Watershed Alliance term for
one year. The new end date is now November, 2000. Extending the term provides an opportunity
to invite new watershed residents to officially join the Humber Watershed Alliance.
Residents were invited to apply to become members of the Alliance. Candidates were interviewed
to discuss their areas of interest, experience, education and other community involvement.
The following individuals ,are recommended for appointment to the Humber Watershed Alliance:
Raphael Djabatey Yvette Fournier
Herbert Koring James Mann
Barbara Nagy Angela Orellana-Schwalm
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Humber Watershed Strategy account 118-55 provides funds to support the Humber Watershed
Alliance meetings and activities.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: November 10, 1999
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:42 a.m., on November 19, 1999.
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
/ks -- . -~. -
~
, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
December 17, 1999 Page D335
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/99, was held in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, December 17,1999. The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting
to order at 10:03 a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon ............................................................. Member
Milton Berger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair
lIa Bossons ............................................................... Member
Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Vice Chair
Irene Jones ............................................................... Member
Pam McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member
Dick O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
David Barrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES.#D95/99 - MINUTES
Moved by: Cliff Gyles
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/99, held on November 19,1999, be approved. . CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) Lois Griffin, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance, speaking in regards to item 7.1 - Claireville
Conservation Area Management Plan.
(b) John Willets of 31 Aberdeen Cres., Bramalea, speaking in regards to item 7.1 - Claireville
Conservation Area Management Plan.
(c) Victoria Carley of 218 Humbercrest Boulevard, speaking in regards to item 7.5 - Waterfront
Windmills.
0336 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17.1999
RES.#D96/99 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Mike Tzekas
THAT above-noted delegations (a) & (b) be heard and received .............. CARRIED
RES.#D97/99 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT above-noted delegation (c) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter dated December 16, 1999 from Miriam Mittermaier of 81 Kendleton Drive, Etobicoke,
in regards to Proposed changes tot the Claireville Management Plan.
(b) A letter dated December 16, 1999 from Beth Jefferson, Vice-President, Citizens Concerned
About The Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW), in regards to Waterfront Windmills.
(c) A letter dated December 16, 1999 from Bryan Young, General Manager, Toronto Renewable
Energy Co-op and Joyce McLean, Manager, Green Energy Services, Toronto Hydro, in
regards to Waterfront Windmills.
(d) A letter dated December 17, 1999 from Karey Shinn, Public Committee for Safe Sewage
Treatment in Metropolitan Toronto, in regards to Wind Turbines on Public Waterfront Land.
RES.#D98/99 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Mike Tzekas
THAT the above-noted correspondence (a) be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
RES.#D99/99 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Irene Jones
THAT above-noted correspondence (b) - (d) be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
0337
CORRESp6NDENCE(~
12116/99 16:57 FAX 416 213 9815 Grenville Ij!J 02
I I. :a.
I"
- '-----'-
81 Kendleton Drive
Etobicoke, ON
M9V 1 T9
December 16,1999
I
Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Board
Toronto and Region Conversation Authority
Subject: Proposed changes to the Claireville Management Plan
As a member of the group that developed the Claireville Management Plan, I was alarmed to
hear of Brampton Council's proposed changes to it. The Management Plan is a serious piece of
work. Our group included representatives of many and varied groups with an interest in
I Claireville, including at least one official from Brampton. Over a year or more, we invested
I study, thought, discussion, mon: thought, and careful, sometimes difficult compromise in the
I final plan. We worked hard to recognize the different interests and claims on the area, and in the
end we produced a document in which we all believed.
Now Brampton has presented proposals which appear to seriously undermine the plan. I haven't
I seen the actual proposal, but with "golf course, conference and other commercial recreation
activities," it seems to ignore the agreement that most of the land north of Regional Road 107 be
I
preserved in a natural state. I am concerned about this tract of land, but also about the future of
the Management Plan; to depart from it so radically would threaten to make the whole effort
meaningless.
I The Ebenezer Tract is precious, containing the most unspoiled natural areas in all of Clairevil1e.
I It is important for conservation and extremely beautiful. An area like this so near densely
I populated areas is invaluable, and if it should be lost, it could never be replaced so close to the
i
I city. On the other hand, there are any number of privately owned sites suitable for commercial
recreation.
I am sorry that I cannot attend llie meeting tomorrow, but I very strongly urge you to protect the
Management Plan and the land. Thank you.
Yours truly,
. ,
I ~/rJ~/}dM~
I
Miriam Mittermaicr
0338 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
clg~~:egNDENCE (b) t-rom" L.~t::vv aI41t>-~::J(ltJ c. 01..1
Chair & Members of Watershed Management Board
Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 184
December 16, 1999
Dear Mr. Chair & Members of the Watershed Management Board:
Re: "Waterfront \Vindmills
We wanted to write in sUPPoli of the recommendations made in the staff report
related to waterfront wimlmills before you at your meeting of December 17, 1999.
The Citizens Concemed About TIle Future Of TIle Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW) has
been active on environmental issues on the Etobicoke waterfi'ont for the last 10 years,
Over that time we have ,"vorked with TRCA staff on many improvements to our
waterfront. Our members and their families have volunteered countless hours planting
trees and wetland plants at various locations across the waterfront, and CCFEW has
secured over $90,000 in funding toward these projects. We look forward to continuing
our work in co-operation with TRCA and City of Toronto staff.
CCFEW supports the principle of green energy "windmills" projects in the City of
Toronto, However, they must not be located in or adjacent to sensitive natural areas, or
other inappropriate areas. Since early this year 'vve have been involved in the issue of
wind tmbines on the Etobicoke waterfront. We have repeatedly told TREC and Toronto
Hydro that Colonel Samuel Smith Park and adjacent lands are not appropriate areas for
such a project. Not when other sites -just as appropriate- exist away from such sensitive
natmal (and built) heritage areas.
We fully endorse the staff report and recommendations before you. and the rationale
behind them, We agree that the R,L. Clark Filtration plant adjacent to Colonel Samuel
Smith Park is not an appropriate site. In addition to those concems already identified by
staff in the repmi, there is also the potential impact on the birds that are attracted to the
various habitats in the park. The TRCA and other agencies have spent millions of dollars
to create the urban wilderness park that exists today, TIle park contains a series of
wetland. meadow, and forested areas which are an impOliant staging area for birds during
spring/fall migration, as well as many resident birds who now make the park their home,
TIlere seems to be much debate about the direct impact of turbines on birds, Experts for
TREC have stated that there are no impacts (deaths). Expelis fi.om the Friends of the
Spit. Toronto Omithological Club and the Fatal Light Awareness Project (FLAP)
disagree. However, one tiling they all seem to agree on is that birds will avoid sites witIl
wind turbines, TIlls would mean that birds would be scared away from tills habitat during
tile important spring and fall migration when such sites are critical for successnl1
migration.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0339
16/12199 a\ 18:46:11 t-rom: Ll...t"'t:.VY al 41 D-Q:>-::I/ I d .;) UI oJ
The ultimate question to be asked is tlus: Is it worth putting at risk the birds that use
Colonel Samuel Sl1litll Park and its habitat for the sake of a turbine which could be
located on another more appropriate site?
On November 2, 1999 we provided a list of other potential sites to TREC and Toronto
Hydro. We were promised that all of these sites would be examined as paJi of the review
process. We were e:\.ireruely disappointed when we discovered to our dismay that they
have not.
Oftlle potential sites, the most suitable in our view is tlle Exhibitioll Grounds. Exlubition
Place had it genesis in the late uineteelltll century. It was during this time that what had
originally begun as an agricultural fair begaJ1 to showcase technology for the new cenhn)'.
By siting the wind turbines (why not all tllree) on Exlubition Place (at the south west
comer of the grounds adjacent to Lake Shore Blvd, West aJld Lake Olltario) TREC aJld
Toronto Hydro \-vould be t.'lking advaJltage of this legacy and showcasing tlus new
teclmology for tbe new century. The site and the technology are a natural fit. The
Exhibition Grounds site has distinct advaJltages in temlS of exposure aJld publicity. The
site is lughly visible, TIlOusands will drive by the hlrbines each day, Hundreds of
tllOUSaJlds will see tile turbines during the aJlllual CNE, l\.1i1lions around the world will
see the hlrbines during the anllual Molson Indy. By utilizing the Exllibition Ground for
siting all tlu'ee turbines TREC aJld Toronto Hydro will achieve all of their goals aJld
receive widespread suppOli throughout the city. TIus would make a real statement!
TIle Exhibition Grounds provides everything that TREe aJJd Toronto Hydro are seeking:
a site with adequate winds; a site with wide public exposure; a site with no airport height
restrictions: !Uld a site with lllullnlal envlfOlilllentalullpact.
vVe urge you to adopt the recorrunendations contained within the staff repoIi before
you today.
Yours ill Conservation
~r~
Beth Jefferson
Vicc-Pn:sident
Citizens Conoorned About TIle Fuhlre Of111e
Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW)
43 Symons Street
Etobicoke, Ontario
M8V 1 T7
0340 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
CORRESPONDENCE (c)
-".J/
f@jTorontoRenewable. (j;\~
Energy Co-operatIVe r;;;--
ton>nta hydro
~r r.r..!.~~-SO"..lJ';tnrrb'::.-,.,
16 December, 1999
Watershed Management Advisory Board
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, ON M3N 154
Dear Members of the Board:
Yesterday we received a fax from TRCA staff inviting us to attend your December
17th meeting to discuss the proposed Waterfront Wmdmill Project. Attached to
the invitation was a Memorandum which outlines staff recommendations to the
WMAB on our preferred site locations for wind turbines on the Toronto
waterfront.
We are concerned that we were not consulted before a pOSition was drafted, and
that an invitation to attend the upcoming meeting came without sufficient notice.
This is unfortunate, because many of the concerns raised in the letter could be
addressed if we were prOVided with an opportUnity to meet with staff to field
questions. Instead, staff has tabled a pOSition to the Board without the benefit
of sufficient information on issues which inform their recomme[1dations.
Given that a specific site has not been negotiated, and given that the TRCA has
incomplete information on both the technology proposed and the sites, it seems
pr,emature to consider the recommendations as tabled in the Memo.
Alternatively, we recommend that the Board request that staff meet with us so
that we can discuss the stated concerns. It is after such an engagement that
staff may be able to make an informed decision to put forth to the Authority.
The perception that wind turbines are noisy and unsafe informs the
recommendations staff have made. These are examples of common
misconceptions which can be easily corrected if we were given a proper
opportunity to respond and would like the opportunity to do so before the Board
entertains these two motions. Please see the enclosed fact sheet.
TREC Wlndpower Co-op Inc, 292 Merton Su"et SUite Z Toronto Ontano M45-IA9 Tel: 416.489-WlNO (9463) Fax: ~16-4BB-760B E-moll: TREC@isur.c.o
T...-~'- I-!~.,.J~- . d r;>+....., c:;........n. 7"~"1t:: O"~ilra I'-1Sg :Y.S Tel' 415.591-4686 Fat' 415-591-4604 E-mail. Jmcle"n@tarontoh)'dro,cam
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0341
. Page 2 December 16, 1999
In summary we are concerned that staff recommendations are being tabled
before accurate information has been assessed.
You may not be aware that Toronto City Council has endorsed City staff reports
on potential noise and suggested setbacks, and our reports which provide a
rationale for the three preferred sites.
Staff begin by endorsing the principle of windpower as a powerful means for
mitigating climate change and this project has amazing potential to demonstrate
to Torontonlans that wind power is safe, quiet and cost effective. We welcome
the opportunity to meet with Staff or the Advisory Board to clarify any points
raised above and.to address.any concerns stated.by Staff.. _. . . - - - - - ._--~ -----------
Sincerely,
0-- M,!V\ cAv~
I \
~ce McLean
Bryan Young
General Manager Manager, Green Energy Services
Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op Toronto Hydro
c: Larry Field, Bill Saundercook, John Adams
1"11 "TlIC.
0342 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
, , " . . ., . . " .. ..'
Waterfrgij~Wl~.~i'T~rr'JI~~;I?'t~j~~
....'i... ...... ., ' .'/~~,cts~~.~~S~~!~~
Hearing is Believ.tTi.,. ..,. ..... ,.' .'...... '~\i .".
One of the most common miscohceptions:about wincL:: ':... " 'ReSp'OIlS~ t~ Noise bdore ~lld after. .:
tu rbines is that they are noisy:.;: MoaerJ1 'win~mills/" '-:-:, .' '. Vi~'it to Br'lice Wiridm ill. ::.:' ':. :: ,,,: :: ,.'
Beyond a distance of 250m, modern wrbines . ....... '.:' B' ( : : ..... ::::"::: Aft:: . ,:"',
can scarcely be heard. .' ::':":';." .. .... :::'. ,..:.:::~.:.,.e o~e,.." ..::: ..', ~,r .', ;': '..:
, .
..
.,. . " .
". ., ,
.",
Turbines Compared:t,?:~'~' . .
.. . . :
. .
. ,
'. .
,'. . ,
. .
" .
. . " .
,. . . ..
,. ,
. .. ... . -, .. .. .
,- .... ... -. .. .... .
. .. ....... .-
-. . .
. , ' .
,.. -
,-,:." ..,
~ . ,
\ t'lror'{:l :l)'d:o ., .
. ..
M'ore info? :,:.Calt 542~j047':or:489'~9463
l>o-r1>)'I_~,._C1
This is a joint venture between
Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op and Toronto Hydro
December 17, 1999 WATER,SHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
0343
CORRg~PONDENCE ~d)
c -l(-l~~~ ~~:~ lor r<:eg
Ion Lonseru Hutnor
Be pV - C/vif T6 ~'~AtF<.. 'lIb bbl b!::J';I1::J I-'.~l/~::>
PUBLIC
COMMITTEE
for Karey Shinn, Chair
SAFE The Safe Sewage Committee
SEWAGE 364 Sunnyside Avenue I.
Toronto, M6R iR8
TREATMENT December 17, 1999
in
METROPOUTAN
TaWID
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board
The Toronto Regional COl1.5ervarion Authorlty
Black Creek Pioneer Village I
Fax: 661 6898 i
R~; Wat;enD.eQ. M~e1JlCIn Adv1.sorv Board. Av.r:uoa Item #7/99.
yYlnd T~rbl11<:s Qn Public WatcrfrOIl\ lAD 9
Dear Chair and Members;
Our Committee supports the staff position in the repon to your Board this
morning.
In addition I include our lerrer to the Works committee. as well as my personal
lener to my Ward Councillors.
The Neighbourhood lial~on Committee for \he Ashbridgcs Bay Sc:wage
Treatment Plant has also passed a motion stating that until the landscaping and
reorganizing of the Ashbridges Bay site as a prominent pit:ce of the CIty
Waterfront are completed, thar this is the wrong time to be approving Wind
Turbines on the site.
Also Mark Rupke, City of Toronto WorJ;s Depanment, informed the liaison
Comrnittc:e that he explalned to TREC, that some of these sites are our of the
question, as they djrectly interfere with the consrrucrion of the new outfall
pipe, a.nd disinfection process areas on the planr ~ltC. Despire this, even more
sites are appearing on TREC sire documerlts, in problem areaJ.
[ hope tlUs reach~s you in time, as 1 have received late notice of this meeting.
Sincerely Yours,
Karey Shinn
-
-.---. -"---r-
'-. -':~-'-r--:-- /.1 ';I,::IIJIITI"I(lJ, 'i,1 'rrrfJl/!H!IlIHmnm
0344 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
December 17, 1999
DEC-17-1999 09:55 Tor RegIon Conseru Author
416 661 6898 P.02/05
page 2
dc.~jgn needs. I~ it re:uonable to set up a situation where development
restrictions are ImpJled in the vicinity of any turbine? \^/hat an~ the set b~ck5?
3. Signagc: Tall signs with highly visible sight lines are accepted along
elevated parts of the Gardener Expressway, however the tall sig.n on the Ste\c:o
sitc near Grenadier Pond is nothing less mat a visual blighL Councillors have
been tryi~ to have this tJ.ll .structUre removcd for years. It gener.ues, r
understand $100.000 per side per month in revenue.
Wh:u rules of practice, 01' by-laws, does the city have for signage on a two
hundred [DOt structure. that would prevent it becoming a virtual billboard for
some commercial venture:. I understand thar companies pay a lot of money for
the riRht to place their name on city structures and buildings? What if other
companies wantcd to put up signs on the W"d.lertront?
4. Under the Municipal Act, I understand that the City is reqwred ro receive
market value for the rental of land. What is the going rate and how is it
arrlved at? In the case of Ashbridgcs Bay JI could aho be the COSt of (rearing
lakeflll to replace the are-a. under the tower, along with the class EA. costs, and
[he contest of the Federal Plsheries ACL
5. Would rezoning land for commercial energy gener.J.lion mean other
companies could bid on ldentifled city sites?
~
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99".
0345
DEC-17-1999 09:55 Tor RegIon Conseru Ruthor
416 661 6898 P.0J/05
PUBLIC
coMMITTEE
for K-arey Shinn, Chair
SAFE The Safe Sewage Commlnee I
SEWAGE 364 Sunnyside Avenue
Toronto, M6R 2RB
TREA1MENT I)ecember 1, J 999
in
METROPOUT^N City of Toronto WOTY.i; and Ut1l1ties Commlnee
lOroNTD c/o Trudy Perrin. Commineee ^dminislrator
100 Ql;een Street West, Toronto, MSH 2N2
Re: wor};,s 2tl.O Utilities COllllIlftlel:. ~~ct1. Item #3. Win..;! Turbull;:~;
SltinlI. md SeouInl/:. aQd No~~c h~\H~$
Dear Chair and Members;
These are sOIDe of our concerns:
1. The common element of all the many new plans for the Ponlands and
Toronto Waterfront - is to clean up the water. What Is missing in every plan is
the land or site to capture and treat the swnn water and combined sewer
overflow.
If even a tr.iction of me sronnwater generated In the ciry's drainage area 1s to
be processes at the Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant site, it would
" require aU the available land and avallable laXe loI.
"
,
The City is undenaking a Wt!.t Weather Flow Ma3ter Plan. This process follows a
Class n..A- srrunure. It willldentify sites [or treatment throughout tbe Clry's
wat<:rshed.~. This will b~ complere in Phase 3. It doesn't r..a).;e a year long study
however. to know tha, the Ashbridges Bay plant will factor into this plan.
2. Tn the TRH.': Document' Siting Windmllls in TorontO, 1999. page 5, there 15 a
list, in order of 'best potential wind resource'. The Ashbritlges Bay Sewage
Pl~t Is #11 of a toW of 11. The last site j:; near the plant at Unwm and Leslie.
This is hardly a priority ~ite.
011 page 4 of Lhis sludy a list is made to describe the best l:l1ld use
rharJClenstlrs for the maximum wind power. The sewage plant is In the
bottom 4 dassificauons, crced areas are being planned. The sewage plant is
also a site that has been under constant development.
In your repon: in Item #3. page 4, a drop in wind from 6mJs to Sm/.s could
result in an 80% reduction in power generation.
Tn the second. last chuice site with a constantly changing topographic
development of buildings and trucldng. ... Who would be liable if the City were
to effect the mh; so mat ,he anticipa.ted pow~ was reuuced by BO%7 Trees,
truck loading facilities, low rise buildings for dJslnfectlon, construction of the
ne"" ounall pipe. are just a few site needs for thc wastewater function of the
plant. All lhesc changes will effect surface tCII1peratures and creale
turbulence. Planning will he made more difficult. Land wUl out of the
inventory and future developmem might be rcsuictcd for efficient sewaRe
-- - -- - -,- I' I ' (iI" I fI 1/11111f[ J '. 1\ i1111":!l1l1l1flHnm
0346 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
December 17, 1999
LJ~C-1'I-1999 09:56 Tor RegIon Conseru Author
416 661 6898 p.05/05
page 2
. If the City constructs nec~sary improvements/upgrades/ or expan...tons to
h~ndle sewage tre:nmenr and combined 3cwer overflow siting needs - will the !
Clcy be liable for any loss of energy due to buildings or tree plantlngs, storm
water ponds etc. required and that may create turbulent air7 I
j
Note: So far the Mayor. The Olympic Bid, and Orficial Plan amendmentS for the
I
Pordands have failed to designate sites for s\Onn wat~r treatment, although all I
of these plans require the current combined sewer overnow~ to be treated.
Whcre7 Are' we giving away the only land available?
. If another wind CcrOp, or 'Green energy' proposal tomes along and Wants the
same siting prlvilege.~ on the waterfront ~ TRIX, can the City be sued for not
putting public sites out to tender?
. If the site is required for sewage lreatment needs for over 1 million people in
Toronto :; - how does the City terminate any lease agreement and who pa>> \0
have we turbine removed? Would the city be liable to find another site?
. "'Yhat by-J:ows do other urban areas have for regulating M-L aspeCts of
turhine energy generation?
. Is Utis rurbJne jwa a Billboard to sell memberships, and if so what SlGNAGE is
appropriate or nOl on the waterfronT and 50 meters from parkland?
· What is the 'Fair markeT value' for the public: land thc:;e turbines would use
(for up to 3S years) - perhaps it would need to include lhe tost of lake-filling to
find space [or wastewater treatment plJ.Dr expansion ere. The current
plill1ning for the Ashbridges Bay Plant goes to the year 2011, and the
waterfront plans seem to want the: recreational waterfront deaned up by 2005
-20Glt Is a 5 YC<U" lease pOSSIble?
It has been said that wind turbines can b~ ~o unreliable as to require fossil
fuel backup generation to meet th~r energy commltments. Wind turbines
would not be a reliable fonn of energy backup to public utilities, and in my
opinion do flOC belong on 'the llttle space we have left in public ownership for
hasic needs such as water and sewage for millions of pt:oplc.
Plca:;e request the Legal Depanment to answer tbesc questIons, as they
remained unanswered to dare.
Sincerely Yours,
J ,~~'- 41.~, yt 5" ~ Y'lfo ~~
c; C J I Y'-l1hJ.1t"Vl.1 ]'1).. (a X1 Karey Shinn
- ' J rJittru. t~~ r '/~ ~ Cfo+1 . '.A\.~ I~~t.
./ru""'-. Iv( L'-<..~ ]./ ;;. 74-2-,/ ~~~~
. V 7;<- ~iz.. F;i"wt.w -:;<1~ Lfo'~ ~c;~1
..; {-let ~ 4:.tj " '3 t C $ ~~
j . , " .
<,~\. ,:~ 391- 7 4- (f- f..+
J T~ ifrJ'--t......i-z... 3 '1:Z o:;1c
-
--, ,I ',11"1:1::1,:11'111 ',(:'1' 11111 HHllllllntllHl
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
0347
.....l-...... .I., .I. -"..,-' \-,..,,-_.....
'-' '"-:J~'-''' _..............,... ..__......
-"",-- ........... '---''-' . . ---. .........
Karey Shinn
364 S'un.ny~idc Avenue
Toronto, M6R 2R8 I
76~lO78
Decemher 7, 1999
Ward 19 Councillors ~'i(, 3bt'7
David Millet'
Chris Korwln-Kuczynski )~A oj 11
Toronto Gty Hall
100 OJ,leen S1.. West, Turonto i
Re; CO\lIlCU A2:enda, Item froIl1 WQrks and Utili~es. ~
Committeea 'SlUn2. of Wind Turbip.es' on the TorontQ
Wa t;erf:ron t
! Dear Councillors;
J am writing to express my concerns regarding the wind turbine proposals.
I dt:puted to the Works Committee December 1. 1 ')99, but none of my questions
or those of Councillor Hossons and other deputants were answered - as il would
become a nuisance or delay of this item goi.ng to Council.
Now this wind turbine issue is before Council WITHOUT qUE:slions answered.
I also write to you a:; politicians, 3.l. I find the so called 'Public Meetings' held
by the TREe peopl~ to be more about gening members to buy lnto the wind
Co-op than addressing public concerns.
Questions:
1. 'Noise' is the only setback condition outlined in the report going to Council.
Reml."mbe.rJng what a visual blight the STF.LCO sign has been to the users of
High Park, it would be useful to estlblish visual set backs from park.
zoning. The paper before: you recommends only a 50 meter set back from a
park.
2. Why have only 'Publicly Owned Sites' been included in the siting? Why
haven't the best sites been found?
3. Why have only huge .tmLlTY 'scale turbines been proposed. when many
.~maller models would be easier to site and equally 'educational'?
4. What liabilities do these turbines pTt.'sent on land prescI\Ied for City
infrastructure needs such as water purification and sewage treatment, i.e. the
R.1- Oark Filtration Plant In Etobicoke and the ru;hhrid~es Bay Sewa~e Plant in
the Beaches?
Given that this is a commercial venture, and even Toronto Hydro itself COULD
be soid over the life of the projecc (up to 35 years), is the City liable for loss of
wind energy on these City sites? The document befor~ you e;(plains 'that a. wind
drop from om/s (Q Sm/s can result in an HO% decrease in energy prllduction.
{l'!!pITTHn'l
0348 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Bob Cranch, Commissioner of Community Services, City of Brampton, Dennis Cutajar,
Director of Economic Development, City of Brampton, Ted Baker, Baker and Associates,
Jack McClellan, Managing Director, Golf Course Operations, RCGA, Aldo DiMarcantonio,
Director of Finance and Operations, RCGA, in regards to item 7.1- Claireville Conservation
Area Management Plan.
(b) Cynthia Wilkey, West Don Lands Committee, updating the Board on the findings of the
participants from the workshop entitled Obstacles and Opportunities: Realizing the Potential
of the West Don Lands.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Pam McConnell declared a conflict of interest with item 7.1 - Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan and Presentation (a) in regards to item 7.1.
RES.#D100/99 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Cliff Gyles
Seconded by: Dick O'Brien
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received .................. CARRIED
RES.#D1 01 /99 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: Pam McConnell
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT above-noted presentation (b) be heard and received;
THAT the request from the Lower Don Lands Committee to print the report of the conference
proceedings be referred to budget staff to prepare a report for the February 18, 2000
Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting;
AND FURTHER THAT staff bring a report to the February 18, 2000 Watershed Management
Advisory Board Meeting on the issue of flood protection in the Lower Don Lands.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0349
RES.#D102/99 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Presentation by the City of Srampton Regarding Golf Course Use.
Amendment of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan to make
provision for a golf course, conference and other commercial recreation
activities north of Regional Road 107 (formerly Highway #7).
Moved by: Cliff Gyles
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Claireville
Conservation Area Management Plan was approved at Authority meeting #2/97 held on April
4, 1997;
WHEREAS the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan provides a framework for
guiding the future public use and environmental management of the property;
WHEREAS a Community Advisory Committee has been established to guide and participate
in the implementation of the management plan;
WHEREAS golf courses were not considered a permitted use in the Claireville Conservation
Area Management Plan;
AND WHEREAS the City of Brampton and Royal Canadian Golf Association (RCGA) have
expressed an interest in developing golf course, conference and commercial recreation
activities in the Claireville Conservation Area north of Regional Road 107 (formerly Highway
#7);
THEREFORE, SHOULD THE AUTHORITY DECIDE THAT the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan be re-evaJuated to determine if golf course facilities north of Regional Road
107 (formerly Highway #7) are feasible, then the following criteria (but not limited to) must be
met to the satisfaction of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:
. the City of Brampton and RCGA will prepare, with the input of TRCA staff and the
Claireville Community Advisory Committee, a terms of reference to guide the
evaluation;
. portions of the area north of Regional Road 107 (formerly Highway #7) will be reserved
for passive uses;
. the fonn and function of natural.core habitats and corridors will be protected, restored
and enhanced;
. archaeological resources will be protected, identified and documented;
. water quality will.be improved;
. stormwater management techniques will be employed to achieve water quality and
quantity objectives and reduce erosion;
. public access will be provided as part of the inter-regional trail system;
. the general public will be given the opportunity to provide input;
. the Authority will receive significant financial benefits;
. the land will remain the property of TRCA;
0350 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
. the proponents will demonstrate how adjacent private properties will contribute to any
golf course proposal.
. the golf course proposal will be a model for the industry in all aspects of environmental
management during construction and operation.
AMENDMENT #1
RES.#D103/99
Moved by: Cliff Gyles
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT the following be inserted after the last paragraph of the main motion:
THAT staff report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board at the February 18, 2000
Meeting.
AMENDMENT #2
RES.#D104/99
Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT the following be inserted after the last paragraph of the main motion:
THAT the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan not be re-opened at this time;
AND FURTHER THAT the proposal be examined in concert with the Claireville Conservation
Area Community Advisory Committee and a report be brought back to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board at the February 18, 2000 Meeting.
AMENDMENT #1 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOT CARRIED
AMENDMENT #2 WAS ................. .............................. CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOT CARRI ED
RES.#D105/99 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Moved by: Ila Bossons
Seconded by: Mike Tzekas
THA T the report on the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan be received for
information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0351
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #2/97, held on April 4, 1997, resolution #A46/97 was adopted which states,
in part:
'THAT the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan, dated February 28, 1997,
be approved. "
Historically, the Claireville Conservation Area was developed as a high use recreation area and still
provides multifaceted regional-scale recreation activities for the Greater Toronto Area. Since the late
1980's, much of the Conservation Area was closed to vehicle access by the public with the
exception of Wild Water Kingdom, Indian Une Campground, the Yeoman Rugby Club, the Etobicoke
Field Studies Centre and the Claireville Equestrian Ranch which are operated through partnerships
between the Authority, other agencies, and individuals. Fifteen percent (126 ha) of the property is
rented for agricultural use. Other small parcels are used for rugby fields and house rentals.
A Management Plan for Claireville was needed for the following reasons:
. provide a framework for determining the ecological appropriateness of any proposed public
use to ensure that the integrity and diversity of the Area are maintained;
. resolve competing interests for using the property;
. prepare for the major land use changes expected in the surrounding area including
residential, commercial and industrial development;
. address changing financial conditions being experienced by the Authority.
Staff invited over forty individuals to be members of the Technical Advisory Committee including two
members from City of Brampton's Council. Approximately 25 people came to one or more
committee meetings. A broad cross section of interests were represented on the committee. This
group assisted staff in the development of the Claireville Area Management Plan.
The Claireville Technical Advisory Committee met regularly to discuss issues and solutions related
to the development of the management plan. Two additional public meetings were hosted; one in
the City of Etobicoke, and one in the City of Brampton. Two public information displays were also
provided to describe the project and invite public input.
The Claireville Management Plan includes a description and evaluation of the property based on
current land uses, land use planning policies; land features, constraints and opportunities.
The Plan identifies.specific management zones and guidelines to direct future uses within each of
the management zones. A brief description of each of the management zones is provided in Figure
1 and illustrated on Map 14 of the Claireville Area Management Plan, a copy of which is attached.
On November 15, 1999, the City of Brampton Planning and Building Committee considered the
following recommendation which was adopted as Resolution C406-99 at the November 22, 1999
meeting of Brampton Council.
0352 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
1 ) That the report from the City Manager's Office, entitled "Policy Report: Proposed
Modifications to Claireville Management Plan (Toronto Region Conservation Authority)", dated
November 8, 1999, be received; and further
2) That Brampton City Council encourage The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to
provide permissions tor golf course, conference and other commercial recreation activities
in the West Humber River Subwatershed, north of Regional Road 107 (formerly Highway # 7)
in keeping with the City of Brampton vision for this area; and further
3) That the City Council representatives on the TRCA Board of Directors and senior staff meet
with the TRCA to review the findings of this report at the next available opportunity in 1999.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Should the Authority agree to consider such a proposal, The City of Brampton and the Royal
Canadian Golf Associatiqn would be responsible for .all costs associated with the planning and
implementation of the golf course, conference and commercial recreation activities, environmental
enhancements, consultation fees, permits and other related costs.
Should golf course uses be agreed to at some point by the Authority, a suitable lease agreement
would be negotiated with the proponent which will include but not be limited to the payment to the
Authority of an appropriate rent including a share of gross revenues.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: December 8, 1999
Attachments (2)
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0353 .
Attachment' 1
>-
- E ro.. ID <5
OJ 0 CD I.- en
c: "'Cl"i:: en..c C +-' Cl> en
tl) "iD c \II t '0.. -0 OJ ~....... U Q) C
.~ 0 ro C ~ en' .c" E ~ u u ~ ~ ~ E
.- C en CD C,) co c c '+- 0 co 0-
Ero ro c 'zC UcD~O";-~ .. E
U) U L- co oJ'- co en Q) .- c co Q) "'0 U
o~ Q.cij :: tn .=~~ mcc~~~ ~~ ~ ..0
::) '" c ro co c co co = co 0 --; :J .0 C OJ ...... :J
C7) en ._ C Q) Q) - ._ ~ L.. U 10... ro - QJ en OJ 0 0...
~"'C ~..c .2 \..... u >- ~ ..... en a. ~ "'0 U C..c 0
Co ~ ;:; BOlen ~ c 0 ~ ...~ en ~ CD ~ Q) 0.... "E ro
E .!:: ro ~ .~ 0 cn ::J -t: > .~ ....... .... - ....... ";: >- :J ..c
ca E C ~ ~.~ ~ '';:: en cr co "L: .~ .S >. c ~ ::J..o 0 .~
~ m .~"'O 2 ~ ~ ~ Q.) 0.. "0 ~ Q) .~ .2 0 'S"O '- s:
......10... em C'l ~U'" CD..;-CO'-=....... Cl.cn OJ. 0
a.. ~:.a .- '+- co \J co co E ; - E ~ -ti 0 .~ a; ~ ...... U
"'0... aJ'> W <D""CI~ Wa.>ro_o U c- g~
Q)O') >0 > 1o...C~ -5coc.......E Q)~tf) Ole... "'Or:
a.c: Oen 0 0"'::)-<: _ en -OlE Clc:Ol eno; c:
- "0. O'.l -0 en ..c 0 en U U Q; en ~ :J '.i:j .- '';::::; \D.- -- 8
~ E.~ co ~ co aJ "E ~ "f: c co -5 ~ c g- 8 cn ;g:= -0 ~ >- \...
oco~ cnu tncn ::JQ)o::J >.~U<Dro() ~::JO en_ CQ)
U'lLU ~ 0 en <l: '" <l::::J O;;:.c~ > a.", 0..0 '" u....o2 <l:O "'-0
Ol C
2 -O:::J
o >- ::) Ol
N .~ U en
en CD C .;::
I- c ~ .- 0.
2 ~*> Q) >- >- ~ >- ~m
w =>.~ c .~.~ ~. .~ u C
2 (.)(1) en (/} 0 en cntD
LU :.=C: s: c: c :2: c: Ol
(!) ..c~ 0 ~ ~ c e Cf.l~
__ :::l c: ~ c: c 0 .- c: :J '"
"""'- a... - 0 - - ....... ~ - u .;::
~ :; s: s: s:e -g, <l: <l: :cio.
2 z.:3.:3 .:3E I Z Z ri:,E
0::( .-0
LU 23 .~
a: '0 I.- .c 0 >- +-,0.
c::( >- 0 ~ (I) ~.~ '+- .E ~ g-
2 CD 0'0';; o (/')5: c 0 :JU)
U) > u u CD 02 ..c ""0
Q en t/] (I) W ~ oE ~ ~ co 'E ~ ~ +-' o~ ~ ~ w Q) 0
I- _ Ol OJ.~ > en 0 en 3: OJ 0 0 u en > 0 <l: N c: en
ex: U) o~ CD .'!:::: -0 m ():J..... ().- ro ~ +-' U (f1 0 U
> Ol > "'> a: ~.cw<l: ~..oo.. EC: 0 Ol _ .;:;c
0: ::; u ~'E ~ Q) o.~EQ.) o~~ wE +-' -5 ~ ~.2
LU ro co ~ ro co 2 2 ~ ~ -5 ~ >- OJ u C ~ '0 CD CD ,~
en en OJ U)........ 0 +-' ..c co ~ ""0 0...... 2 -+-I .n C 0 CJ) 'i:: (/) -
2 .~ :: m ~ u ~ ; z :c tV E.2 :o'Cij >- ~.~ ~ ~ 0 ~ -g
o .~ ~ .~ E .;:: E Ol -0 '" Ol ~ ~ ~ 8 c ~ ~ '" c: c:.r:: :g E U a.
U Ol 2 ~ Ol 0 w .c Ol 0 c: en a..9 c E Ol Ol -0 c: 0 -0 >-
W t; ro ..c ~ CJ ~ ~ ~ E o::J ~ ~ ~ _~ ~.- ~ ~,..... ~ ~ II)';: ~ ..a
-J co C '- C ""D C +-' co .- N ~ 0 Ctl > o.c..o'- >- :J Q)' ...c 0 0
-J .... wOrn Ceo ..cm-+-l- CJQ).......... Urn ~cc+-' "'O~ ..... d' c__
> ~ :J en E '" E ~ c: ~ ~ -g Cl.o ~ c Cl E g; Ol s: '" .0; Cl 0 0 .2 -0
LU u .2',~ w ~ ID ~ Q) 0 E Cl. .~ ~..... Q) .~ 0) C C ...c C c ~ +-' Ln <<i -co
ex: c U 0 Ol 0 > Ol > C Ol .~ E >- E .~ c: .;:; - .2' Ol 0 c: ~ _ >- Ol 0.
:J Q)"- ......... >.0 Q) 0 > ..0 ....... C ..Cl'';: C ..... I ...c u ._ _ ..q ..a .....
e::( '- 0..:J co::J CIl C = ,-'en ..c (J) '(j) 0 :.c CIl 0 ~....... ....... - 0. (j) -0 ~ ID
-J 0 ~ ~ rn ~ ro ro .~ -:; U) C Q) C'5: .S'x U -E CD c g -g :s ~ Q) '- -5
u ....... U) CD +-' Q) ~ U C co ~ .e c ...... Q) = __ en CD co (/) T"'"" U '- '(i)
~E~..o~ ",,,,wwa. 0 .!::Ol o;::l.~"'OlEcci -Cen -o<l:i5 g
i ()'-~ ro~ >~25co2 C~,-ro 1::..... OCll~~~....... ~:t:t:Q) -o~
;.;:: 0._ ..c._ .~ <( N '- -- en'- to..... (f1 0 ..c :J 0. <:( - e co. .... ...... co
LU .- :0 E Ql E ~ :J E '" t; =:::J ro a..~ en > E ~ .- - en ro :J _
ex: ~ c..... ........ .2 m .~ ......... Q)'- E +-' Q) Q...c Q) > CD ..D.o () CD Q) 0 co
-- Q) 0 II> .......c..c co Q) ..... x ._ co .....:J en W O..c co co (l) 0: ..... ..c
U)~c. uc. c.............Za. CCQ)enC rocn3:::Jcu...............c "'O_co ~+-'
. .... . ... .. . . .. o~
> 0
c: ._
.- >
en ...... .....
Ol ro Ol
C1l~ 0 0 0 o:J .cen
N<ll OJ N "'" U'l U'l co 0 "'"_~
U)O T"'"" C'J N N LO -r- Q) Cl)O
OJ Ol en
:S ~ E
Ol ~
~ Cl
'" 0
...... ........ U) .....
a> c c -co co we.
en Q) 0 CD Q) --.- en ...
::>~ E'~ :g:g~ ~ ::>~>
"'Co Q.)~ roC C~ W WE ~ -oJ u';:;u
C:N ~~ ~O roO 0 oE Ol _en <l: __C:
~ 2 ~ 2'~ E 1;; :is :0 E E ~ e- -g t- .0 'u ID
co Q) co C 'i: Q) :J ::J 0 0 - :J co 0 ri: co ~
za: Zw u..a: u.. u..u uo U)~ f- "-
.
0354 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 -
Attachmenf2
C
m z+ ~
cu a.. ~
"
OJ .......
~ c
<( ill
C E
0 ill
....... 0)
cu cu
> c
~ en
OJ ~
(fJ
C ill
0 -
U >
ill
OJ L-
--
- rn
-
> U
OJ . .
~
"- ~
cu
- '""
U 0..
cu
~
c
0
"0
~
~
~
E
.,
J::;:>~ ~~:'
~
C
III
E
c
.E>
..
",- ~
., ,., ;;;
0" Z:- ~
c c Z:- 'Uj
,.,.!l ,- c
.b 0 ~.!l co
c "- co
W , .s oS; ~:
~~~ .s~ ~
&~~ ~LIll :
-~.- U)g~ oniLl :
~Y,;' ~ ~ '5 c c -g "e ~ g'
u ~ 0 fD E III lD lJ)
:i.. III O! '" "" E ' E ,0
=~~ . ~ .."~g~gE
~o.<l :;:., .,~~~..Qc..lQ"
~oE . ~~~~m~~~~~
1J"'U"'C 1J (,COw raN<<lOCWUlLOO-l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.s 0:: ~ ~ ~ c '; ~c; :J :J D ~ 0;
o R&8. g,:.;...Je~GiC:I!l'-cu....~gEa. :
Zoo 0 0 ,_ = ,,= > III E .3 E .a .0.0 E ~ ,
ill ~~~(,O~~~~~~o~~~~~~u~ :
(9 ", (,. .. ""~I~Dm '
w.....~ ~./ -?:'.:: ::'''':: ,., ::: g :
.-.J a::............... ~'. l_C:E . In
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0355
RES.#D106/99 - TORONTO RAP IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT, 2000 - 2004
Description of project objectives, work plan and budget for 2000 to 2004 for
City of Toronto Capital Program and report on work completed and budget
details for the Toronto RAP Implementation Project between 1995 and 1999.
Direction to proceed with the submission of the Toronto Remedial Action
Plan Implementation Project for the approval of City of Toronto Capital
Program and to report to the City on the work completed through the 1995 -
1999 Toronto RAP Implementation Project.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Remedial Action Plan
Implementation Project, 2000 - 2004 for the City of Toronto be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to seek funding support for the Project from
the City of Toronto through the City's capital budget approval process. . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Implementation Project was initiated in 1995 to assist the
TRCA, City of Toronto and its many project partners in achieving the goals outlined by the Remedial
Action Plan's Clean Waters, Clear Choices document. This project was created with the goal of
carrying out resource management projects that convene and enhance the natural resources within
the Toronto Area of Concern (AOC) by undertaking regeneration efforts of erosion and sediment
control and habitat enhancement and creation.
Between 1995 and 1999 the TRCA received $2, 890, 000 in financial support from the City of Toronto
to undertake projects designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and
management of natural resources within the Toronto RAP area In addition to the City's contribution,
the Authority was able to secure $1,672,000 from other funding sources and $500,000 of in-kind
contributions.
The Toronto AOC RAP projects encompass six watersheds and the waterfront area of the TRCA's
jurisdiction. Since 1995 the City has supported numerous wetland creation projects, fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement initiatives and community outreach and awareness programs throughout the
AOC.
TRCA staff have developed a proposal to be submitted for the approval of the City of Toronto,
outlining the project objectives and budget details of the Toronto RAP Implementation Project, 2000
- 2004. The proposal includes a list of potential projects which will be prioritized for funding with the
assistance of our partners and the City of Toronto, Appended to the proposal is a summary of the
work completed between 1995 and 1999 to account for the capital contributions the City of Toronto
has made towards achieving the goals identified by the Remedial Action Plan.
0356 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
For each successive year of the Toronto RAP Implementation Project the TRCA proposes to direct
a representational proportion of Toronto's Capital Budget Allocates to the waterfront area and
watersheds within the Toronto AOC. In some instances TRCA RAP initiatives will have an impact on
the entire AOC, while other projects are more localized initiatives. These more specific projects are
responsible for addressing watershed issues while helping us to achieve the RAP objectives for the
Toronto AOC.
RATIONALE
Through its latest proposal The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seeks the support of the
City of Toronto to continue the work that took place between 1995 and 1999. Capital projects for
the implementation of Remedial Action Plan recommendations will enable the Authority and its
watershed management partners to continue achieving greenspace objectives, to balance
pressures for development and make a positive contribution to the quality of life across the GT A.
For the project period 2000 - 2004 the TRCA has identified five separate categories of projects which
will contribute towards achieving the goals outlined by the Toronto Remedial Action Plan for the City
of Toronto. These categories include:
. education and awareness;
. fish and wildlife habitat enhancement;
. wetland creation and rehabilitation;
. water quality and sediment control; and
. monitoring ecosystem health.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Identify potential project partners and develop new partnerships.
. Secure additional project funding.
. Develop new projects which will assist in achieving RAP goals.
. Prioritize projects with the support of our project partners.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The costs associated with the Toronto RAP Implementation Project will include project management,
engineering and design fees, as well as implementation costs. The TRCA will be requesting a share
of these project costs from the City of Toronto Capital Program and will seek funding from other
sources including the Federal and Provincial Government, Conservation Foundation of Greater
Toronto, local community groups and private funding. Regardless of the final share arrangements
for each site project, Toronto's annual funding would range between $500,000 and $1,000,000.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0357
Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 2000 - 2004 Proposed Budget.
Year Total Value of Projects City of Toronto Other Partners
2000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000
2001 1 ,000,000 500,000 500,000
2002 1,500,000 750,000 750,000
2003 1,500,000 750,000 750,000
2004 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
TOTALS 7,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
City of Toronto RAP Contributions Per Watershed On An Annual Basis.
Project Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total
Toronto AOC 75,000 75,000 112,500 112,500 150,000 600,000
Don River Watershed 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 800,000
Etobicoke/Mimico Creek 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 400,000
Watersheds
Highland River Watershed 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 400,000
Humber River Watershed 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 800,000
Rouge River Watershed 25,000 25,000 37,500 37,500 50,000 200,000
Waterfront 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 600,000
TOTAL 500,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 1,000,000 4,000,000
The actual annual level of funding will vary from year to year based on the agreed annual allocations
by funding agencies and partners. The annual funding limit for The City of Toronto is in accordance
with the approved Toronto multi-year forecasts.
If funding from other sources is available, actual expenditures may exceed the project total.
Other funders may include Province of Ontario, Federal Government, local municipalities, The
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, local community groups, and private funding.
For information contact: Laura Stephenson, extention 5296
Date: December 6, 1999
Attachments (1)
0358 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment' 1
~ TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP)
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT: 2000 - 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA) has been responSible for developing
and Implementing a program for renewable resource management since 1957. A
comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authority in its 1980 Watershed
Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authority recognized that its traditional programs
were not keeping pace with the pressure of development across its watersheds and that urgent
action was required to ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA). The Greenspace Strategy (1988/89) was proposed as the Authority's conservation
vision for the future of the GTA.
In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Commission of the Future of Toronto's
Waterfront and Space for All, a report to the Province identifying options for a "Greenlands
Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area", made recommendations to conserve and enhance the
natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area.
The Greenspace Strategy, Watershed, and Space for All are consistent in their proposals for an
ecosystem approach to planning the future of the Greater Toronto Area. These reports
recognize the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and the Lake Ontario
Waterfront as principal physical resources of the GTA; make recommendations for ensunng an
interconnected and accessible physical resource system; and Identify the need for co-operative
partnerships to ensure long term greenspace conservation.
In 1993 the International Joint Commission (IJC) identified a number of areas in the Great Lakes
Basin where remedial action plans should be developed to restore water uses, protect water
supplies, and provide recreation and aquatic life, The Toronto waterfront from the Etobicoke
Creek to the.Rouge.River and all watersheds draining this area was identified as one of these
areas under the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. .
Shortly thereafter the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan released its Stage II report:
"Clean Waters, Clear Choices". This report identified the following:
. that environmental management required an ecosystem approach;
. a number of guiding principles to assist in decision making; and
. eight major areas where action is reqUired:
Stormwater
Combined Sewer Systems
Sanitary Sewers and the Sewage Treatment Plants
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Public Awareness, Education and NGOs
The Toronto & Region ConselYatJon Authority Page-1
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0359 .
Laws and Policies
Land Use Planning
Monrtoring and Research.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's role as identified in the Stage \I report
includes monitoring and enforcing appropriate development and agricultural controls,
undertaking erosion and sediment control programs, and increasing public involvement and
awareness of environmental programs through aesthetic clean-up and rehabilitation projects.
In addition, the Remedial Action Plan Indicates that TRCA shares a responsibility for fish and
wildlife habitat improvement programs.
2. THE TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
The "Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project" was initiated in 1995 to assist the TRCA,
City of Toronto and its many project partners in achieving the goals outlined by the Remedial
Action Plan's Clean Waters, Clear Choices document. This project was created with the goal of
carrying out resource management projects that convene and enhance the natural resources
within Toronto by undertaking regeneration efforts of erosion and sediment control and habitat
enhancement and creation.
The Toronto RAP Implementation Project satisfies a number of goals and objectives of the
participating partners.
. Toronto Plan
In March 1999 the City of Toronto released "Toronto Plan" to identify the new approach to
planning Toronto, ThiS document identifies the new planning framework that the City of
Toronto will be adopting. Part of this new framework is described as "QUality of Life".
"The new Plan will be all about reinvestment in the pillars of the city's quality of life:
community; the natural and bUilt environments; and the economy".
. the quality of natural and built environment - attention to pollution levels, quality
of urban streets and buildings, parks and open space systems
. Remedial Action Plan - Clean Waters, Clear Choices
Goals
Ecosystem Health;
A Self Sustaining Fishery;
Rehabilitation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat;
Protection and Rehabilitation of Wetlands;
Control of Stormwater Quality and Quantity; and
Clean Sediment.
The Toronto & Region Conservauon AuthOrity Page - 2
0360 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
The TRCA's mandate, experience and proven successes in the many areas that are of concern
to the RAP make it an ideal candidate for implementing specific RAP actions. Between 1995
and 1999 the TRCA received $2, 890, 000 in financial support from the City of Toronto to
undertake projects designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and
management of natural resources within the Toronto RAP area. A summary of the work
completed through this Toronto RAP Implementation Project has been appended.
3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Remedial Action Plan defines Toronto as an Area of Concern (AOC). The Toronto AOC
encompasses six watersheds and the waterfront area of the TRCA's jurisdiction. For the project
period 2000 - 2004 the TRCA has identified five separate categories of projects which will
contribute towards achieving the goals outlined by the Toronto Remedial Action Plan for the
City of Toronto. These categories include:
. education and awareness;
. fish and wildlife habitat enhancement;
. wetland creation and rehabilitation;
. water quality and sediment control; and
. monitoring ecosystem health.
Education and Awareness
The TRCA has over 13,000 hectares in land holdings. These lands provide an extensive
greenspace system throughout the Greater Toronto Area and create the opportunity to offer
conservation educatIon programs, community environmental stewardship projects and nature
interpretation. Education and awareness enable the TRCA to increase the public's
understanding of the issues related to the AOC and allow the community to make a contribution
towards achieving our RAP goals.
Education and awareness programs are offered in many different forms by the TRCA. All
habitat creation and rehabilitation project sites are designated with interpretive signage to
educate the public about the goal of the project and the impact of the project on the local
environment. The TRCA offers "hands-on" educational programs such as the Aquatic Plants
Program, RAP on Wheels and Yellow Fish Road to teach school aged children about issues
related to restoring water quality, wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat both In their classrooms
and in their neighbourhoods. And finally, public planting events, bird house workshops, wildlife
monitoring programs and park clean-ups offer the public opportunity to become educated
about the their local natural enVIronments and help develop a sense of ownership and pride for
these natural areas.
Fish And Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat in the Greater Toronto Area has been the most Significant
contributing factor to the reduction of native fish and wildlife species. As the largest landowner
The Toronto & Region Conservation Authonty Paga - 3
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0361 .
in the GTA The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has the ability to improve or create
habitat by modifying the landscape. The TRCA uses the guiding principle of conservation
design which is based upon natural succession. Natural succession is the process of plant and
animal colonization which occurs once a disturbance, such as farming, turf management or
construction ceases to alter a landscape. Conservation design, in effect, accommodates a
variety of wildlife needs by utilizing the concepts of natural succession to restore functional
habitat. The emphasis of conservation design is placed on landform, as a diverse landform will
generate variances in humidity and hydrology, alter wind and solar exposure and offer
deviations in temperature and snow cover. This diversity of landforms is achieved by creating a
varying landbase which provides an assortment of slopes and elevations, consequently forming
different aspects, orientations and exposures. The different microclimatic conditions achieved
by this process encourage the establishment of a diversity of flora and fauna.
Animals may either be resident species of a site or migratorial species which may utilize a site
relatively briefly. Migratorial species require a range of sites to satisfy their needs. For example:
a stopover area during migration to rest and feed; a foraging area to find food or a specialized
site which provides nesting, spawning or hibernating habitat. Therefore with keeping all these
elements in mind the TRCA creates habitat to maintain resident species' needs of food, shelter
and water and may add speCialized habitat areas which maintain migratory populations of
animals such as shorebirds, songbirds, trout, and salmon or free ranging animals like deer,
coyotes and birds of prey.
In order to develop habitat which provides for all or most of the habitat requirements of a given
species habitat plans aim to optimally diversify the site and incorporate accessible corndors to
facilitate movement of migratorial and free ranging species, To successfully diversify a site
project managers incorporate an abundance of plant speCies, levels of stratification and a
variety of structural elements which will provide the critical habitat requirements of a broad
range of species.
Structure can be described as an abiotic component of ecosystems. It is represented in nature
by rocks, decaying trees, brush, soils and substrate. Regardless of Its torm, this passive feature
is an integral mainstay of all natural environments. Structure provides fauna with such habitat
needs as hibernacula, winter shelter, cover from predators and spawning areas. Structural
diversification of project sites involves reintroducing many natural structural habitat features
such as brush piles, logs and rock piles and incorporate Simulated structural habitat such as
bird houses and nesting platforms. .
Plant diversity is key to ecosystem integrity. Diversity ensures that habitat is not vulnerable to
destruction by disease or insect infestation and helps to maintain a variety of fauna. Therefore a
large variety of plants are selected for enhancement purposes to contribute to the sustalnabllity
of the ecosystem. By establishing a variety of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation at our project
sites the TRCA promotes the development of successional plant commUnities and the proVISion
of habitat for target species.
Planting plans are developed on a site by site basis to reflect localized growing conditions and
wildlife habitat requirements. Species diversity is an essential part of any TRCA planting plans
in order to maximize the survival rate of the species planted and the effectiveness of the project
The Toronto & Region ConservaOon Authority Page - 4
,
0362 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17. 1999 .
to satisfy the habrtat requirements of a number of different wildlife species. As well, planting
plans are designed to group different species in patches and clumps across the landscape in
order to maximize the amount of cover available to wildlife. This plantJng scheme also helps to
mimic natural succession and allows plants to colOnize an area faster through seed and
rhizome dispersal.
Many parks lack stratification of plant communities. Stratification is the amount of layering that
occurs in natural ecosystems. For example a healthy forest typically has three strata; the forest
canopy, the shrub layer and the herbaceous layer. This layering affect creates many different
habrtat zones and produces varying microciimatic affects which are essential to the
development of specialized plant and animal communities. Stratification can be recreated in
the urban environment by introducing vegetation which creates new levels of strata. For
example a park which is dominated by lawn and a few trees could be enhanced by planting
herbaceous plants of varying heights and by introdUCing shrub beds and additional trees.
The TRCA has many new exciting initiatives which will help increase the amount of fish and
wildlife habitat available within the Toronto AOC. These projects include the Toronto Waterfront
Naturalization Initiative, Lower Don Riparian Restoration, Habitat for Wildlife and several new
weir mitigation proJects,
Wetland Creation and Rehabilitation
Historically, wetlands were considered wasted, unproductive land; and as a result
approximately 70% of this habitat was destroyed In Southern Ontario, Wetlands playa vital role
in maintaining water resources In urban cities such as Toronto. Functioning as catchment
basins for surficial runoff, wetlands are capable of serving many functions that are beneficial to
water quality, flood control and wildlife populations.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has estimated that 50% of Ontario's birds utilize
wetlands at some point of the year. As well, wetlands of Southern Ontario provide critical
habitat for many endangered and rare species. In an urban environment wetlands can
therefore be used an educational tool and perhaps more importantly the open space, Sights
and sounds of a wetland can be enjoyed by the surrounding community for years to come.
In area such as Toronto a wetland impacts the quality of water and alters the severity of floods.
Depending on a wetland's dimensions, flood flows can be potentially reduced during periods of
high runoff by 45% to 75% and can lessen the impact of snow melts by 40%. In terms of the
costs associated with flood control and prevention, wetland enhancement and creation
provides an inexpensive alternative to traditional flood control management practices.
Emergent wetland vegetation such as rushes and cattails assist in the reduction of water flow,
allowing silt and other suspended solids to settle, Aquatic plants also remove excess nutrients
and contaminants from the water through biological processes. The nutrients are converted by
the plants into a usable form and in turn utilized to facilitate growth. These processes render
the nutrients biologically unavailable to other plants as they are either expelled in gaseous form
into the atmosphere or stored in the plant's tissues.
The T aroma & Region ConservatlOn Authority Page - 5
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0363 .
The TRCA has identrfied many areas within the AGC which present the opportunity to restore
the wetland hydrology and reintroduce the indigenous plant communities. These lands are
usually located in valley lands which collect SUrfiCial runoff or in seasonally flooded areas.
Currently plans are being developed for five wetland creation projects. These wetland projects
will be located at Tommy Thompson Park, the Lower Don Watershed, Ashbridge's Bay and in
the Lower Etoblcoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds.
Water Quality
Water quality affects the health of the entire Toronto Area of Concern. The quality of water in
the Toronto AGC is influenced by precipitation, surficial runoff, the amount of ground water
recharge, stormwater Inputs, as well as, agricultural and industnal practices. Water quality
problems in Toronto are characterized by warmer water temperatures, increased turbidity and
contamination.
Undesirable contaminants are either natural substances In excessive quantities such as
phosphate or toxic synthetiC compounds such as diOXin. Natural substances in excessive
quantities can cause imbalances in an ecosystem by promoting or restricting plant growth,
whereas synthetic compounds can impact the health and development of humans, plant
communities, fish and wildlife. The source of these contaminants can be traced back to
livestock In or near a water course, fertilizer and pesticide use in the watershed, stormwater
inputs and industrial processes.
Water clarity IS impacted by increased sedimentation. Turbidity Influences the amount of plant
production in an aquatic system. The more turbid the water is the less production there is, as
the amount of light penetration dictates the amount of plant growth. Waters become turbid as
the amount of suspended solids Increases. This can be caused by the affects of erosion,
stormwater inputs, construction in the floodplain and agricultural practices.
Water temperature largely dictates plant and fish production in an aquatic system. It is
influenced by the amount of vegetative cover in the riparian or littoral zone, the amount of
ground water recharge and industna! waste and stormwater inputs. Generally water
temperature has been increased in the Toronto AOC due to the losses in vegetative cover and
ground water recharge and Increases In stormwater and Industrial waste water inputs.
The TRCA has many Initiatives which aim to Improve water quality. These project mainly
include elements of reforestation, stormwater management, erosion control, land stewardship
and education to reduce the impact of urbanization on our water resources. The Authority's
current focus is on developing a flow management strategy and implementing a stormwater
management program In order to protect our water resources for future generations. A better
understanding of the supp1y and demand for water will enable us to make future projections
and allow for measures to be taken to safeguard our water supply. The TRCA's Stormwater
Management Program will enable us to focus on improving water quality and quantrty through
creating or retrofitting stormwater facilities which promote erosion control, flood control and
water treatment The implementation of these projects will result in benefits to the receiving
watercourse, the local natural environment and the community.
The T oromo & Region Conservation Authorrty Page - 6
0364 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17.1999
Monitoring Ecosystem Health
Work on a comprehensive discussion paper on monitoring of terrestrial habitats and species is
ongoing. The paper provides the rationale, conceptual background and criteria for the
selection of indicators. Based on this analysis, about 16 indicators have been chosen, and their
detailed protocols provided. Indicators have been defined to provide a focus for the
development of an effective monitoring program.
The monitoring program is flexible enough to be applied at a variety of scales, ranging from
site-specific to broad landscape scales. The draft monitoring paper will be peer-reviewed and
finalized in 2000. This monitoring program will be applied in a variety of initiatives carried out
by the TRCA, particularly in developing monitoring protocols to assess the health of terrestrial
ecosystems in individual watersheds (Don, Humber, Etobicoke/Mimico, Highland, Rouge).
The TRCA's monitoring program is broken into three separate components; water quality,
aquatic, and terrestrial. Water quality monitoring identifies and tracks the presence of
contaminants that affect the health of a watershed. Water quality data provides insight to the
potential causes of degraded watershed health and the sources of contaminants in a
watershed. Water quality data are used in the preparation of municipal state of the environment
reports and watershed report cards. These documents provide direction for management
activities that assist with achieving the objectives of the Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP),
watershed strategies, and municipal planning documents such as the Toronto Wet Weather
Flow Master Plan.
4. PROJECTS OF THE TORONTO RAP IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT, 2000-2004
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has jurisdiction over eight watersheds and the
Lake Ontario waterfront that bounds them. The Toronto Area of Concern overlaps six
watersheds and the TRCA's waterfront jUrisdiction from Marie Curtis Park In former Etobicoke to
Rouge Beach Park in Scarborough. The watersheds mcluded with the AGC include Etobicoke
Creek, Mimico Creek, Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, and Rouge River,
For each successive year of the Toronto RAP Implementation Project the Tf3CA will direct a
representational proportion of Toronto RAP funds to the waterfront area and watersheds within
the Toronto AOe. In some instances TRCA RAP initiatives will have an impact on the entire
Toronto AOe. Other projects are more localized initiatives. These more speCific projects are
responsible for addressing watershed issues while helping us to achieve the RAP goals of the
Toronto AOe. The following is a list of proposed projects which will be priOritized for funding
with the assistance of our partners and the City of Toronto.
Toronto AOC Projects
Aquatic Plants Program
Propagation of Wetland Plants
Toronto Environmental Plan
Education and Awareness
Yellow Fish Road Program
The T aroma & Region Conservation Authonty Page - 7
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0365 .
Project Evaluation
Toronto Wet Weather Flow Management Plan
Low Flow Management Strategy
Watershed Monitoring Program Development
Watershed Monitoring Implementation & Reporting
Etobicoke/ Mimico Watershed
Etobicoke/Mimico Strategy
Community Environmental Projects
Mane Curtis Park Habitat Creation
Mimico at QEW Barrier Mitigation
Toronto Golf Course Barrier Mitigation
Humber River Watershed
Grenadier Pond Sediment Shoreline Restoration
St Basil's Stormwater Pond Retrofit
Kingsmill Park Stormwater Pond
Black Creek Renaturalizatlon
Community Environmental Projects
Don River Watershed
Don Watershed Riparian Restoration Project
Lower Don Small Scale Habitat Projects
Ernest Thompson Seton Park Wetland Creation
Donalda Golf Course Barrier Mitigation
Wilket Creek Rehabilitation Project
Mud Creek Restoration
Terraview Wlllowfield Watercourse Naturalization
West Don Barrier Mitigation
York Mills Barrier Mitigation
Taylor Massey Crk Stormwater Management
West Don Downsview Lands Stormwater Project
Community EnVIronmental Projects
Highland Creek Watershed
Markham Creek Tributary Restoration
Highland Watershed Strategy
Highland Creek Wildlife Habitat Management
Morningside Park Barrier Mitigation
Rouge River Watershed
Woodlands for Wildlife
Vegetation Corridor Planning and Planting
Barrier Removal and Channel Naturalization
Wetland Creation South of Steeles
Managed Succession Pilot Project
Glen Eagles Site Planting
The T oramo & Region ConservatJon Authonty Page - 8
0366 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
Waterfront
TIP - Embayment C Habitat Enhancement
TIP - Toplands Habitat Enhancement
TIP - Natural Resource Area
Toronto Islands Wetland Creation
TIP - Goldfish Pond Wetland
Ashbridge's Bay Wetland Creation
East Point Park Enhancement Project
Waterfront Community EnVironmental Project
Fish Management Plan
Maple Leaf Quay Fish Habitat
5. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING
The Toronto and Region ConseNation Authority once again seeks the support of its partners to
continue the work that took place between 1995 and 1999, Capital projects for the
Implementation of Remedial Action Plan recommendations will enable the Authority and its
watershed management partners to continue achieving greenspace objectives, to balance
pressures for development and make a positive contribution to the quality of life across the
GTA.
Table 1, Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 2000 - 2004 Proposed Budqet.
Year Total Value of City of Toronto Other Partners
Projects
2000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000
2001 1 ,000,000 500,000 500,000
2002 1,500,000 750,000 750,000
2003 1,500,000 750,000 750,000
2004 2,000,000 1,000,000 1 ,000,000
TOTALS 7,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
The costs associated with the Toronto RAP Implementation Project will include project
management, engineering and design fees, as well as implementation costs. The TRCA will be
requesting a share of project costs from the City of Toronto Capital Program and will seek
additional funding from the Federal and Provincial Government, ConseNation Foundation of
Greater Toronto, local community groups and private funding. Regardless of the final share
arrangements for each site project, Toronto's annual funding would range between $500,000
and $1,000,000. The following table identifies how City of Toronto money will distributed on a
yearly baSIS.
The T aronta & Region CanservatJon Authanty Page - 9
0368 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
RES.#D1 07 /99 - NATURAL HERITAGE RESTORATION PROJECT 2000-2002
Wrthin the Regional Municipality of Durham. Approval of the Natural Heritage
Restoration Project 2000-2002 within the Regional Municipality of Durham,
dated December, 1999.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Natural Heritage Restoration
Project 2000-2002 within the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated December, 1999, as
appended, be approved;
THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be requested to approve the project and the annual
capital expenditures set forth therein;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action
is required in connection with the project, including securing any other approvals which may
be required and the execution of any documents .......................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 2000-2002 is a partnership between The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Durham. The project involves the
implementation of regeneration projects within the respective municipalities, and includes the
Petticoat, Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds, and the Frenchman's Bay watershed.
This three year project has been designed to complement The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's mandate to establish and undertake a program designed to further the conservation,
restoration, development, and management of natural resources. The selected regeneration projects
will also assist in achieving the more detailed management strategy documents that exist (or are
underway) for the respective watersheds. The project also contributes to the protection and
restoration of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
In addition, the project will assist in achieving the environmental goals and policies as outlined in
the Durham Region Official Plan.
RA TI ONALE
On November 25, 1999, the Authority approved the initiation of a watershed strategy for the Duffins
and Carruthers Creek watersheds in Durham Region. Prior to this communication going forward
to the Authority, TRCA staff met with municipal and regional staff to receive their input regarding the
strategy process and those deliverables that would benefit municipal decision making. It was made
very clear during these -discussions that. the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Strategy
process should be designed to accelerate implementation and allow regeneration projects to be
implemented even during the development stages of the strategy.
In addition, the strategy development is a multi-stakeholder exercise which allows for public
involvement as well as public profile of the regeneration projects as they proceed.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0367-
Table 2. City of Toronto RAP Contributions Per Watershed On An Annual Basis.
Project Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total
Toronto AOC 75,000 75,000 112,500 112,500 150,000 600,000
Don River Watershed 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 800,000
Etobicoke/Mimico Creek 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 400,000
Watersheds
Highland River 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 400,000
Watershed
Humber River Watershed 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 800,000
Rouge River Watershed 25,000 25,000 37,500 37,500 50,000 200,000
Waterfront 100,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 600,000
TOTAL 500,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 1,000,000 4,000,000
The actual annual level of funding will vary from year to year based on the agreed annual
allocations by funding agencies and partners_ The annual funding limit for the City of Toronto is
in accordance with the approved Toronto multi-year forecasts.
If funding from other sources is available, actual expenditures may exceed the project total.
Others funders may include Province of Ontario, Federal Government, The Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto, local community groups, and private funding.
6. APPROVALS
i) Authority
iia) The Ministry of Natural Resources
iib) The Municipality of Toronto
iic) Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(These approvals will be sought simultaneously)
iii) The Ontario Municipal Board.
The T oronlo & RegIon ConselYatJon Authonty Pege - 10
,
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0369
Currently three similar projects are being implemented, one in the City of Toronto and in York and
Peel Regions.
The City of Toronto has committed between $500,000 and $630,000 per year to The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority for the implementation of Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan
projects as described in the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995-1999. These funds
are allotted on an annual basis to the TRCA for project administration, design, implementation, and
monitoring costs. As 1999 is the final year of this agreement, the TRCA will seek its renewal for
commencement in 2000.
The Natural Heritage Restoration Projects 1999-2003 are partnerships between The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Peel, and the Regional Municipality
of York. Through these partnerships the Regions of York and Peel have been requested to fund
capital projects that achieve our natural heritage restoration objectives. Each Regional Municipality's
annual funding contribution begins at $200,000 in 1999, and increases to $300,000 by 2003.
The Natural Heritage Restoration Project 2000-2002 for Durham Region has been modelled after
these two successful partnerships.
Environmental benefits that will result from implementing this Project include:
. Increased fish community health including the reintroduction of some migratory species;
. Increased stream stability and thus reduced erosion and future maintenance;
. More functional terrestrial habitats that support sensitive and diverse wildlife species;
. Diverse riparian communities that support aquatic habitats and link terrestrial habitats;
. Improvements in groundwater quality and discharges to surface waters;
. Increased wetland habitats and associated fish and wildlife species;
. Improved forest cover and groundwater recharges on the Oak Ridges Moraine, thus
enhancing the groundwater resource itself;
. Improved air quality through the forest, wetland, and riparian plantings; and
. Improved surface water quality,
PROJECT DETAILS
Priority projects have been selected for 2000 within each municipality within Durham Region, as well
as within each watershed. It should also be noted that Authority staff will continue to have
discussions with staff at the Region regarding the implementation of this project. These projects
are subject to planning approvals and funding. The prioritization of year 2000 implementation
projects will be finalized by TRCA in consultation with the Region of Durham. Projects for 2001 and
2002 will be finalized and detailed as the following larger initiatives unfold over the next two years:
. The joint Regional initiative between the Regions of Peel, York and Durham for the
coordination of a long term strategy for the Oak Ridges Moraine.
. The Trans Canada Trail and its alignment through Durham Region.
. The development of a management plan for seven properties which comprise the Glen
Major Complex owned and operated by the TRCA.
0370 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Meet with staff of the Regional Municipality Durham to discuss project details.
. Seek other partners and resources to contribute to the implementation of priority projects.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding commitments from the Regional Municipality of Durham will be devoted to priority projects
on an annual basis.
The project proposes total annual expenditures as outlined below:
Year Region of Durham Other Sources Estimate Total Annual
2000 $200,000 $235,000 $435,000
2001 (estimates) $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
2002 (estimates) $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
Three Year Totals $600,000 $635,000 $1,235,000
The committed funds will enable TRCA to lever monies from the other sources, as often a source
of committed funding is a prerequisite to establishing such partnerships. The TRCA will be
responsible for prioritizing projects on an annual basis in consultation with the Region.
Opportunities will be pursued to match these funds with funding from other sources such as the
provincial and federal governments, local municipalities and local community groups.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5334
For information contact: Dave Dyce, extension 5250 or Brian Denney, extension 6290
Date: December 7, 1999
Attachments (1)
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0371
Attachment 1
NATURAL HERITAGE
RESTORATION PROJECTS
2000-2002
,
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
DECEMBER 1999
~,
V TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION
0372 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 2
2.0 THE STUDY AREA .................................................... 2
2.1 PETTICOAT CREEK
2.2 FRENCHMAN'S BAY
2.3 DUFFINS CREEK
2.4 CARRUTHERS CREEK
3.0 SCOPE ............................................................. 3
MAP - The TRCA Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES ......................................... 5
4.1 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
4.2 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
4.3 RELATED INITIATIVES
4.4 THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH
4.5 THE TRCA REGENERATION PROGRAM
4.6 ENVIRONMENT AL BENEFITS
5.0 REGION OF DURHAM PROPOSED 2000 RESTORATION PROJECTS ........... 10
5.1 Frenchman's Bay I Hydro Marsh
5.2 Krosno Creek
5.3 Millers Creek
5.4 Woodlots for Wildlife
5.4.1 Walker Woods
5.4.2 Osler Property
5.4.3 Madell Property
5.4.4 Clubine Tract & Glen Major Resource Management Tracts
5.5 Green River Barriers
5.6 Claremont Field Centre
5.7 Durham Region Trails
5.8 Riparian Corridor Plantings
5.9 Pickering Beach
5.10 Nu West Ravine
5.11 Aquatic Plants Program
6.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0373
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of The Natural Heritage Restoration Projects 2000-2002 proposal is to identify, prioritize
and implement restoration projects that fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of
Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watersheds. The intent of this
proposal is to profile the ongoing partnership between the Region of Durham and the TRCA by
selecting projects that benefit the community, the economy and the environment. In addition, these
projects are designed to achieve the environmental management objectives of the municipalities
within the Region of Durham and to complement TRCA's mandate to establish and undertake
programs designed to further the conservation, restoration, development, and management of
natural resources.
2.0 THE STUDY AREA
The Natural Heritage Restoration Projects are proposed over a three year period and involve the
implementation of regeneration projects within four of the TRCA's watersheds including Petticoat
Creek, Frenchman's Bay and its drainage area, Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek (map 1).
2.1 PETTICOAT CREEK
The Petticoat Creek watershed is the smallest of the TRCA nine major watersheds with a drainage
area of 26 km2. The watershed is situated west of the Rouge River and east of Frenchman's Bay in
the Town of Pickering.
The main branch is located within a well-defined valley that traverses the southeast corner of the
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. Heading northwest, the creek crosses highway 2 and Sheppard
Avenue to enter the Altona Forest. It meanders parallel to Altona Road and turns northwest towards
the Townline Swamp Complex. The creek continues through the northeast corner of the Rouge Park,
ultimately reaching the headwaters just north of Locust Hill on the south slope of the Oak Ridges
Moraine. Petticoat Creek is approximately 15 km in length from its headwaters to Lake Ontario.
2.2 FRENCHMAN'S BAY
The Frenchman's Bay watershed is 2,200 hectares in size and houses over 47,000 people. The bay
itself is a shallow lagoon on the Pickering shore of Lake Ontario separated from the lake by a natural
sand and gravel beach, but connected by a navigational channel. The bay is fed by four main urban
water systems, the Dunbarton, Pine, Amberlea and Krosno Creeks, and was historically surrounded
by wetlands. Krosno Creek runs through a Provincially Significant Wetland, Hydro Marsh (40 ha) and
into Frenchman's Bay at the south east corner, providing important marsh habitat.
Due to extensive urbanization since the 1970's the health of the creeks and the bay system has
deteriorated significantly. The quality of the water has been substantially impacted by development
of major transportation corridors and urban areas, and there are now 54 storm sewers contributing
pollutants directly to the water system.
,
0374 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
2.3 DUFFINS CREEK
Duffins Creek, with a drainage area of 294 km2 is located at the eastern extremity of the TRCA
jurisdiction. A major part of the watershed is in the Region of Durham including the Town of
Pickering, Ajax and Uxbridge with smaller areas in York Region including Whitchurch-Stouffville and
the Town of Markham.
Two main branches join about 8 km upstream of Lake Ontario. The West Duffins begins north-east
of Stouffville and drains 124 km2 to the point of confluence with the east branch which rises about
2 km northwest of Glen Major in the Oak Ridges Moraine. The tributaries include Reesor Creek,
Stouffville Creek, Wixon Creek, Whitevale Creek, Major Creek, Urfe Creek, Brougham Creek,
Ganatsekiagon and Mitchell Creeks.
2.4 CARRUTHERS CREEK
The Carruthers Creek watershed drains approximately 38 km2 and is located in the regional
municipality of Durham. The local municipalities of Pickering and Ajax are located within this
watershed.
Carruthers Creek represents the most easterly watershed within the TRCA jurisdiction. The
watershed is long and narrow in shape being less than 3 km wide a the widest point and 20 km in
length from Lake Ontario to the headwaters located 4 km north of Highway no. 7. The first 10 km
of Carruther's Creek flows over the south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine to a point midway in the
Town of Ajax. The watershed occupies an area of 38 km2 and represents the second smallest of
the TRCA's nine major watersheds. The upper portion of the basin is drained by numerous
watercourses but in the lower watershed there is a noticeable lack of tributaries. Carruther's Creek
displays very little meandering except for the last 2 km before entering Lake Ontario.
3.0 SCOPE
An initial list of year 2000 Projects are identified on page 10. These projects are subject to planning
approvals and funding. The prioritization of year 2000 implementation projects will be finalized by
TRCA in consultation with the Region of Durham. Projects for 2001 and 2002 will be finalized and
detailed as larger initiatives in the Region (as outlined below) unfold over the next two years.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0375 -
~i
iil
~ -
,0< _ li
ge ~ ~ i
~~ 2 -@l '"
I--~ C c:: G
" - C ::J
~ ~ 0 0
~~ ~ 'CJ co
@ _ ~Wc:: .
L..I W OC 0
..r=. :;:::
Z ~~:6
w ~~~ 0
e>-5:6-=l
~ ODD..
z
o
I-
U
o
lJ)
n:
:J
J
~
n:
o
I
I-
:J
<{
z
o
~
>
n:
w
lJ)
z
o
u
z
o
o
w
0::
o
z
<(
o
I-
Z
o
g z~
W
I
f-
0376 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
4.1 THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Since 1957, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has been responsible for developing
and implementing a program for renewable resource management. A comprehensive statement of
this program was adopted by the Authority in its 1980 Watershed Plan, and again in 1986 when the
Watershed Plan was revised. At that time, the Authority recognized that it's traditional programs
were not keeping pace with the pressure of development across it's watersheds and that urgent
action was required to ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. The
Greenspace Strategy (1989) was proposed as the Authority's conservation vision for the future of
the Greater Toronto Area.
Since 1990, the TRCA has been preparing and implementing watershed management strategies
using planning task forces comprised of watershed residents, interest groups, business associations,
agencies and elected rep.resentatives from both the local and regional level.
4.2 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
The Regional Municipality of Durham is 2,490 km2 with rich and diverse Greenspace. Its lake
Ontario shore includes dynamic sand beaches and towering bluffs. It boasts three inland lakes with
more than 132 km of shoreline and more than 10 km of beaches, a mosaic of wetland types, and
cold and warm water streams.
The Region of Durham, through its official plan, establishes a regional framework for guiding growth
and development for its eight municipalities, while also having regard for protecting the environment,
managing resources and directing growth. The Official Plan also recognizes the need for effective
environmental and cultural protection.
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENT
2.1 GOALS
2.1.1 To ensure the preservation, conservation or enhancement. of the Region's natural
environment for its valuable ecological functions and for the enjoyment of the Region's
residents.
2.1.4 To undertake planning functions based on the understanding that there is a relationship
between the natural and built environments and the principle of preserving resources and
protecting the natural environment for future generations.
2.2 GENERAL POLICIES
2.2.1 In the planning and development of the Region, the natural environment; which includes
areas designated as Oak Ridges Moraine, Waterfronts and Major Open Space and features
such as environmentally sensitive areas, valley systems, water resources and plant and
animal habitats, shall be given paramount consideration in light of their ecological functions
and scientific and educational values.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 D3n
2.2.4 Forests, woodlots, wetlands and peat bogs shall be protected and managed to provide
environmental, recreational and economic benefits to the Region.
2.3 POLICIES
2.3.1 For the purposes of this Plan, environment refers to the natural, built and cultural
environments, which include air, soil, water, plant and animal life, social and cultural
conditions, buildings or structures, or any combination thereof, and the direct or indirect
impacts of human activities.
2.3.2 Regional Council shall encourage the development of a connected and functional natural
areas system being primarily comprised, at the Regional level, of the components of the
Major Open Space System; natural features such as valleys, environmentally sensitive areas
and forests found in other designations; and, additional linkages and corridors as identified
in area municipal official plans.
SECTION 14
MAJOR OPEN SPACE SYSTEM
14.1 GOALS
14.1.1 To establish a continuous system of open space that shall weave through the natural, built
and cultural environments and between the urban areas in the Region to ensure ecological
health and renewal and to assist in creating distinct urban areas.
14.1.2 To protect significant habitats of plants, fish and wildlife within natural, built and cultur'al
environments.
14.1.3 To provide opportunities for a variety of recreational activities.
14.1.4 To protect the Oak Ridges Moraine as a unique landform containing the headwaters of the
Region's major rivers and waterfronts as vital components of the Region's natural, built and
cultural environments.
14.3 POLICIES
14.3.3 In recognition of the special natural and scenic features Regional Council shall develop
programs in cooperation with the Provincial Government, area municipalities and the
conservation authorities to maintain or enhance the features of the Major Open Space
System, such as streams and valleylands, wetlands, wooded areas, wildlife habitats, urban
separators and other natural attributes of the environment.
4.3 RELA TED (NITIA TIVES
The initiation of The Natural Heritage Restoration Project in Durham Region is timely and will
complement a number of initiatives:
. The joint regional initiative between the Regions of Peel, York and Durham for the
coordination of a long term strategy for the Oak Ridges Moraine.
. The TRCA phase 1 groundwater study.
0378 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
. The TRCA are facilitators on a multi-stakeholder group who are involved in the planning of
the Trans Canada Trail and its alignment through the TRCA jurisdiction including Durham
Region.
. The development of a management plan for seven properties which comprise the Glen
Major Complex owned and operated by the TRCA.
. The Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project in the Region of Durham, the Ajax
Waterfront Plan, Pickering's New Waterfront Vision and the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront
Rehabilitation Project.
. The TRCA is currently in the process of acquiring valley corridor lands and other
environmental lands from the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC).
4.4 THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Watershed management strategies have been very successful in generating public interest and
awareness about the impacts urbanization has had on the natural and cultural heritage resources
contained within the watersheds. The strategies also illustrate the importance of providing a
framework that coordinates the energy, priorities, and resources of many partners on a watershed
basis. The major strength of this planning model is that it fosters continued ownership and
involvement by the community to undertake actions to protect, restore, and improve the
environmental quality of their communities.
Development and implementation of watershed management strategies normally proceeds through
three phases:
Phase 1: The production of a State of the Watershed Report (SOW) that identifies issues and
describes key environmental, social, and economic conditions of the watershed, with
the primary focus being environmental.
Phase 2: The strategy development. A multi-stakeholder watershed task force is
established to oversee development of the strategy. The SOW Report and
community consultations provide a knowledge base for the Task Force to develop the
strategy. The strategy recommends actions necessary to protect, regenerate and
celebrate the watershed.
Phase 3: The implementation of the watershed strategy and monitoring progress toward
regeneration which is guided by a committee of watershed stakeholders.
In November 1999, the Authority approved the initiation of a watershed strategy for the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek watersheds in Durham Region. The Durham Region jurisdiction contains 100%
of the Carruthers Creek watershed and approximately 91 % of the Duffins Creek watershed.
Discussions were held between the Authority and municipal and regional staff to receive their input
regarding the strategy process and to identify those deliverables that would benefit municipal
decision making. It was made very clear during these discussions that the Duffins and Carruthers
Creek Watershed Strategy process should be designed to accelerate implementation and allow
regeneration projects to be implemented even during the development stages of the strategy. Work
on a comprehensive background, or State of the Watershed, report for both the Duffins Creek and
Carruthers Creek watersheds is currently in progress. It is suggested that the Duffins and Carruthers
Creek Watershed Strategy develop over a period of 18 months and that the process will move to
implementation as soon as possible.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0379
In addition, the strategy development is a multi-stakeholder exercise which allows for public
involvement as well as public profile of the regeneration projects as they proceed.
4.5 THE TRCA REGENERATION PROGRAM
The TRCA has been responsible for developing and implementing a program for renewable resource
management since 1957. A comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authority
in its 1980 Watershed Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authority recognized that its
traditional programs were not keeping pace with the pressure of development across its watersheds
and that urgent action was required to ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto
Area (GT A). The Greenspace Strategy (1988/89) was proposed as the Authority's conservation
vision for the future of the GT A.
In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Commission of the Future of Toronto's
Waterfront and Space for All, a report to the Province identifying options for a "Greenlands Strategy
for the Greater Toronto Area", made recommendations to conserve and enhance the natural
resources of the Greater Toronto Area.
The Greenspace Strategy, Watershed, and Space for All are consistent in their proposals for an
ecosystem approach to planning the future of the Greater Toronto Area. These reports recognize
the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and the Lake Ontario Waterfront as
principal physical resources of the GTA; make recommendations for ensuring an interconnected and
accessible physical resource system; and identify the need for co-operative partnerships to ensure
long term greenspace conservation.
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
In undertaking the watershed regeneration projects, protection and restoration of the natural
environment will be accomplished, thus furthering the Region's goals of achieving environmental
sustainability.
The direct environmental benefits that will ensue from implementing this Project include:
. Increased fish community health including the reintroduction of some migratory species;
. Increased stream stability and thus reduced erosion and future maintenance;
. More functional terrestrial habitats that support sensitive and diverse wildlife species;
. Diverse riparian communities that support aquatic habitats and link terrestrial habitat.s;
. Improvements in groundwater quality and discharges to surface waters;
. Increased wetland habitats and associated fish and wildlife species;
. Improved air quality through the forest, wetland, and riparian plantings; and
. Improved surface water quality.
0380 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999 .
?;
ra
c. Cl Cl OJ Cl OJ OJ Cl Cl Cl Cl
'0 c -e Cl -e 01 01 C C C C
.~ 'tJ 'tJ 'tJ L: .~ ~ L:
c OJ x .r:: OJ 'r:: 'r:: OJ x x OJ
:::l -'" -'" .0 -'" .0 .0 -'" -'" -'" -'"
u u ro x u x x u u u ro ro u
~ c:: c:: ~ => c:: => => c:: c:: c:: ~ ~ c:: <(
't:I >- >- -'" -'"
QJ ro ro -'" OJ OJ
J: cc cc OJ-", ~ OJ
-'" -'" -'" -'" -'" -'" -'" u -'"
~ VI ,VI OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ ~ ~ U OJ
C c OJ ~ OJ OJ OJ OJ QJ VI VI QJ
QJ ro ro U U U U U U u ... U
C/) u ~u ... Qj
,w E E QJ
.... n:l .c .c VI VI VI VI VI VI VI ~ ~ ..l:: ..l:: VI
:: c c c c c c c :5 ~ c
U u u .~ tt= ::l
C c tt= !E tt= !E tt= tt= tt= ..... ..... tt=
w QJ QJ ~ ::l ..... ...
::l ::l ::l ::l ::l :J ::l '" a ::l
.., u: u: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g:o u 0 <(
0
c::: ... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
QJ QJ 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0
Z J: C u-! 1.1)- 0- ,.....- u-! <r-- N- o- 1.1)- 0- 1.1)- Ln Ln- ..0 L1l
,w't N N M ..,.". ..,.". ...... ..,.". N ..,.". N N ....... N .......
0 ..,.". ..,.". <IT ..,.". <IT <IT ..,.". - <IT ..,.". M
o n:l C"/
1-4 C. ill-
....
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 E C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 In 1.1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0
.... n:l.~ 1.1)- In- 0- ,.....- 1.1)- <r-- N- o- u-! 0- In- 1.1)- 1.1)- ....... 0'
C/) J:C'l N N ....... ..,.". - ....... - N <IT N N ....... N -
... QJ - - - <IT ..,.". <IT -If\- - <IT 0
W c5~ C"/
ex: ill-
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oti,w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N o.~~ 0- 0- 0- tr 0- en 1.1)- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0 ,....., 0
lJl In '<t" ...... ....... N ..,.". '<t" ....... '<t" lrl M Ln ....... L1l 0
C ~eu <IT -If\- - -If\- -tIl- -If\- - ..,.". -If\- -If\- ..,.". -If\- - M -
W C. '<t
Vl ill-
0 ...J
a. <(
0 I-
ex: t c 0
0 I-
a. QJ ~
.0 ~
::E: t 0: t ~ C c E
QJ C OJ
~ QJ QJ Q) E
QJ 0 ~ "e VI
J: c E c E OJ QJ
> 0: QJ 0- QJ 0 Q) > a::
ex: iJ E 01 :;:; 01 0
VI <s.. 'tJ
c QJ VI '" ro '" VI c
:J QJ 0 Cl QJ C QJ C E ..... ro
C ...., :;:; ro c '" U '" QJ C VI ~
..c ro c ~ ~ ~ ..... "E 0 c 'tJ
ro C
0 0 ro ~ ~ :;:; ~ 0 g ~
LL. ~ ro ~ ro ~ ro ro :;:; 0
.... 3: ~ ...., cc ro 0-
0 VI :0 .0 QJ ro c cXJ
Q) ~ <( 'B 'B .c U QJ ~ C
ro ro > 0
a:: ~ 3: :r: 3: :r: VI ~ U 0 U C
Z co C u:: 'Vi 0
'tJ 3: 'tJ ~ C :;:;
0 C QJ ~ .E:! C :~
ro E E ~ ~ ~ co c. 19 0 ro
VI VI Qj 'tJ .Vi u
1-4 ~ 0 '6 <lJ 'tJ <lJ "0 'tJ ~ :0 ..0 :J
C) 0 "- 0 ...., '" ::l 0 'tJ
~ V1 QJ 3: 0 3: ~ ~ C :r: 1I1 UJ W
W 1I1 LL LL ......
ex:
~ .::!! E
QJ VI C ro ~
E Qj <lJ ~ e
>: VI "E u .....
n:l ro e- ~ 'tJ C 0 .c QJ 0-
Z cc VI e- ro Qj 0 'tJ u C ~
-'" 'tJ ~ a:: cc 'r:: co '>
t VI.c -'" u:: g' ..... OJ C
- VI QJ OJ 0 OJ Qj B VI cc ro ro
C "- OJ OJ 0 C. 0 cXJ.12, .... ex: ex:
QJ co ro ..... ~ > c a:
u U 0 ..... ~ Cl ....,
'0' E~ ..... a.. QJ co 0 E C Cl C VI U
~ e 0 ..... 0- C~ E ro C .~ QJ :;:;
... VI <lJ Qj C ro
C. C ..... -'" Qj :0 C OJ ~ 1: 'C ~ ~ ro
C'tJ VI QJ 'tJ ro C -'" ::l
~:t 0 m "Vi ro :J <lJ <lJ ro :J .9-~ u :J 0-
~ ~ 3:: 0 ~ 0<3 15 0 0 a:: a.. a: z <(
...... N <"1 "': 0 .......
..... N <"1 "': "': <r- "': lJl ~ ,..... co ~ ..... .....
U1 vi lJl '" '" vi <n <n <n <n ,..; VI VI VI
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0381
5.0 REGION OF DURHAM PROPOSED 2000 RESTORATION PROJECTS
5.1 FRENCHMAN'S BAY I HYDRO MARSH
Sustainable wetlands are important to the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. They are vital to
maintaining a productive fishery, providing valuable wildlife habitat, preventing erosion and flooding,
creating passive recreation opportunities and controlling point and non-point pollution. In the
watershed of Frenchman's Bay, there are two Provincially Significant Wetlands, both unique as two
of the few remaining coastal marshes on the north shore of Lake Ontario adjacent to a large urban
centre. Both wetlands face a number of environmental issues, including high sediment loading, poor
water quality, loss of habitat, limited interpretation opportunities and overall reduction of biodiversity.
The purpose of this project is to enhance habitat opportunities in both wetlands through aquatic
planting, restricting access of carp, constructing habitat structures, managing of invasive species,
providing opportunities for wildlife viewing and interpretation and implementing a landowner
stewardship program for residents and industry. These components were identified as priority
projects in the Mayors Task Force Waterfront 2001 document to ensure these wetlands are
preserved through an ecological and sustainable rehabilitation process, that involves the community
in stewardship and ownership of this important resource.
The estimated costs for these projects would be $50,000/year for three years. Potential and
confinned partners include, Ontario Power Generation Pickering Nuclear, ecoACTION 2000, Canada
Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation, Ministry of Natural Resources, Town of Pickering,
Frenchman's Bay Watch Group, local service clubs, schools and community groups.
5.2 KROSNO CREEK
The Krosno Creek watershed covers approximately 650 hectares within the Town of Pickering.
TRCA staff are currently undertaking a Stormwater Management Study for the Ontario Power
Generation - Pickering Nuclear (OPG) and The Town of Pickering, The main goal of the study is to
prepare a comprehensive stormwater management strategy for the Krosno Creek Watershed that
will address functional drainage and environmental concerns. A number of objectives were
established at the onset of the study including: control existing runoff quality, peaks and volumes,
provide relief to existing and potential flooding and erosion problems, and to control, if possible,
existing land-based activities, which are resulting in the degradation of the Creek, using at-source,
conveyance, and end-of-pipe Best Management Practices.
Initial field work has identified a number of locations where new stonnwater management facilities
could be constructed. The intent of these facilities will be to provide quantity, quality and erosion
control for stormwater runoff from each of their respective catchment areas.
A total of $25,000 is requested from the Region of Durham in 2000 to contribute toward design costs
for two new storm'water'management facilities 'as identified in the stormwater management study.
Detailed designs for the storm water management ponds will be prepared in 2000. Additional
funding will be required to cover costs in subsequent years. It is expected that implementation will
begin late in 2000 or early 2001. Partnerships with the Town and OPG will be pursued.
0382 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
5.3 MILLERS CREEK
For many years, there have been significant concerns regarding the amount of sediment generated
from construction sites. A number of efforts have been undertaken by TRCA and others to address
this problem. The adequacy of the planning process, the appropriate selection of sediment control
best management practices, and the maintenance and effectiveness of these temporary devices
through the servicing and building phases, have been identified as potential issues in sediment and
erosion management.
TRCA staff and Greenland International Consulting Inc. have developed a monitoring protocol for
development projects. A section of Millers Creek, in the Town of Ajax, has been chosen as one of
three demonstration sites. Monitoring at this site began earlier this summer to coincide with the
onset of construction of a nearby development project. Monitoring actual development sites will:
provide first-hand knowledge for the regulatory agencies working in conjunction with developers and
builders, identify the need for industry and agency education, and provide for the opportunity to test
an enhanced planning process currently being developed in conjunction with municipal staff.
Funding for this project in 1999 has been provided through special provisions of the federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and through the 1999/2000 Toronto RAP funding. TRCA is
requesting $10 000 of the $40,000 required for the year 2000 from the Region of Durham. Additional
partnerships will be sought with the Town.
5.4 WOODLOTS FOR WILDLIFE
On the Oak Ridges Moraine, the TRCA intends to actively manage conservation forests in an effort
to improve wildlife habitat in Durham Region. To achieve this goal we aim to improve the forests to
provide all or most of the habitat requirements for the common and significant wildlife species within
these important forests. Plans include converting marginal forest habitats into more productive or
significant tracts, incorporating wildlife habitat within these tract of lands and specifically directing
conservation efforts at forest wildlife species. This work will provide an excellent example to private
forest land owners within the Durham section of the Oak Ridges Moraine and contribute towards a
greater understanding of forest stewardship issues
5.4.1 WALKER WOODS
This project would actively manage 20 ha of wood lot to achieve the goal of diverse animal and plant
habitat. Selective cutting of mature stands within the hardwood forest will encourage forest
regeneration through the gradual opening of the canopy while maintaining the integrity of the
compartment and retaining a high degree of forest cover. Tree selection is based on improving
forest health, class distribution, and species diversity. The intent of this style of forest management
is to recreate the effects of natural disturbances that occur in forests. This project will maintain the
wildlife habitat value for interior forest birds while improving conditions for other species including
the ground thrushes and'certain owl species.
Forest diversity ensures that habitat is not vulnerable to destruction by disease or insect infestation
and helps to maintain a variety of fauna. Improving the forest by allowing other plants to establish
within the understorey contributes to the sustainability of the forest ecosystem.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $7,000 of the $14,000 required in 2000.
Additional funds will be matched through the TRCA.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0383
5.4.2 OSLER PROPERTY
The objective of this planting initiative will be to establish and enlarge forest blocks, connect isolated
forest compartments, create wildlife corridors and habitat, increase riparian vegetation around
streams. This project would create 5 ha of contiguous forest cover in priority areas within the Duffins
Creek watershed.
Forest resources contribute significantly to the overall quality of our environment. Forests act as
regulators of water quantity, maintaining ground water levels and base flows during dry periods and
reducing peakflows via interception and retention of rainfall and runoff. They act as nutrient filters
and provide for control of soil erosion and sediment generation, contributing to an increased quality
of our water resources and fishery's habitat. They provide food and cover for wildlife and
opportunities for education, research and outdoor recreation.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $5,000 of the $10,000 required in 2000.
Additional funds will be matched through the TRCA.
5.4.3 MADELL PROPERTY
This project would actively manage 16 ha of woodlot to achieve the goal of diverse wildlife habitat
and improve the old growth characteristics, in an attempt to attract and support a wider variety of
wildlife. Selectively harvesting trees would improve wildlife habitat, forest diversity and also improve
natural regeneration of native forest species while maintaining interior characteristics. Overall forest
and wildlife habitat health can be improved while maintaining a continual forest canopy.
Wildlife habitat diversity is a key characteristic that is absent in many of our managed forest
ecosystems in the Durham Region. Improving forest diversity ensures that the forest is not
vulnerable to destruction by disease or insect infestation and is able to support a greater variety of
wildlife. The Madell property is an excellent candidate for effectively improving forest habitats for
wildlife. The Authority will promote the creation of habitats that will support species such as white-
tailed deer, wild turkeys, ruffed grouse and forest dependent owls.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $14,500 of the $29,000 required in 2000,
Additional funds will be matched through the TRCA.
5.4.4 CLUBINE TRACT & GLEN MAJOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TRACTS
Plantation management for wildlife habitat is primarily directed toward compartment conversion, the
process of changing the composition of the forest from a coniferous monoculture to a mixed
deciduous-coniferous compartment. In managing plantations for wildlife, the TRCA may employ
selection row thinning or patch cutting. Both thinning techniques will decrease the overall
compartment density, provide space for other species in which to establish, and stimulate new
growth within the'forest. Thinning prevents stagnation of the forest cover, improves snow pack
capture and provides increased opportunities for biodiversity. This project would initiate the
management of selected forest stands, as the first step of an overall program to restore biodiversity
within a typical marginal forest habitat.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $2,500 of the $5000 required in 2000.
Additional funds will be matched through the TRCA.
0384 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
5.5 GREEN RIVER TRCA LAND BARRIERS
Two significant instream barriers are located on West Duffins Creek in the TRCA Green River valley
lands. The first barrier is located approximately 300 m upstream from Highway 7 with the second
barrier another 200 m upstream from the first. Both barriers are historic structures that are now
barriers to fish migration. Mitigation of these barriers would will allow passage of migratory fish
species and allow access to habitat for resident species.
Mitigating these two barriers can be accomplished, simply and effectively through the installation of
a rocky ramp. This would entail the placement of a river run rock ramp that reduces the grade of the
barner. Each ramp would use roughly 100 m3 of rock. Durham Region is being requested to provide
$20,000 of the estimated cost of $40,000 for 2000. This cost includes materials, installation and
inspection for both sites. Additional funding partners may include the town, MNR and Canada Trust
friends of the Environment foundation.
5.6 CLAREMONT FIELD CENTRE
The Claremont Wetland is to be located on the Claremont field Centre lands off Westney Road, just
north of the 7th Concession in the Town of Pickering. Since 1970 the TRCA has offered a residential
outdoor education program at the field centre. Many of the programs offered at Claremont focus on
active hands-on living experiences.
The construction of this .03 hectare wetland would provide a suitable location for pond and aquatic
insect studies and diverse wetland habitat within the Claremont property. The pond design will
encourage expansion of existing amphibian populations, An interpretive platform to facilitate
students, is also proposed for the north end of the wetland.
Community involvement in this project will be encouraged. The Region of Durham is being requested
to provide $5,000 of the $10,000 required in 2000. Additional funds will be pursued with the town and
local interest groups.
5.7 DURHAM REGION TRAILS
Durham Region has significant recreational potential in local trails, including 60 km of the Lake
Ontario Waterfront Trail that currently stretches from Burlington to Trenton. Other trails include
Pickering's Seaton and Petticoat Creek trails; the Oshawa Creek, Second Marsh/McLaughlin Bay
Wildlife Reserve trails; and trails in Uxbridge, Scuggog and Brock Townships
Trails are a significant resource but sometimes are through or adjacent to environmentally sensitive
areas. Extreme caution must be practised if natural areas are to be maintained and, preferably,
enhanced (Durham Environmental Network, 1997).
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0385
The TRCA objectives of trail planning and development are to:
. work with municipalities and interest groups on trail research
. fostering community and business stewardship of the trail and destination attractions within
the watersheds
. ensure safe and enjoyable trails are provided on Authority lands
. technical review of proposed routes and trail upgrades
. updates to trail planning & design guidelines manual
. workshops on trail related issues
. funding for signage, parking and other trail related amenities
This project provides a process to assemble the partners and planning documents necessary to
secure funding partnerships to implement the watershed trails within Durham Region. Currently the
trails and public facilities are not linked yet Durham Region has outstanding values as a destination
attraction.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $2,500 of the $5000 required in 2000.
Additional funds will be matched through the TRCA.
5.8 RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PLANTINGS
Carruthers Creek historically supported a cold water fish community that included trout, salmon and
a variety of other cold water species. Currently, there is evidence that rainbow trout are spawning
successfully in the reach between Taunton Road and Highway #2. The suitability of the entire creek
for spawning and rearing trout could be improved through the planting of woody tree and shrub
species in the riparian zone.
Replanting the riparian areas will provide a two-fold benefit to the creek ecosystem. First, they will
shade the stream and prevent the stream from warming in the summer months. This will keep the
water cool and will effectively increase the availability of cold water habitat. Second, the trees and
shrubs would provide overhead cover for adult and young trout and other fish species. We have
identified a total of 5 km of riparian corridor that will benefit from shrub and tree plantings. The cost
for 5 km of planting is estimated at $50,000/year over a three year period (includes material and
installation). The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $25,000 of the $50,000 required
in 2000, Every effort will be made to include the public, school groups, scouts and guides in the
planting days.
There are an additional 3 km of riparian corridor through the golf courses North of Taunton. Road
that could also be planted, however these will have to be done in partnership with the course
owners.
5.9 PICKERING BEACH
The Pickering Beach Subdivision Pond is located north of Highway 401, west of Carruthers Creek
in the Town of Ajax. This existing, off-line facility was designed to provide for quantity control for a
residential catchment of approximately 77 hectares. TRCA has identified this site as a potential
retrofit opportunity. The primary objective of the retrofit would be to include provisions for quality and
erosion control in the pond design, while maintaining the current flood control function of the pond.
,
0386 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
The first step in the retrofit process will be to establish stormwater design criteria for the pond
including: storage volume, target release rates, and cost estimates. Detailed design drawings and
construction drawings will need to be prepared once the design criteria has been established. The
Region of Durham is being requested to provide $15,000 of the $30,000 required in 2000. Additional
funding partnerships will be pursued with the Town.
5.10 NU WEST RAVINE BIOENGINEERING
The Nu West Ravine bioengineering site is located near Abbey Road which is west of Liverpool
Road and north of Finch Avenue. The erosion is occurring on a tributary to Duffins Creek and is
effecting the stability of the rear yards of homes on Abbey Road and damaging a stand of mature
forest. The lands where the erosion occurring is owned by The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority.
Soil bioengineering stabilization through the use of plant material offers a cost-effective and
attractive approach for stabilizing slopes against erosion and shallow mass movement. Other
environmental benefits of bioengineering include protection against surficial rainfall and wind, habitat
creation and shade cover to adjacent watercourses.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $25,000 of the $50,000 required in 2000.
Additional funding partnerships will be pursued with the provincial and federal agencies, local
municipality and local interest groups.
5.11 AQUA TIC PLANTS PROGRAM
The Aquatic Plants Program is part of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's commitment
to advocating the protection and enhancement of our watersheds. The program was initiated as a
pilot project in 1995 to encourage public participation in the creation of wetland habitat. Since then,
public response has been tremendous resulting in the expansion of the program into the entire TRCA
jurisdiction. The Aquatic Plants Program is currently run on a yearly basis.
The Aquatic Plants Program is offered free of charge to groups of students and interested individuals
who can dedicate themselves to growing and caring for aquatic plants in their classrooms, offices
and households from February until the end of May. These volunteers are provided with all the
materials and information required to grow aquatic plants, and then are invited to bring their
seedlings to a local wetland restoration project. In return, the program offers the participants the
unique opportunity to be involved in active habitat restoration, and enables them to learn more about
their natural environment and the necessity of restoring it.
The program provides a "hands on" approach to the study and restoration of wetland habitats.
In 1999 the Aquatic Plants Program was offered to the Toronto, Durham, Peel and York Region
school boards, many private schools, Guide and Scout Troops, a number of community action
groups, as well as the-Qeneral public. Enrollment in the program totalled approximately 130 schools,
amounting to 400 individual classes, community groups or organizations. At this level of
participation, the program utilized approximately 15,000 volunteers, producing 25,000 native aquatic
plants.
It is estimated that the 2000 program will produce over 27,000 native aquatic plants that will be used
in twenty-six planting locations throughout the Toronto and Region Conservation Authorities
jurisdiction, covering a range of wetland types.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0387
The Aquatic Plants Program is designed to accomplish the following:
. grow native wetland plants from locally sourced seed for the purpose of restoring wetland
ecosystems;
. increase the amount of healthy wetland habitat across the waterfront and throughout our
watersheds;
. educate the community about local environmental issues by involving them in a wetland
project in their own neighbourhood;
. educate students and volunteers about the importance of wetlands;
. provide a "hands on" learning experience; and
. create an opportunity for volunteers to explore and learn more about local wetlands.
The Region of Durham is being requested to provide $1,000 of the $17,000 required in 2000.
Additional funding partnerships will be pursued with the other Regions through their Natural Heritage
Programs.
6.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING
The recommended budget to implement the Natural Heritage Restoration Project 2000-2002
includes:
Year Region of Durham Other Sources. Estimate Total
Annual
2000 $200,000 $235,000 $435,000
2001 (estimates) $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
2002 (estimates) $200,000 $200,000 $400,000
Three Year Totals $600,000 $635,000 $1,235,000
.Other Sources includes potential partnerships with the provincial and federal governments, local
municipalities and local community groups.
The costs associated with this project include administration, engineering and design fees,
implementation and monitoring.
Funding commitments from the Regional Municipality of Durham will be devoted to priority projects
on an annual basis.
The committed funds will enable TRCA to lever monies from the other sources, as often a source
of committed funding is a prerequisite to establishing such partnerships. The TRCA will be
responsible for prioritizing projects on an annual basis in consultation with the Region and local
municipalities.
0388 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
RES.#D108/99 - SYMPOSIUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Identifying Next Steps for Authority action on Climate Change
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff thank Environment Canada and
the Government of Ontario for their support of and participation in the Symposium on Climate
Change and Watershed Management;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report early in 2000 on the integration of climate
change into Authority programs, including partnerships with our municipal partners and other
levels of government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1999, the Authority co-ordinated a Symposium on Climate Change and
Watershed Management in partnership with Environment Canada and the Government of Ontario.
The Symposium was very well attended, with over 100 registrants, including over 40 municipal staff.
Key elements were that Climate Change has already begun and will continue to occur, with the
likelihood that we will reach a two times C02 atmospheric condition by the middle of the next
century.
Reductions in greenhouse gas loadings is and will continue to be a very important issue and needs
to be encouraged in all aspects of our lives. However, the changes in our climate will still occur and
adaptation to the new climatic conditions will be necessary.
The results of changes in the regional climate of this area will generally be in an increase in the mean
air temperature of between 3-5 degrees centigrade. This change will bring about additional changes
such as longer and more frequent periods of drought, lower lake levels and, while precipitation
amounts may vary only slightly, the precipitation type will shift to more intense storms. The greatest
shift in temperature will occur during the winter which will also lead to more winter melts and rains.
The impacts to our watersheds due to climate change may lead to afJ increase in erosion and
flooding within our watercourses due to temperature and precipitation changes, changes in the
terrestrial and aquatic environments as higher temperatures elongate growing seasons and allow
for invasive species to move in, and a change in aquatic species as water temperatures increase.
Issues to be considered by the TRCA, municipal, and senior levels of government include long
range planning, the health of local ecosystems, and increased budgets for everything for parks to
storm water infrastructure.
While awaiting the full proceedings of the Symposium, staff can bring forward suggestions on how
to best integrate Climate Change into TRCA programs, and how to elevate the need for long term
adaptive planning within local municipalities and other natural resource management agencies.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0389
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Individual members of the Water Board are encouraged to share their thoughts on this issue with
the Director of the Watershed Management Division.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
. Ability to raise long-range concerns about managing watersheds through improved policies
and procedures to protect greater percentages of woodlots, headwaters, and wetlands from
agricultural and urban development.
. Ability to profile the expertise of the Authority with respect to Climate Change and Watershed
Management.
. Possible development of training seminars on Adaptive management for municipal staff.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Staff time for preparation of proposed Program.
For information contact: Andrew McCammon, ext 5307
Date: December 8, 1999
RES.#D109/99 - WATERFRONT WINDMILLS
Toronto Hydro and Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative's preferred site
locations for wind turbines on the Toronto waterfront.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority support the concept of
. wind turbines as a renewable energy source;
THA T in accordance with City Council referral of this matter for ongoing comment, Toronto
Hydro and Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative be advised that the R. L. Clark Filtration
Plant site adjacent to Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Regional Park is not an appropriate site
location for the wind turbine demonstration project;
AND FURTHER THAT Toronto Hydro and Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative also be
advised that the 'Authority does not agree that the specific location at the Ashbridges Bay
Sewage Treatment Plant nor the TEDCO lands on the southeast corner of Leslie Street and
Unwin Avenue are acceptable but recommends that alternative sites elsewhere within the
Treatment Plant property or west of Leslie Street in the Port Lands be investigated.
0300 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
AMENDMENT
RES.#D110/99
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THA T the following be inserted as the last paragraph of the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue discussions about alternative sites with the Toronto
Renewable Energy Cooperative.
THE AMENDMENT WAS .............................................. CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ................................ CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on October 26 and 27, 1999, City Council approved with amendment Report NO.4
of the Works Committee dated Septem ber 23, 1999, (Attachment 1). The report was referred to the
Authority for ongoing comment.
In response to Council's recommendations, the Works Committee received at its meeting on
December 1, 1999 two reports for information regarding the wind turbine demonstration project
(Attachment 2). The reports identified three preferred waterfront locations for the wind turbines and
recommended setbacks from residential and park uses.
The wind turbine demonstration project involves ajoint venture partnership between Toronto Hydro
(through Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc.) and Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative, TREC,
(through Toronto Renewable Energy Windpower Co-op, TREC-WPC). The proposed wind turbines
will consist of a white painted, hollow tubular supporting tower structure which is approximately 4
metres in diameter at the base and approximately 80 to 90 metres high (Figure 1).
Toronto Hydro and TREC have selected three preferred site :ocations on City owned waterfront
lands to construct the demonstration project. The preferred sites are subject to further public
consultation and the Canadian Environmental Assessment process. The sites include:
. R. L. Clark Filtration Plant (Figure 2);
. Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant (Figure 3);
. TEDCO lands on the south east corner of Leslie and Unwin, (Figure 3).
The preferred siteJocations are adjacent to regional waterfront parks and function as park uses.
The Authority's concerns with the preferred site locations are the impacts the proposed wind
turbines will have on park designs, existing and future park uses, and public safety.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0391
R.L. CLARK FILTRATION PLANT
The R. L. Clark Filtration Plant is located adjacent to the Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Regional
Park, (CSSWRP). The CSSWRP is a regional waterfront park that includes the former Lakeshore
PsychiC3.tric Hospital. After the closure of the hospital in 1979, the buildings and grounds were
preserved and maintained as part of the Master Plan to reflect the former Victorian era landscape
and architecture. The site includes bicycle and interpretive trails, a reforested area, wetlands, wet
meadows, views of the lake and boat basin which presently includes the Lakeshore Yacht Club.
The preferred site location for the wind turbine demonstration project is in close proximity to the
water's edge and immediately adjacent to the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail. The lands adjacent to
the water's edge function as parkland by providing a continuous public open space linkage from
adjacent residential neighbourhoods through to CSSWRP.
It is staff's opinion that the wind turbine demonstration project will impact the active use and
enjoyment of park users, including yacht club operations. These concerns are associated with the
visual appearance of the wind turbines, noise and public safety.
The objectives of the CSSWRP Master Plan are to preserve the cultural heritage component of the
former Victorian era landscape and architecture associated with the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.
This has been accomplished through the design and landscaping features of the park. It is staff's
opinion that the wind turbine demonstration project is not consistent with the cultural heritage
component of the Master Plan and will distract from promoting this aspect of the City's cultural
heritage.
ASHBRIDGES BAY STP SITES AND TEDCO SITE
The Ashbridges Bay STP and TEDCO site locations are in close proximity to Tommy Thompson
Park, (TTP). TIP is approximately 247,27 hectares and functions as a waterfront urban wilderness
park. In addition to providing nesting habitats for a variety of bird life, TIP functions as a major
migration corridor in the Toronto area, as well as a significant staging and stop over area for
shorebirds and waterfowl. As a result, the majority of TIP and the Base lands (adjacent to the
proposed TEDCO site) have been designated by The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
as an Environmentally Significant Area. TIP has also been nominated as a Globally Significant
"Important Bird Area".
TTP provides passive recreational uses such as bird watching, and outdoor environmental
programming related to birds, bird monitoring and habitat appreciation. TIP also provides a regional
destination point and critical east west pedestrian corridor linkage along the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Trail.
0392 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
The preferred site location for the wind turbine demonstration project on the TEDCO lands is on the
south east corner of Leslie Street and Unwin Avenue at the entrance to TTP. This site is located at
the entrance way to TIP and functions as parkland. The Authority holds a permanent easement on
the south east corner of Leslie Street and Unwin Avenue with the former Toronto Harbour
Commission, (now called the Toronto Port Authority) to provide access to TTP.
Leslie Street from Lakeshore Boulevard through to TTP was identified as Green Infrastructure in
"Greening the Toronto Park Lands" by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. The objective of the plan
was to provide a north south pedestrian and terrestrial habitat corridor linkage through to the
waterfront. Consistent with these objectives, an urban design study was prepared by the former
Toronto Harbour Commission, (now the Port Authority) that identifies street scaping measures to
enhance the entrance way to TTP. The TIP Master Plan also identifies a Gateway to the park which
emphasizes the visual and aesthetic experience of the park.
It is staff's opinion that the entrance way to TTP is not an appropriate location for a wind turbine
demonstration project. These concerns as noted above are associated with the visual appearance
of the windmills, noise, public safety, Greening Infrastructure proposal and the TTP Master Plan.
Our preference would be to have alternative sites, west of Leslie Street north of Unwin Avenue
investigated.
The Ashbridges Bay STP sites are located south of the treatment plant along the water's edge. The
Authority's Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project, 1995-1999, and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust's "Greening the Port Lands" identifies a continuous waterfront trail extending
from Leslie Street through to Ashbridges Bay Park. The Ashbridges Bay STP site locations would
preclude the continuation of the waterfront trail and public access along the waterfront. We would
recommend that alternative sites on the west side of Leslie Street be investigated.
RATIONALE
The Authority supports in principle the concept of wind turbines as an alternative energy source.
However, it is staffs opinion that the preferred waterfront locations function as parkland and are not
consistent with the Authority's waterfront objectives. Based on the natural and cultural heritage
components of the CSSWRP Master Plan, it is staff's opinion that the R. L. Clark Filtration Plant site
is not an appropriate location for a wind turbine demonstration project.
The TEDCO and Ashbridges Bay STP site locations are not consistent with the environmental
e'nhancement objectives of the TIP Master Plan and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust's Greening
the Port Lands. The Ashbridges Bay STP site locations are not consistent with the Authority's
waterfront objectives for providing a continuous waterfront trail linkage along the waterfront. Staff
recommends that alternative site locations within the Port Lands be investigated.
DETAILS OF WORKTO BE DONE
Authority staff will actively participate in the Environmental Assessment study process, and will
provide further details and information on the windmill project as it becomes available.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0393
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Associated staff time to participate and comment on the Environmental Assessment and public
consultation process. There will be no impact on the Authority's budget for staff participation.
For information contact: Gemma Connolly, extension 5202
Date: December 7,1999
Attachments (5)
0394 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
Fi.,:;ure
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MAN'AGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0395 .
! .
,
.J
~I
r
NOT TO &CALE
118m PROPERTY'INFORMATION SHEET
R. L.'CLARK FILTRATION PLANT
Wl)RI:S & BQG8IC'f SERVUS
TEOiP<<:AI. S8MCES lJV1SIOII AND COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH PARK
"SUlMY &. MA??WG
.~f:'.,. ~~~,
NOTE: THIS Sl(E1'O-( HAS Figure 1-
BEEN COMPILED FROM
OFFICE RECORDS.
DATE: ocr. 04. 1999 SKETCH No. I:lMC-99-033
0396 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
-
;i
NOT TO SCALE
liJRDNTD PROPERTY INFORMATION SHEET
ASHBRIDGES BAY TREATMENT PLANT,
WORXS & EMERGENCY SElMCES
TE<>>I1CAl SEIMCES 0MSl0N ASHBRIDGES BAY PARK AND 1 TEDCO SITE
SUlVEY & /.lAPPING
NOTE: THIS SKETa-t HAS Figure 1- : ~".' ';,$11,
B"EEN COMPfLED FROM
OFACE RECORDS.
DATE: OCT. 01. 1999 SKETCH No. PMC-99-031
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0397 .
A-n-r4cIlM-ENJ.J -
liJRONIO CITY CLERK
Clause embodied in Report No.4 of the Works Committee, as adopted by the Council of the
City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 26 and 27, 1999.
1
Approval Process for the Siting
of Waterfront Windmills
(City Council on October 26 and 27,1999, amended this Clause by:
(1) amending Recommendation No. B( 4) of the Works Committee to read as follows:
"(4) Toronto Hydro arzd TREC, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and
Emere,encv Servirp~~p rPf11JP~( re ort back to the Works Committee for its
~.
eeting of December 1, 1999, if possible, on least one pr(:ferr~itp. in thrU::,ity
of oronto w zere wm flLZ e ocated, and report within three months, on
other potential sites throughout the City of Toronto where wi/wnills can be located,
. ",:ith ~pe(}ific attention to the former stocJ..:yards and rail corn"dors, brown field sites,
Hydro com'dors and otlier potentially suitable sites. "';
(2) adding to Recommendation No. B(6) of the Works Committee the words "such report to
include parkland/open space", so that such recommendation shall now read asfollows:
"(6) the question of not siting the windmills on lands zoned GJ GR or GM, be referred to
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report back to the
Committee when dealing with the specific siting, such report to include
parkland/open space;";
(3) deleting from Recommendation No. B(7) of the Works Committee the words "WvcJnvood
yards on Chn"stie Street", so that sHch recommendation shall now read as follmvs:
"(7) notwithstanding Recommendation No. (6), TREC, in consultation with Works and
Emergency Services Department staff, be requested to examine the following
locations and report back to the Committee 011 these sites as part of tire site selection
process:
43 Junction Road;
south emban}..;ment of Earlscourt Park;
- 115 Watshire Boulevard alld /lorthem property;
640 Lansdowne Avenue; and
Union Street north afTun/berry;" ;alld
0398 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999 .
-
2
(4) adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(1) the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee on any
legal liability that the City of Toronto may have with respect to the joint venture
between TREC, Toronto Hydro aJld the City; and
(2) if the final recommendation is for the windmills to be located on land owned or
leased by the City, sLlch land be provided at market value. ")
The Works Committee:
(A) recommends the adoption of the report dated September 23, 1999, from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to:
(i) amending Recommendation No. (1) by deleting the word "waterfront" and
adding thereto the words ''for a maximum of three windmills";
Oi) striking out Recommendation No. (2); and
(iil) adding to Recommendation No. (3) the words "and Toronto Hydro" after
"Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative (TREC)";
so that such Recommendations read as follows:
"(1) That Council support) in principle, the potential use of City owned lands or
lands leased by the City as sites for windmills (wind turbines) so that City
owned or leased sites may be considered in the comparison of potential sites for
a windmill under the Provincial Environmental Assessment process, for a
maximum of three windmills;
(2) that the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative (TREC) and Toronto Hydro,
be requested to provide a proposed environmental assessment Terms of
Reference including public consultation procedures, in accordance with the
requirements of the Provincial Environmental Assessment Act, for approval by
City Council prior to proceeding within the environmental assessment study;
(3) that City staff be requested to report further in the event that City owned or
leased lands are identified as preferred site locations through the environmental
, assessment process, and to clarify what, if any, additional approvals, leasing
agreements, or zoning amendments would be required, and how best obtained,
at that time;
(4) that Toronto Hydro and TREC be requested to take into account, as part of the
environmental assessment, the comments and recommendations of City Council
with respect to this matter;
December 17.1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0399 .
-
3
(5) that this report be referred to the Economic Development and Parks Committee
and each of the Community Councils for information; and
(6) that TREC and Toronto Hydro be advised that the City reserves the right to .'
accept or reject the use of any City owned or leased lands for a windmill,
irrespective of any environmental assessment process"; and
(B) further recommends that:
(1) neighbourhood consultation committees be established for communities that are
affected to assist in the site selection process, the terms of reference for such
environmental assessment processes as may be required, and such
environmental assessment processes themselves;
(2) Toronto Hydro and TREC be requested to submit Terms of Reference for the
formation of a public evaluation committee that would provide ongoing input
and commentary on this demonstration project;
(3) this report be referred to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for
ongoing comment;
(4) Toronto Hydro, in consultation with the Commissioner of "Works and
- Emergency Services, be requested to report back to the Committee wi.thLrl three
months, on potential sites throughout the City of Toronto where windmills can
be located, with specific attention to the former stockyards and rail corridors,
brown field sites, Hydro corridors and other potentially suitable sites;
(5) . the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to
the Works Committee on a public consultation process that" could be
undertaken in the evaluation of such potential sites;
(6) the question of not siting the windmills on lands zoned G, GR or GM, be
referred to the Commissioner of 'Works and Emergency Services for a report
back to the Committee when dealing with the specific siting;
(7) notwithstanding Recommendation No. (6), TREC, in consultation with Works
and Emergency Services Department sta.."f, be requested to examine the
following locations and report back to the Committee on these sites as part of
the site selection process:
- 43 Junction Road;
- south embankment of Earlscourt Park;
- 115 Wiltshire Boulevard and northern property;
- 640 Lansdowne A venue;
- Wychwood yards on Christie Street; and
- Union Street north of Turnberryj
0400 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
-
4
(8) the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Committee on the
bonusing aspects of allowing the production of a saleable commodity on
City-owned property; and
(9) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a
report to the Committee on noise levels produced by commonly used wind
turbines.
The Works Comrriittee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner
of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on
October 26,27 and 28, 1999, on who the proponent for the windmill project will be, i.e., Toronto
Hydro, TREC or the City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services Department, and to provide
f~rther informatio!1 on TREC, including the membership of the Board of Directors, whether it is
incorporated, its relationship with Toronto Hydro, and whether there is a legal agreement between
them.
The Works Committee submits the following report (September 23, 1999) 'from the
Commissioner o(Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
__ . _ .. . _ J'he purpose at tJ1i~_ ~-R9rt ~JQ~eet_~2-l!I}s:j!":~ l'l,!pQort .!!Lprincipk.Jor Jb~ siting of v{i.l1.eJirQI1J . .-
electricity generating windmills (wind turbines) along the Toronto waterfront in areas that appear
to best meet the selection criteria and that may be sited on City owned or leased lands, subject to the
proponent's satisfactory completion of required environmental assessments including public
consultation, and to clarify the approval process required to locate windmills on the Toronto
waterfront.
Source of Funds:
There is no rurect financial implication to the City associated with this report.
Recommendations:
(1) That Council support, in principle, the potential use of City owned lands or lands leased by
the City as sites for waterfront windmills (wind turbines) so that City owned or leased sites
may be considered in the comparison of potential sites for a windmill under the Provincial
Environmental Assessment process;
(~) that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to support, in principle,
the use of its lands that are leased to the City as potential sites for waterfront windmills so
that these sites may be considered in the comparison of potential sites for a windmill under
the Provincial Environmental Assessment process;
(3) that the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative (TREC), be requested to provide a
proposed environmental assessment Terms of Reference including public consultation
procedures, in accordance with the requirements of the Provincial Environmental Assessment
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0401
-
5
Act, for approval by City Council prior to proceeding within the environmental assessment
study;
(4) that City staff be requested to report further in the ,event that City owned or leased lands are
identified as preferred site locations through the environmental assessment process, and to
clarify what, if any, additional approvals, leasing agreements, or zoning amendments would
be required, and how best obtained, at that time;
(5) that Toronto Hydro and TREC be requested to take into account, as part of the environmental
assessment, the comments and recommendations of City Council with respect to this matter;
(6) that this report be referred to the Economic Development and Parks Committee and each of
the Community Councils for inforrnatioI!; and
(7) that TREC and Toronto Hydro be advised that the City reserves the right to accept or reject
the use of any City owned or leased lands for a windmill, irrespective of any environmental
assessment process.
Report Request:
The WOrks Committee on July 14, 1999, had before it a communication (July 8, 1999) from
..- -CQuncillor-Jack-1.ayton;V-ice-ChaiI;-T..oronto-H)'dro-Board,rccmnmending--that -the Commissioner----.- -,- -
of Works and Emergency Services report to the Works Committee in September 1999 on the siting -
of two wind turbines along the Toronto Waterfront (a.k.a. waterfront windmills). The Committee
also received a communication (July 21,1999) from Councillor Irene Jones (Lakeshore-Queensway)
listmg concerns of constituents and requesting that they be addressed in the report. Councillor Bill
Saundercook, Chair, Works Committee, agreed in a communication (July 22, 1999) to Councillor
Irene Jones .that her constituents' issues should be taken into account in the staff report.
Subsequently, TREC wrote to Councillor Saundercook (August 10, 1999) requesting that the report
be forwarded to the October meeting of the Works Committee as a deputation item.
Specifically, the request was to identify the approval process required to locate two wind turbines
(windmills) on the Toronto waterfront, including an outline of the process needed to obtain City and
other agency approvals (including environmental assessment), the technical viability and
environmental expectations to be satisfied, other environmental impacts and viability concerns, the
public consultation and communication process to be followed and other legal and financial aspects
incl uding potential leasing arrangements.
This report addresses the original request and the supplementary request but deliberately does not
fully address all issues in order to avoid prejudicing the appropriate environmental and planning
approval processes, both of which require community consultation and input.
However, the report does indicate the criteria used to identify and select potential sites; the sites that
appear to meet the selection criteria; the sites that meet the selection criteria and that are also City
owned or leased; and the various site dependent approval processes required to permit the
construction and operation of the waterfront windmills (wind turbines),
0402 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 -
-
6
The report has been prepared in consultation with Toronto Hydro and Toronto Renewable Energy
Co-operative.
Comments:
The City's Perspective:
City Council has adopted a commitment to achieve a reduction of 20 percent in carbon dioxide (CO~
emissions from all sources by the year 2005 (Clause embodied in Report No. 26 of The Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee, as adopted by Council, December 16 and 17, 1999).
Locating windmills, as along the Toronto waterfront, is clearly supportive of this policy, since the
-qse of wind for electrical generation reduces the need to burn fossil fuels and hence would contribute
to the achievement of the City's 20 percent CO2 emission reduction goal. The recommendations
contained in this report are directed towards a process that will result in the implementation of a
windmill project. However, the recommendations contained in this report do not pre-determine the
. site to be selected, nor do they resolve the apparent social conflicts over cluster area selection or
conflicts with other environmental directions, such as use of public parkland areas. These questions
will be addressed and resolved as part of an environmental assessment process complete with public
consultation, and will be subject to subsequent Council review, including potential further public
input if City lands are selected for the project and land use regulation amendments are required.
City Council has also adopted Report No. 26 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at
its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, which included adopted recommendations for staff to
report back on how to further"... facilitate the expeditious development of the .... TREC wind
turbine and similar renewable energy projects as part of the City's overall sustainable energy_
strategy" .
The Proponents:
The waterfront windmills project is ajoint venture partnership of Toronto Hydro (through Toronto
Hydro Energy Services Inc.) and Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative, TREC (through Toronto
Renewable Energy Windpower Co-op, TREC-WPC).
TREC was founded in 1997 by members of the North Toronto Green Community, a
neighbourhood-based environmental group. The Co-operative was launched with grants from the
Toronto Atmospheric Fund, a statutory agency of the City of Toronto whose mandate is to fund
projects to help Toronto meet its commitment to lower carbon dioxide emissions.
Toronto Hydro was incorporated in May 1999. It has supported several local community-based
green energy programs, and is committed to work with the City of Toronto to meet the 1990 United
Nations Summit objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2005.
Proposal Concept:
Modem windmills are more technically called wind turbines (wheel driven by air flow) or a wind
driven generator because they are used to generate electricity rather than mill grain. However, in
December 17. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0403
-
7
more common parlance, the modem wind driven turbine is still referred to as a windmill, and that
common use is continued here.
Modem windmills differ in appearance and purpose from their predecessors. The proposed
waterfront windmills will consist of a white painted, hollow tubular supporting tower structure which
is approximately 4 metres in diameter at its base, tapering to less at the top, and between SS and
65 metres high (depending on specific local wind regime requirement). Mounted to the tower is a
three-thin-bladed impeller (a reverse propeller) made of white fiberglass laminate with each blade
being approximately 25 metres long (23.5 or 26 metres). The tower and blade (at blade zenith)
together have an approximate maximum height of between 80 and 90 metres.
The proponents propose to construct two wind turbines each with a rated output between 660KW
apd.1MW. Within the anticipated wind regime of the Toronto waterfront, these will be sufficient
to generate 2800 MWh (megawatt-hours) of electricity annually. This is sufficient to provide the
electricity requirements of 500 to 600 households in Toronto. The "green electricity" obtained
(i.e., non-fuel combusting or CO2 releasing) from these turbines is equivalent to the benefit obtained
by 400,000 medium sized trees sequestering carbon dioxide. For comparison, replacement of the
power generated by the Lakeview Generating Station would require in the order of 1000 wind
turbines.
The wind turbine generates electricity that can be added to the electricity grid. The recent
restructuring of Ontario Hydro. included generic permissions to allow local power utilities to generate
'power and provide it to the gnd. This recent change pFevided TREC and Toronto Hydro with an
opporturnty that was not previously available. Power can be added to the grid directly and customers
can.be charged for that "green electricity" plus a "wheeling" or transmission fee. The wind turbine
provides green power that can be purchased at a modest premium by anyone with a share in TREC,
or by direct purchase through Toronto Hydro. Technically, TREC' s shareholders each own a portion
of the wind turbine structure rather than any share of the power output. Shareholders contribute to
mitial capital construction and to subsequent operating costs. TREC's shareholders will obtain a
credit on their electricity bill as partial return of their investment.
Membership in the TRE Co-op (TREC-WPC) is open to all Toronto Hydro subscribers at a cost of
$500.00 per share or "turbine unit". TREC-WPC members will regularly receive an energy credit
on their Toronto Hydro bill for the amount of energy their portion of the turbine produces during its
anticipated 25-year life.
At this time, Toronto Hydro and TREC are proposing to establish two waterfront windmills within
the boundaries of Toronto. This not a pilot project because the technology is already proven and the
business schemes have been demonstrated to be successful elsewhere (e.g., Copenhagen, Denmark
where the municipal utility combined with a similar green energy co-operative). However, the
project is a demonstration project in that it is a new concept for Toronto, and could contribute to
building awareness in the City that power may be denved from a variety of sources and that green
power, which is environmentally responsible, can also be econoIDlcally viable and practically
applied. The greater the success of the demonstration, the greater the likelihood of developing
further community support for additional green energy projects in the City by Toronto Hydro, TREe
and other organizations. The maximum economic success is hoped for by siting the wind turbines
in as optimum a location as possible. Ideally, wind turbines should be sited where there is strong
0404 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
-
8
and undisturbed wind. In Toronto, this encourages their siting in the vicinity of Lake Ontario or at
high elevations.
The capital costs for each turbine (approximately $1.2 million each) is to be provided in two ways:
(i) by selling "turbine unit" shares, and (ii) by Toronto Hydro providing its share of the cost of the
joint venture through its capital budget. The Government of Canada, through the Technology Early
Action Measures component of the Climate Change Action Fund, is providing $330,000.00 to
TREC, and through Environment Canada is also providing a further $98,500.00 in pre-purchased
"turbine shares" for its. Toronto offices and laboratories.
The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has also agreed to provide up to $800,000.00 in bridge financing to
TREC for the project subject to certain conditions.
Environmental Assessment
Under any environmental assessment (EA), either federal or provincial, the proponent is responsible
for ensuring that they comply with EA requirements. The proponent in this cas.e is Toronto Hydro
and TREC (TREC). This proposal could be subject to environmental assessment under both the
federal and provincial legislation. The federal legislation is entitled the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA). The provincial legislation is referred to as the Environmental Assessment
Act (EAA).
Under the CEAA, an environmental assessment is required for projects for which the Federal
Government is the proponent or where the project uses federal funds or lands. Where a project is
subject to a federal EA, the applicable federal department assesses the project under the CEAA and
ensures that the project fulfills the associated CEAi\ requirements including possible referral to
mediation or a hearing. It is the federal department's responsibility to establish the scope of the
project and the scope of assessment. As such, the proponent should contact the specific federal
department and obtain confirmation of EA requirements.
The waterfront windmill proponents, TREC and Toronto Hydro, have already obtained details
regarding the federal environmental assessment requirements from Environment Canada. The
proponents are required to comply with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act (CEAA)'because federal funds have been provided to the project.
Only municipal and other government agency projects similar to the windmill are statutorily required
to comply with the provincial EAA. Therefore this project is only subject to the provincial EAA if
the Province designates it under the Act (which is possible for private projects). If the Province
does deem the undertaking subject to the EAA, then the proponent must make an application to the
Millistry of the Environment for approval of the project. Such an application consists of proposed
Terms of Reference submitted under section 6 (1) of the EAA and an Environmental Assessment
submitted under Sub-section 6.2 (1) of the EAA. Generally speaking, the Terms of Reference is the
plan or road map for the actual environmental assessment. In it, the proponent describes how their
process will address the requirements of the EAA inclucting the consultation done in developing the
Terms of Reference. Regarding the requirements of the provincial environmental assessment itself,
the project must include a description of the purpose.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0405 -
-
9
The proponents have requested a ruling from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) to
detenrune whether or not the waterfront windmill project is to be officially subject to the Province's
Environmental Assessment Act. The proponents have indicated that they wish to follow the
provincial environmental assessment process irrespective of the decision of the MOE. The Ministry
has indicated that it will not oversee any environmental assessment if it is not "designated" by the
Ministry.
As noted above, if the Ministry of the Environment does not "designate" the project as subject to
provincial requirements the proponents have indicated that they will still informally follow, to the
fullest extent possible, the guidance provided by the provincial environmental assessment process
\yhile ensuring that they satisfy the federal environmental assessment requirements. However, if the
project is formally "designated" by the Province, a more formal melding of the two processes will
be developed. Regardless of the outstanding 1vlinistry of the Environment decision, the proponents
have already initiated ajoint study and public communication program to satisfy both the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act and the provincial Environmental Assessment Act. They are also
developing a procedure to address all identified aspects of both. The expanded study,
communication and reporting procedure is intended to ensure the appropriateness of the project and
to ensure that appropriate public consultation takes place. The study process, including the public
consultation process, should be approved by City Council before being proceeded with.
Use of Clly Owned or Other SItes for Windmill:
It could bc-considered prejudIcial to the environmental assessment process if the City were to
recognize and approve of any sites without an appropriate environmental assessment being
conducted. Therefore, at this stage only the use of public land for the purpose of installing wind
turbines (windmills) should be supported in pnnciple.
Further municipal approvals related to municipal planning and ownership may be required. Potential
sites may need Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments before a Building Permit can be
issued.
If the yet-to-be-identified preferred site is City owned or leased, the proponent will require the City's
approval subject to a satisfactory leasing agreement.
Most of the City's remaining unbuilt waterfront lands are "open space" and are in public ownership.
The waterfront windmill proponents have not established ownership as a selection criteria, but the
application of other comparative criteria, plus the apparent shortage of siting opportUnities on private
lands on the waterfront, indicates that serious consideration should be given to siting the project on
public lands.
In the City of Toronto, such public open space is most commonly associated with one qf the
following categories:
(a) lands used for public works (sewage treatment, water filtration);
(b) lands used for recreation (public park5);
(c) lands with restricted use (environmentally sensitive areas, natural areas); and
(d) lands that are vacant (abandoned or undeveloped industrial lands).
0406 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
-
10
The use of several publicly owned sites will also require additional approvals and/or comments to
be obtained from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (in areas of Lake Ontario shoreline
flooding), from the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (in areas proximate to the Waterfront Trail),
public liaison committees, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (in flight path zones of Lester B.
Pearson Airport), Toronto Port Authority (in flight path zones of the Toronto City Centre Airport
on the Toronto Islands), Transport Canada and NavCan (in proximity to navigation equipment for
both airports).
Public Consultation and Communication Process:
1;'REC and Toronto Hydro have been conducting ongoing public consultation on the proposed wind
turbine siting project since May 1998. TREC and Toronto Hydro have advised that public
involvement and consultation has four goals:
- raising awareness and educating the public about wind turbines as a sound source of "green
energy";
- scoping issues of public ~oncem related to the proposal;
- addressing and responding to concerns using educational material, oral responses, research
of issues, and where needed, further study to develop factual responses; and
- development of public acceptance of wind turbme sites on publicly owned land in the City
of Toronto.
Toronto Hydro and TREC have indicated that public consultation activities are directed to
site-specific interested parties, to create early involvement of those groups in the siting process, and
to the broad city-wide public for the purposes of building public awareness about wind turbines as
a rene\\(able source of energy. Toronto Hydro and TREC have indicated that through its public
consultation activities, it will address public concerns, propose mitigation and develop a critical level
of public acceptance for wind turbines in the City of Toronto.
Toronto Hydro and TREC' s public consultation activities have included a tour of a wind turbine in
Kincardine, Ontario, presentations to stakeholders and environmental groups, and two public
meetings. Toronto Hydro and TREC have held public meetings in, those areas where they are of the
opinion that the siting for the wind turbines appears favourable. One meeting was held in the east
end of Toronto near to the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant and the other in the west end of Toronto
near the Colonel Samuel Smith ParkIR.L. Clark Water Filtration Plant.
A City staff review of the consultation process to date indicates that the public is generally not aware
of key decision making points in the process, or when and how its input should be given.
Toronto Hydro and TREC have indicated that public consultation activities to date have been done
in support of their federal environmental assessment requirements. As noted above, Toronto Hydro
and TREe have already indicated that they will adopt the guidance provided by the provincial EA
Act, including all public consultation, even though they may have no obligation to do so. City
Council should confirm its endorsement of this arrangement.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0407 -
-
11
Potential Windmill Locations:
A. Site Selection Criteria Proposed for use by TREC and Toronto Hydro:
A number of site selection criteria developed by TREC and Toronto Hydro effectively scope the
proposal to a limited set of sites. The criteria fall into two groups: those which must be met
(i.e., they are essential) and those that are deemed preferred (i.e., they are desirable but not essential).
The essential site selection criteria group consists of those criteria that must be satisfied, a site must:
(a) be in Toronto Hydro's grid connection area and billing zone;
(p) have adequate wind regime;
(c) be compatible with present and future land uses;
(c;I) comply with Official Plan and Zoning requirements;
(e) have landowner's pennission to use the site; and
(t) be more than 200 metres from the nearest residence.
The preferred criteria group identified by Toronto Hydro and TREC includes those criteria that
encourage a speedier approval, and minimize avoidable extra costs and problems, as well as
maximize benefits. Wherever possible a site should preferably:
(g) not require soil clean-up;
(h) not regUJre to be flood-proofed;
(i) have suitable soil and groundwater conditions to support the required structure;
U) require minimum connection requirements (length) to grid;
(k) be accessible to the public for educational purposes; and
(I) receive local community support.
Toronto Hydro and TREC have indicated that the project has to be located in the City of Toronto in
order to connect to the Toronto Hydro grid. Early regional wind studies were undertaken in the
Toronto area by Zephyr North on behalf of the Federal Government. Zephyr North's study indicated
the desirability of choosing a site in close proximity to the waterfront. More recently, TREC
corimussioned Zephyr North to confmn their findings for the Toronto Waterfront and to undertake
further analysis of local wind regime in site cluster areas.
B. Preliminary Site Search:
A number of City owned sites have been previously ruled out in a preliminary assessment by Toronto
Hydro and TREC for various reasons such as: land stability and suitability for foundation
requirements, Transport Canada height restrictions as a result of the operation of Toronto Island
Airport, poor or obstructed wind regime, close proxnnity to residences and cost prohibition. Also,
a number of City owned and leased sites have been identified by TREC and Toronto Hyqro as
suitable for further investigation.
C. Site Selection Conflicts to be Resolved:
The potential City owned and leased candidate sites includes parklands owned by the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority ORCA) and operated by the CIty. The agreement of the TRCA as
0408 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 -
-
12
landowner and of the City as operator needs to be obtained prior to final approval. The City should
consider providing its support in principle for locating windmills in the City and on City lands and
requesting similar support from the TRCA, subject to the proposed site being identified through an
appropriate environmental assessment process.
A number of potential conflicts need to be considered in locating a windmill in, or near to, any
parklands. These issues include but are not limited to recreational issues, such as kite flight and
picnicking, environmental issues, such as possible impacts on bird and butterfly migrations, and
impacts on adjacent natural areas (conservation lands), plus the visual impacts, if a windmill is sited
in or near a park, that could detract from park users enjoyment.
Clearly, although the provision and use of "green energy" is likely to be environmentally beneficial,
there are other environmental aspects that should be considered. :All such issues will be addressed
and resolved as part of the intended Environmental Assessment process, including holding public
. meetings and consulting with affected agencies. Support in principle to consider the use of City
owned or leased lands, in the context outlined above, would help to facilitate the environmental
a~sessment process but not pre-determine its outcome.
The potential use of the City's Water Filtration Plant or Wastewater Treatment Plant lands are also
complicated by future operational expansion requirements, ongoing environmentaJ assessments, and
related matten;, including community approval. These issues will be further explored and resolved
as part of the environmental process.
Project Viabihty:
The general technical validity of the ~roposed installations has been proven at numerous sites in
Europe, California, Alberta and elsewhere. The sufficiency of the expected local wind regime to
generate wind energy has been proven by analysis of anemometer readings taken in the west and east
ends of the City.
The financial viability depends on the market price for electricity. Preliminary assessment by the
proponent indicates that wind power might have to be sold at a premium. Accordingly, in the case
that the City of Toronto enters into a land lease agreement with the proponent, such an agreement
should stipulate the requirement of dismantling the turbine by the proponent when the operation of
the turbine is terminated.
The viability of the project from a community standpoint, as identified from public meetings which
have already been held, appears to focus on concerns regarding noise, birds, and ice shedding plus
a further concern regarding visual aesthetics. The literature regarding wind turbines suggests that
additional noise associated with such installations is virtually inaudible beyond a 200 metre radius
in urban environments. The potential for birds to fly into the tower, or into the surface of the rotating
blades is apparent, especially during storm conditions, however, the literature suggests birds can
normally see and avoid such installations during less active weather conditions.
Ice shedding, from tower and blades, is possible following periods of freezing rain or following
windless periods where ambient air temperatures are below the freezing point and the air is saturated
or supersaturated such that rime coatings develop. The occurrence of freezing rain or rime (i.e., ice)
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 D409 -
-
13
coatings will occur similar to any unheated structure, tower or tree. What is different is the potential
for ice to be "thrown" from the windmill's blades as they turn.
However, wind turbines installed in comparable European installations in similar climates are
governed by sensors that close down the turbine in the event of ice build-up on the blades. This is
a standard operating procedure and precautionary measure to prevent damage to the turbine unit by
unbalanced blade weights causing uneven rotation, but it also acts to address ice on blades being
"thrown" off. Maintenance people attending on site are required to restart the windmill. Heated
blades are another possible option for the waterfront windmills. There is every reason to assume that
with appropriate facility design and operation, ice thrown from windmill blades should not occur.
In order to address perception and acceptance of the visual aesthetics of wind turbines, Toronto.
Hydro and TREC are encouraging and facilitating guided visits to the Ontario Hydro installation on
the Bruce Peninsula to allow people to judge the visual impacts for themselves, as weli as to
experierice the additional noise levels created by similar installations, albeit in a non-urban setting.
T!,e proponent has indicated that all of these potential concerns will be fully addressed as an integral
part of the proJect's en vironmental assessment.
Conclusions:
Waterfront windmills (wind. turbines) are a renewable power source (green energy). Their use assists
- in meeting Council's commitments to reduce generation of greenhouse gases and reduce the use of
air polluting and smog producing power sources.
Conceptually, the proposal is potentially environmentally beneficial and technically viable 'as
exemplified by many installations in Europe, California, Alberta and elsewhere. The specific
location(s) at which such wind turbines can be installed will be determined as part of an
environmental assessment process including appropriate public consultation.
It is recommended that in order to better facilitate the use and acceptance of electricity generating
windmills in Toronto, Council should support in principle, subject to the conclusions of an
environmental assessment, the installation of waterfront windmills in Toronto, in support of
Council's own commitment to a 20 percent carbon dioxide (C02) reduction by the year 200S.
Further, prior to the environmental assessment being proceeded with, its Terms of Reference should
be sub~tted to City Council for approval.
Also, to facilitate the evaluation of siting options under the environmental assessment process, it is
recommended that Council support, in principle, the potential use of City owned or leased land for
two waterfront windmills.
City Council's support, in principle, should be subject to the satisfactory completion of an
appropriate site selection process in keeping with the principles of the provincial environmental
assessment process, and in keeping with provincial requirements if the project is "designated" by the
MOE. The environmental assessment should also comply with federal environmental legislation,
and be in compliance with local by-laws (or amendments to these by-laws should be sought).
,
0410 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
-
14
It is also recommended that staff be requested to report back on the cbmpletion of the site selection
process and the detennination of the preferred site(s) resulting from the CEAA and EA process, and
the details of any required lease arrangement and land use regulation changes that are required.
Public meetings should be held by the proponent rather than City staff in order to avoid any
percei ved conflict of interest.
This report has been prepared in consultation with the Commissioner" of Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism.
Contact Name:
Christopher Morgan
S.enior Specialist - Air Quality Improvement Branch
Technical Services
TeL 392-6903
The Works Committee reports, for the informatIon of Council, having also had before it during
consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications and submissions:
(i) (September 7, 1999) addressed to Mr. Don Barnett, Toronto Ornithological Club, from the
Ministry of the Environment in response to his communication with respect to the
announcement by the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative and Toronto Hydro of their
intention to build up to three 660 KW wind turbines on the Toronto lakefront; and expressing
reservations with respect to the site selections in the proposal;
(ii) (September 23, 1999) from Mr. Bryan Young, General Manager, Toronto Renewable Energy
Co-operative, and Ms. Joyce McLean, Manager, Green Energy Services, Toronto Hydro,
requesting that the report regarding the windmill project be listed as a deputation item;
(ui) (October 2, 1999) from Ms. Kate Chung, Toronto, Ontario, in support of the wind turbine
proposal of the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative;
(iv) (October 4, 1999) from Mr. W. H. Bayley, Scarborough, Ontario, requesting the City to
support the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative proposal for approval, in. principle, of
the siting of wind turbines on City lands;
(v) (October 4, 1999) from Mr. William J. Mathews, Toronto, Ontario, requesting approval of
the process for Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operati ve to install a wind turbine on
municipal land, as soon as possible;
(vi) (October 4, 1999) from Mr. Barrie Gray, Toronto, Ontario, urging the support of the wind
turbine project;
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0411
-
. 15
(vii) (October 4, 1999) from Mr. Wilf Moll, Renewable Energy Solutions, commenting on the
TREC wind turbine proposal, the suitability of the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant site, and
the impact on birds;
(viii) (October 4, 1999) from Ms. Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada, advising that
the Animal Alliance of Canada supports the recommendations in the staff report, and the
Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operatlYe and Toronto Hydro in their decision to satisfy the
requirements of both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Provincial
Environmental Assessment Act;
(j.x) (October 5, 1999) from Mr. H. Bruce Crofts, Toronto, Ontario, advising that he and his wife
strongly endorse the wind turbine project for the Toronto waterfront;
(x) (October 5, 1999) from Mr. Nuchael Harrison, President, Citizens Concerned about the
Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront, expressing concern with respect to the approval process
for the siting of waterfront windmills, including the use of public lands for private businesses
to generate profit, the use of the Colonel Samuel Smith Park and other waterfront park.s, and
the impact of the proposal on avian wildlife;
(xi) (October 5, 1999) from Ms. Ruth Rlchardson, Manager, Environmental and Corporate
Affairs, Lever Pond's, advising that Lever Pond's supports the generation of renewable
energy such as wind energy wlthin the City of Toronto as a means. to help combat issues of
urban smog and global climate change and the issuing of a site approval for the proposed -
Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operatJve wind turbine on CIty of Toronto property;
(xii) (October 5, 1999) from Ms. Gillian Hegge, Danforth Massage Therapy Clmic, requesting
that the Comrhittee approve in principle the ldea of siting wmd turbines on public bind,
subject to approval from the provincial and federal governments;
(xiii) (October 5, 1999) from the Toronto Environmental Alliance, submittmg briefing notes in
support of the approval process for the siting of a waterfront windmill;
(xi v) (October 5, 1999) from Dr. Sheela V. Basrur, Medical Officer of Health, Toronto Public
Health, expressing support, in principle, of the approval process for the siting of waterfront
windmills provided that the appropriate studies are undertaken through the environmental
assessment process regarding the siting of these facilities, and provided that these studies
take into account community, public health and environmental concerns;
(xv) (October 5, 1999) from Mr. Mark Pomerantz, Pharmacist, encouraging support for the
proposal that Council approve, in principle, the siting of two wind turbines on City land;
(x vi) (October 6, 1999) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Chillr, Safe Sewage Conunittee, raising questions
and concerns with respect to the approval process for the sitmg of waterfront windmills;
(x vii) (October 6, 1999) from Mr. Richard Brault and Ms. Dianne Croteau, Studio Innova Inc.,
expressing full support for the construction of two wind turbines on Toronto's waterfront;
0412 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
16
(xviii) (October 6, 1999) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, expressing concern with respect
to the approval process for the siting of waterfront windmills;
(xv) (undated) from Mr. Robert Mew, President, Hurricane Canvas Inc., in support of the Toronto
Renewable Energy Co-operative initiative, and the siting of the turbine on public land;
(x vi) (undated) from Mr. Brian Milani, Eco-Materials Group, in support of the 1RECfToronto
Hydro proposal to erect wind turbines on the Toronto waterfront;
(x vii) (October 6,1999) from Mr. Bryan Young, General Manager, Toronto Renewable Energy,
and Ms. Joyce McLean, Manager, Green Energy Services, Toronto Hydro, submitting copies
of their deputations and additional material with respect to the Waterfront Wind Turbine
Project; and
(xviii) (October 6, 1999) from Ms. Jennifer Morrow, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, submitting a copy
of her presentation.
The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing
matter:
Mr. Bryan Young, General Manager, Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative, and
submitted material with respect thereto;
Ms. Joyce McLearr; Manager, Green Energy Services, Toronto Hydro, and submitted
material with respect thereto;
Ms. Shirley Farlinger, United Nations Association of Canada;
- Mr. Oliver Carroll, Toronto, Ontario;
Mr. Tooker Gomberg, Energy & Climate Campaigner, Greenpeace;
Ms. Jennifer Morrow, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, and submitted a copy of her presentation;
Mr. Dan McDermott, Director, The OntAIRio Campaign;
- Mr. Jose Etcheverry, Sustainable Energy Group, University of Toronto;
- Mr. Peter Schrama, Toronto, Ontario;
Mr. Glenn McTaggart, Etobicoke, Ontano;
- Ms. Lois Corbett, Toronto Environmental Alliance;
- Mr. Ken Ogilvie, Executive Director, Pollution Probe;
- Mr. Boris Mather, Past PresidentlDirector, Citizens for Lakeshore Greenway;
- Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage COffilTIlttee, and submitted a communication with - .
respect thereto;
- Mr. John Carley, Co-Chair, Friends of the Spit;
- Mr. Douglas Buck, Toronto, Ontario;
- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, and submitted a communication with respect thereto;
Ms. Sara Bjorkquist, Vice-Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance;
Ms. Uz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada, and submitted a communication with
respect thereto;
- Mr. Cameron Miller, Toronto, Ontario;
- Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto; and
Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore Queensway.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
0413 -
-
. - 17
(City Council on October 26 and 27J 1999, had before it, dun"ng consideration of the foregoing
Clause, the following communication (October 26, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton:
Recommendation:
To amend B (4) to read as follows (additions in bold):
Toronto Hydro and TREe, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services, be requested to report back to the Works Committee for its meeting of December 1,
if possible, on at least one preferred site in the City of Toronto where windmills could be
located and report within three monthsJ on other potential sites throughout the City of
Toronto where windmills can be locatedJ with specific attention to the former stockyards and
rail corn"dorsJ brown field sites, Hydro corn"dors and other potentially suitable sites
Rationale:
The December 1, 1999 date is necessary in order for Toronto Hydro and TREC to meet March 31J
2000 deadlines set by the Federal and Provincial governments:
(a) Fulfilling the anticipated harmonization of the Federal and Provincial Environmental
Assessment process deadlines (this requires site specific approval by City Council by mid
January).
-
(b) Meeting Federal Govemmentfunding requirements that require Toronto Hydro and TREC
to put an order in for a turbine (there is a 6 month production queue).
To Meet the March 31, 2000 deadline the following actions should occur.
December 1 :
Works Committee considers van"ous reports on neighbourhood consultation, Tenns'of Reference on
the' Environmental Assessment, legal issues, etc... (ie reports asked in the clause) and a
recommendation for at least one specific site.
December 14:
Council considers approval of one or more specific sites, with any necessary conditions if
outstanding issues still exist. (This needs to be done for Toronto Hydro and TREC to proceed with
the EA process)
Mid January:
TREC and Toronto Hydro must complete site specific studies and analysis in order to complete the
EA documentation in early February.
0414 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 -
-
18
First week in February:
(a) TREC and Toronto Hydro must complete EA documentation on a specific site or sites; and
(b) TREC and Toronto Hydro need to post final EA documentfor a 30 day review to fulfill EBR
provincial requirements.
First week in March:
Toronto Hydro and TREC make final changes and respond to any concerns to meet March 31
deadline)
(City Council also had before itJ dun"ng consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report
(October 25, 1999)from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to satisfy the Works CommitteeJs request for further information
identifying the proponents of the windmill project and their corporate relationship and joint
contractual arrangements.
FinanciallmDlications and ImDact Statement:
There aTe no direct financial impacts on the City resulting from consideration of this report.
Recommendations:
That this report be receivedfor information.
Background:
The Works CommitteeJ at its meeting on October 6, 1999 considered a staff report of September 23,
1999 entitled, "Approval Processfor the Siting of Waterfront Windmills" and
"(C) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly
to Council for its meeting on October 26J 27 and 28J 1999J on who the proponent for the windmill
project will be, i.e. Toronto Hydro TREC or the City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services
Department, and to provide further information on TRECJ including the membership of the Board
of Directors, whether it is incorporated, its relationship with Toronto Hydro, and whether there is
a.legal agreement between them. "
Comments:
Proponents of the Windmill Project
No department of the City of Toronto is involved as a proponent of this project.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0415 .
-
. . 19
The official co-proponents for the windmill (wind turbine) project are the TREC Wmd Power
Co-operative (TREC- WPC) and Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. who have formed a joint
venture partnership to further the project.
TREC- WPC is an affiliated co-operative corporation of Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative
(TREC), both of which are separately incorproated. TREC-WPC is the company in which members
will own windmill related assests. TREC is the company which acts on behalf of the TREC- WPC
to execute the project development.
,
The incorporation of Toronto Hydro Corporation, which occurred as a result of a City of Toronto
transfer by-law in accordance with the Province ofOntan"o 's Electricity Competition Act (Bill 35)
on July 1J 1999, created both the new holding company of Toronto Hydro Corporation and Toronto
Hydro Energy Services Inc., as one of two subsidiary companies. Toronto Energy Services Inc. is
the competitive company dedicated to the retailing of electricity and related businesses.
TREC- WPC and TREC - their Boards of Directors'
-
(a) TREC- WPC - Board of Directors
President Judith Ramsay
SecretaryfJreasurer Rob Macdonald
Director - Graham Mudge
Director Jim Salmon
Director TJ Schur
Director Edward Hale
Director Gregory Allen
Director Mario Kani
Director Brian Iler
(b) TREC - Board of Directors
President Ed Hale
SecretarylTreasuer Gregory Allen
Director Mario Kani
Director Bn"an ner
Director Judith Ramsay
TREC-WPC and TREC's - Incorporation Status
TREC- WPC
Incorporation # 11 03813
Incorporated April 161h 1999 . ,
0416 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
-
- . .
20
TREC
Incorporation # 1086617
Incorporated June l(jh 1998
TREC- WPC and TREe's Relationship with Toronto Hydro Energy Service Inc and Toronto Hydro
Corporation
Allfour companies are separate entities with different shareholders.
(5) Agreements between TREC- YVPC and Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc
The two proponent companies are presently operating together under a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) and are stilL-in the process of creating a formal legal agreement.
Conclusions:
1 ~ is r-eeemmende-d-that--mis-Fep&Ft--lte-r-eeeWed-jer-in.femltlfi-on-i-~en-wtth--fhe-s taff-repo rt
of September 23, 1999J entitled "Approval Process for the Siting of Waterfront Windmills" as was
before the Works Committee at its meeting on October 6J 1999 and as before City Council at its
meeting of October 26, 27 and 28 1999.
TRECJ on behalf of TREC- WPC, and Toronto Hydro Energy Services have been consulted in the
preparation of this report. -
Contact:
Christopher Morgan
Senior Specialist - Air Quality Improvement Branch
Technical Services
Tel. 392-6903
F=.392-0816
E-mail address: cmorgan1 @city.toronto.on.ca)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing ClauseJ a communication
(October 5, 1999) from Mr. Michael Harrison, President, Citizens Concerned About the Future of
the Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW), expressing concern about the proposal from Toronto
Renewable Energy Cooperative (TREC) and Toronto Hydro to construct two wind turbines on the
Toronto Waterfront.)
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0417 .
rH..o~. 1".,..L.1.! V1.. ..1.Vl'o..\"Il'1 LV ....L J - U..L'-^ V J.JJ.. ..LC~1 Nv ..L..L/~U/~~ U~.~..L.U~ ray~ ..1. A rrr IJ c. H 1\/\ EI^{ r 2:.-
\
.\
- !lJlll TORONTO STAFF REPORT
November 18, 1999
To: . Wodes Committee
From: Barry H. Gutteridge. Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services
Subject: Windmills: Scoping and Siting
Lakeshore-Queensway and East Toronto
(Wards 2 and 26)
Purpose:
To place before the Committee, documents as prepared by the proponents and as requested by
CUlT'mitlee and Coum.:il member:;, that describe the environmental assessment process including
the public consultation process, and the siting process including recognition of preferred sites.
. Financial Implications and lrnpact Statement:
There are no financial implications to the City of Toronto resulting from this report
R.;commendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Bac.kQrOtmd:
City Council at its meeting of October 26 and 27, 1999, in addressing Clause 1 embodied in
Report No.4 of the Works Committee, entitled "Appro vol Process for the Siting of Waterfront
Windmills", approved the Clause with further amendments.
This n:purl atlUre:s:se::; the fullowing'recommendations as amended and approveU by Cuuncil.
Specifically Council amended th-e'Clause by:
~
(1) amending Recommendation No. B(4) of the Works Committee to read as follows:
"(4) Toronto Hydro and TREC, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and
. Emergency Services, be requested to report back to the Works Committee for its
meeting of December I, 1999, if possible, on at least one preferred site in the City
-..-- --- .-.... - . -
0418 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
ri:'iJ.~~. ~J.....l.. I VI: J..VKVL'lJ..V 1..L) - J.JJ.L,;.K. V 01 Lt::H h~ .LJ../~U/~~ U~.~J...U~ ~aqe L
. ,
-2-
of Toronto where windmills could be located, and report back within three
months, on other potential sites throughout the City of Toronto where windmills
can be located, with specific attention to the former stockyards and rail corridors, -
brown field sites, Hydro corridors and other potcntially suitable sites.":
(2) adding to Recommendation No. B(6) of the Works Committee the words "such report to
include parkland/open space" so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(6) the question of not siting on lands zoned G, GR or GM, be referred to the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report back to the
Committee when dealing with the specific siting, such report to include
parkland/open space;":
(3) deleting from Recommendation No B(7) of the Works Committee the words "Wychwood
yards on Christie Street", so that sucb recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(7) notwithstanding Recommendation No.(6), TREC, in consultation with Works and
Emergency Services Department staff, be requested to examine the following
locations and report back to the Committee on these sites as part of the site
selection process:
- 43 Junction Road;
- south embankment of Earls court Park;
- 115 Wiltshire Boulevard and northern property; .
- 640 Lansdowne Avenue;
- . Union Street north of Turn berry;"; and,
Council further amended the Works Committee recommendation No.(3) to read as follows:
"(3 ) that City staff be requested to report further in the event that City owned or leased
lands are identified as preferred site locations through the environmental
assessment process, and to clarify what, if any, additional approvals, leasing
agreements. or zoning amendments would be required, and how best obtained, at
that time".
The Works Committee had also added the following reco=endation No.B(S) which reads as
follows:
"(5) the COllunissioner of Public Works and Emergency Serviccs be requested to
report to the Works Committee on a public consultation process that could be
undertaken in the evaluation of such potential sites".
This report addresses most but not all components of the above recommendations.
.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0419 .
l.'l"1.4'lr.~. \....1..1. J. VJ.: ..LVI\,."-"1I...LV "..1.) - 'uJ.\-or. v 1..J.l. ...LO.l.l n~ ..L.1./~U/~' U~.~.1..U~ r~y~ ~
. , - 3 -
Comments:
-
In essence, the request to report back to the Works Committee for its meeting of December 1,
1999, on at least one preferred site, triggers the need to also address several other report requests
at the same time. However, not all aspects of all the requests can be fully addressed at this time
~d further reports will be required and will be provided in the New Year.
Specifically, the request "to identify at least one preferred site" makes it ~ necessary to report on
"nor siting windmills on lands zoned G, Gr or Om, when dealing with the specific siting", and
"to report further in the event that City owned or leased lands are identified as preferred site
locations through the environmental assessment process, and to clarify what, if any, additional
approvals, leasing agreements, or zoning amendments would be required, and how best obtained,
at that time".
In order to avoid the potential of invalidating the spirit, if Dot the specific wording, of the
environmental assessment process, (which might thereby put the windmill project at risk) by
identifying preferred sites prior to completing the environmental assessment process, it is
impemtive that the identification of preferred sites be clearly identified and accepted as part of
the environmental assessment process. That process must also include a clear and accepted
public consultation component.
. To that end TREC and Toronto Hydro bave engaged Dillon Consulting and prepared .the report
"Wind Turbine Environmental Asscssment: ScopingITcrms of Rcference, November 1999",
This document outlines the assessment process that TREC and Toronto Hydro are ll.'1dertaking
and includes an outline of the public and public agency consultation process that the proponents
have undertaken to date, that is ongoing, and that is proposed for the furore.
The recommendations to address zoning matters as included as part of Recommendation No.
B(6) and required zoning amendments as part of Recommendation No. A(3) are not addressed
here, but will be addressed in a subsequent report when specific siting locations are identified,
At this point, TREC and Toronto Hydro have prepared the report "Siting Windmills in Toronto"
which does not identify preferred sites on G or similarly zoned lands. The associated staff report
regarding ''W"rndmills and Noise Issues in Urban Areas" (November 18, 1999) recommends a
separation of 50 metres distance between a windmill and a sensitive mtural park use or Il-
sensitive human activity function in a park; thus the potential conflict of permitted uses within
or near to public parks is avoided,
Questions surrounding the possibility of Official Plan, and/or Zoning By Law amendments,
andJor the tests of the use being a minor variance are still being examined and will be reported on
subsequently, as will other legal aspects relating to leasing arrangements, following the
identification of a specific location within the larger more encompassing areas of the preferred
sites. At the present stage of investigation, the questions do not appear to lend themselves to one
consistent answer for all of the preferred sites identified below, nor indeed, in two cases, to one
. consistent answer across all of the same sites.
0420 WA TERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
~l-l.t-_'"'">K. .......ll.I vr l.UKUl'~J.V l.,J.) - lJ..LL.;K V DL"l.t::!l H~ J.J./~u/~: U~.4J..U~ rQ4~ ~
. . -4-
In the report: "Siting Windmills in Toronto", the proponents have identified potential sites across
Toronto and the essential and comparative criteria by which they bave identified preferred sites. -
The most significant and limiting criteria relate to wind power and the degree of wind
disturbance, rather than wind speed, and to separation from residential dwellings. For example, a
20 % change in the mean wind speed from 5 mls to 6 mls equates to an 80 % difference in"
anticipated wind power. Available wind power is the significant factor in determining economic
viability. The proponents have concluded that the wind power requirements heavily encourage a
waterfront location for such windmills. The need to maintain an appropriate distance from_
residential dwelling areas also effectively negates the potential to make use of small open lots or "
spaces as can be found across the City. Their use of a-W. metres separation between windmills
and residential dwellings is in keeping with the associated staff report: "Windmills and Noise
Issues in Urban Areas" (November 18, 1999). I
The proponents have also completed a report entitled ,r ;Vind Resource Assessment for Toronto; ./
Preliminary Assessment of Six Urban Sites" which addresses the specific locations identified for
consideration by TREe and Toronto Hydro in Recommendation No.B(7). All of the sites '- ,
addressed in this report are located on industrial or park !.and with residential dwellings in closer
proximity than is recommended in the associated staff report dealing with noise or are deemed
inappropriate because of proximity to transmission lines.
The proponents have identified the following as being their "preferred sites" at this time:
Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant (formerly the Main Treatment Plant); .
TEDCO lands at Leslie and Unwin; and
R L. Clark Filtration Plant.
Further work as to the specific location to be selected and recommended within the preferred
sites is being undertaken by the proponents.
Conclusions:
The proponents have provided reports that identify the environmental assessment process to be
followed, identify sites examined across Toronto and the criteria used as part of the
environmental assessment process to identify preferred sites. Other sites from across Toronto are
:;lill tu be; examined and judged against the same criteria and will be addressed in subsequent
reports in ket:ping with Recommendation No. B(4).
The preferred sites as identified by the proponents, given appropriate specific siting! as will be
reported on in detail in a subsequent report, are in keeping with the separation distances
recommended in the associated staff report "Windmills and Noise Issues in Urban .Areas"
(November 18. 1999).
.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0421
J.. rl..C.":'.!'". ................ Vl. ...-...n.'".....,.~...'"' \..., v........s\. ..., ...........-......... &"1..... ......../~'J/,J~ ....."........I..Vw .....-"...,'---.J
. .
-- -.5 -
Staff representing the Commissioner of the. Urban Planning anD Development Services
- Department were consulted in preparing this report.
Contact:
Christopher Morgan
Senior Specialist - Air Quality Improvement Branch
Technical Services
Tel. 392-6903
Fax. 392-0816
E-mail address: cmorganl@city.toronto.on.ca
/J~ i
Tom G. Denes, P.Eng.
Executive Director, Teclmical Services
.. arty ge
., Coimnissioner, Works and Emergency Services
List of Available Reports:
l. "Wind Turbine Environmental Assessment: Scoping/Terms of Reference, November
1999". Prepared for TREC and Toronto Hydro by Dillon ConsulLing.
2. "Siting . Windmills in Toronto" prepared by TREC for TREC Windpower Co-operative
and Toronto Hydro, (1999).
3. "Wind Resource Assessment for Toronto: Preliminary Assessment of Six Urban Sites",
prepared for TREC and Toronto Hydro by Zephyr North,
Councillors and other interested parties may obtain these reports on request from the office of the
City Clerk.
eM/em
.
0422 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 .
..~.............. ............... ...... .... _.........e...... ,.... ~ ...--....~. .... ....... -........ ....._ ......, .......,. JJ .....". ............_ ..__...,.... ...,
J '-
"'
~JORONlO STAFF REPORT . .
~'- .... -~..- '-.J.;'
-
No'(ember 18,1999
To: Works Committee
From: Barry H. Gutteridge. Commissioner. Works and Emergency Services
S ubj ect: Windmills and Noise Issues in Urban Areas
(All wards)
Purpose:
To address questions regarding the potential of windmills to cause noise and recommend
standard separation distances and procedUres to be followed ill respect to noise issues when
~iling windmills in Toronto.
. Financial Implications and lropacl Statement:
There are no financial implications to the City of Toronto resulting from this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
'"-.
(1) That City Council adopt as its approved practice to reduce noise impacts, the use of:
(a) a 200 metres separation between windmills and residential low-rise dwellings;
(b) a 300 metres separation between windmills and high-rise residential buildings;
and
(c) a 50 metres separation between windmills and sensitive natural areas or sensitive
park use areas;
unless lesser distances can be demonstrated to be similarly appropriate in keeping with
the spirit and assumptions o.fthis report.
.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
0423 -
L'~. ......l..J.J. ,",,4. J.~""""".LV .......~ ...........,'" ...., ....4.........44 ........ ......., 'OJ....,,,I'~ ......J .,..... U..... .... .......,.." (
.,
- 2- --
(2) That Council require noise impact assessment stat~m~nts regarding specific siting
proposals for windmills on City lands.
-
(3) ThB.t City Council require noise compliance monitoring to be undertaken following the
installation of windmills.
Background:
~
City Council, at its meeting of October 26 and 27,1999, approved Clause 1 of Report No.4 <?f
the Works Committee entitled uApproval Process fOT the Sillng of Walt:rfrun\ Windmills", with
amendments. Recommendation B(9) requested that the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services submit a report to the Committee on noise levels produced by commonly
used wind turbines. This report addresses that request.
The issue is that wind turbines are perceived as being noisy and can not be appropriately located
within, or in close proximity to, residential areas, parks or natural areas. This report presents
noise levels associated with typically sized wind turbines (660 kW) as have been proposed by
TOl:onto-Hydro and TREC for installation on City lands, evaluates the use of commonly
employed separation distances around the world, and recommends standards for use within
Toronto in respect to residential and park areas (including natural areas).
Comments: ..
Windmills, also known as wind turbines, generate sounds. Unwanted sound can be defined as
noise. Noise impacts and their perceived significance vary and depend on the level of intensity,
frequency, frequency distnoution and the puttCTIl of the noise source; ambient or buckground
noise levels; terrain between emitter and receptor; and the nature of the noise receptors.
The effects o.rnoise on people can be classified into three calc:guries:
- the subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction;
- the interference with activities such as speech, sleep or learning; and
- physiological effects, ie direct health effects, such as anxiety, tinnitus,' or hearing
loss.
The sound levels associated with environmental noise generally, including wind turbines
specifically, produce potential effects that can normally only occur in the first two categories.
Workers in industrial plants and around aircraft can experience noise effects in the last category.
The City shoulcl ensure that 'snund levels as may be created by wind turbines are not intrusive at
the nearest residential dwellings, or in any nearby sensitive municipal and public spaces, such as
sensitive natural areas or sensitive park use areas. The amount of disturbance associated with a
noise source depends on a number of factors. These factors include the nature of the sound
source, the level and type of ambient noise, and the distance of the recipient from the source. .
. --- ---- . ,--- -- . - ....-
0424 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 -
r.A..t.:::..K:~ \-.lit vr .J..U.t(.'....'!l.1.V 1".1.) - Ul.L...K. V D!,'l.~ll H~ .l.l./~U/~~ U~.q.l...l.U ~ct~e 0
- 3 -
More specifically, the evaluation of any potentially intrusive sound level involves an assessment
of:
- - noise source levels and type (including frequency, time pattern and intensity);
- recipient orea ambient noise levels, including locution relative to other uses (e.g.
roads), l~d use type (e.g. residential or industrial) and other environmental
factors (e.g. topography and wind regime);
- noise decay with di:;tam.:t:, :;hiduing anu alLt:IlUaliun; W1U
- noise channelling with topography and its passage or "bouncing" over large water
areas or other hard surfaces.
Specific noise levels are usually "estimated" as an alternative to monitoring which would require
a considerable time sequence to capture all the possible permutations among different wind
speeds, wind directiOllii, air density, precipitation, Sir stability, and air temperatu-e. Sound
meters can not be operated under very windy conditions. Wind turbines, however, are more
likely to be perceived as intrusive under calm rather than stormy conditions.
A noise impact statement, as is generally required by the City of Toronto in the context of a
development proposal review, typically addresses the above in respect to particular sources or
developments from three perspectiv~:
- what is the impact of the source on the environment?
- what is the impact ofllie environment on the source? and
. - what is the impact of the source on the source?
Municipal Standards:
Wind turbine siting related local land use planning standards attempt to deal with the complexity
of noise in specific local situations. Site selection criteria are often based on "distance from"
criteria whereas more detailed assessment arc based on "noise received at" criteria. Evidence
suggests that it is noise levels at potentially impacted dwellings rather than distance from wind
lurbines that should drive final siting and planning decisions.
For example, local government requirements in nine California Counties indicate a variety of..
wind turbine related standards that have been ad::>pted in respect to noise. All but one County .
established a maximum permitted dB(A) level. These vary from "not to exceed 65 dB (A)", to'
"not to exceed 45 dB(A) for mo~ than 5 minutes in any hour or to exceed 50 dB(A) for any -'
period within 50 feet of a home, school. church, hospital or public library". The ninth county
establishes a simple requirement of "not closer than 1000 feeL in an upwind direction from any, . ~
dwelling, nor closer than 300 feet in any other direction". An equivalently simple, and '
prudently cautious, guideline of "not-closer-than 300 metres" has been adopted in Great Britain ~
by the British Wind Energy Association in respect to residential dwellings. The standard reflects
the normally rural and hilly siting of wind turbines in Britain.
lndeed, most wind turL..JCS have been located in rural areas and siting separation standards
. reflect this. But, rural areas are typically quieter than urban areas, and the distances may be more.
cautionary than. is necessary. Knowledge of noise transmission, attenuation and channelling
-..-- - .--- -'- .-.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0425
.L.n......_"'\r.... .........1 v.... ............1....V'1o.......V '.1 .,.........,..... ...., J.J.l.....I... ~ I .....\.; ........., -..,J"-,, J~ .......,............... .. ........,.... -'
. -
- 4 -
characteristics suggest that simple distance standards may be over cautionary in low-density
urban areas of high ambient noise, but under protective in denser urban areas composed of high
rise ~evelopments. This relates to noise attenuation in low-density urban and suburban areas --
provid~d largely by tn:;es anuolher ground cover, and the bouncing and mixing effect of sound
waves from wind turbine hub sources from higher elevations, in high density areas.
Perceptions:
Perceptions arc often historically based rather than currently supported. This is seemingly also
the case for wind turbines. Early wind turbines in Europe were often promoted as inaudible.
They were not. But neither did they create noise levels "equivalent to that of a helicopter at take-
off', as was suggested' in the European press. However. much of the presently accepted
perception of noise levels is based on early installations in Europe.
Those that were built two decades or so ago, as in Wales (U.K.), generated considerable local
antagonism that was focused in perceptions of noise impacts. Today, the older technologies have
been updated and current state of the art installations generate substantially lower sound levels.
Recent direct drive turbine developments are purported to be more efficient and almost inaudible
as they do not have gearboxes. However, the noise and vibration associated with standard. wind
turbines should not be regarded as insignificant and appropriate safeguards need to be taken.
Technical Appendix:
The attacbed appendix provides technical information used directly in support oftbe conclusions- - ..
reached in developing this report. It includes discussion of windmills as a source of various
sound types, typical ambient sound pressure levels (i.e. noise levels) experienced in residential
areas (from quiet suburban to very noisy urban), and sound level decay with distance.
Noise and Windmill Siting in Toronto:
Given that the quietest "quiet suburban" residential ambient noise level according to the US-Ef A.
is approximately 45 dB(A) and the quietest experienced (as measured by City staff) residential
ambient level in Toronto is typified as approximately 45dB(A), and given that manufacturers.
measurements indicate that this is normally acbieved at a distance of 200 to 250 metres, a policy
of prudent avoidance would BUggcst 250 mctres scparation between a wind turbine and ~
residential dwelling. However, within the wind related waterfront areas indicated under other
siting criteria adopted by Toronto Hydro and TREe the ambient noise level in the vicinity of
residences is typically hi~er, and a prudent value of 200 metres would not be inappropriate -
In high rise dwelling areas, noise will be less likely to be atten~ated in all cases. Wind turbine
hub noise could travel directly from point source at 50 metres elevation to apartments at the same
elevation with significantly 1p.ss attenuation. Therefore, a logical and reasonable rule of thumb
would be to ensure as pa ')f an initial seoping exercise to separate wind turbines froJr.
residential property by a bUlfer sepm:ation of 200 metres for low rise dwellings and by 300 \
metres for high rise dwellings. .......
......
0426 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999 -
.t~~~: ? ~":lT'I' vr .LV-K'Jl"l'.LV t 1.) - U.lL..K V DL'.J..~Ll H~ L.J../~U/~~ U~.~.l.~~ rayc .lU
- -5-
For open spaces and park spaces a buffer separation would also seem prudent but there is no
precedent for this either in respect of human or ecological functions. A range of functions is
- fulfilled within parks. These vary from the active sports activities (e.g. as on soccer pitches of
baseball diamonds) that may be more tolerant of noise, to the more sensitive use areas in parks
that provide solitude (e.g. as in ornamental gardens or along nature trails), where noise is more
likely to be an issue of concern.
Urban park areas that offer "quiet solitude" are not noise free. Tbe same ambient urban noise
lev.el ranges will be measurable in such spaces as in resi.dential areas even though the perception
may be that such space is noise free. No standard sound level or separation distance has been
identified in respect to sensitive natural areas or sensitive park use areas and noise sources.
As a surrogate standard the Province of Ontario's standards regarding noise in "Outdoor Living
Areas" [as provided in "Noise Assessment in Land Use Planning: RequiremcUts, Procedures and
Implementation" (MOE, May 1997)) can be examined. In simple terms, the standard suggests
that for road noise sources no control measures are required if the day time sound level is less
than or equal to 55dB(A), and for rail noise sources no control measures are needed if day time
sound levels' (outside bedroom windows) are less than or equal to 60 dB(A). If sensitive park use
areas and outdoor liYlllg places are equated as equal to "outdoor living ar~ra:m1ard' of
55dB(A) can be recommended. For wind turbines this translates to a separation distance "rule-
of-thwnb", based on a normalized wind speed of28.81anJh (8m/s) at 10 metres above the grolUld
surface.-for turbines equivalent to the Tacke TW 600, of 53dB(A) at 50 metres, and of 56 dB(A)
. at 25 metres. To best ensure prudent compliance with the outdoor living standard of 55dB(A) a
distance of 50 metres separation between s=sitivc natural park areas and sensitive park use areas
and the siting of a wind turbine appears sufficient.
Noise Impact Statements:
Prior to final site selection and approval, the wind turbine proponents should tll1dcrtake a noise'
impact statement, subject to the satisfaction of City Council, if the selected site is within 250
metres of a low-rise dwelling or within 350 metres of a high rise dwelling. The noise impact .
statement need not address the impact on the environment on the wind turbine, or the effect of.
the wind turbine on itself, as no office or dwelling space is to be included (this would not hold
true if a wind turbine were to be sited on top of a building), and need only address the impact of
the wind turbine on the environment external to the wind turbine. Further. the noise impact
statement should also address the site specifics of impacts on nearby park uses within 50 metr" -
distance. .
Post-Installation Monitoring and Compliance:
Wherever a wind turbine is installed, it would be prudent at that time to ensure its compliance
with noise standards through appropriate monitoring and analysis. This could be made a
condition of a lease arraT'gement should a wind turbine be sited on City land. Any subsequent
cumplaint resulting from mechanical deterioration or blade damage, that renders the wind turbine
.. noisier than at the time of installation, should be investigated under tbe City's Noise By-law and
appropriate action enforced where necessary.
--
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0427
.r&\.~. \..,...l.. J.. j \...'.1.. .LVr'--'....J.1 J.....~ \...&. ~ v......r'l. v JJJ.. .......~L rIIo\"o ...-4" <oJ....., JJ OJ.'.,..&.........., ..........j.... ..l...L
- 6-
Conclusions:
-
Though seldom established in dense urban areas, there is no apparent reason to exclude modern
wind turbines, based on noise issues provided that reasonable separation distances are adhered to
or amended on a site-specific basis,
A separation of 200 metres from low rise residential and 300 metres from high rise residential
buildings appears to be prudently adequate. A separation of 50 metres from sensitive park use
areas also seems prudent.
Any final site selection should provide a Noise Impact Statement to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to final site approval in keeping with the
spirit of this report. Further, post construction monitoring should establish a base line of actual
on site noise data from source to nearest receptors to confirm compliance with the Noise Impact
Statement and to offer a benchmark against any future adverse change of the sound level caused
by equipment deterioration.
Staff representing the Commissioners of the Economic Development Tourism and Culture
Services Department and the Urban Planning and Development Services Department were
consulted in preparing this report.
Contact:
Christopher Morgan .
Senior Specialist - Air Quality Improvement Branch
Technical Services
Tel. 392-6903
Fax. 392-0816
E-mail address: cmorganl(Cl)city.toronto.on.ca
/:}w t I
Tom G. Denes, P.Eng.
Executive Director, Technical Services
:y:1flt!f!!t~
Commissionerl Works and Emergency Services
List of Attachments:
Technical Appendix
.
0428 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17. 1999
rJ-1..t..::-l"..' '-J...Ll V1. ~vr..V1"J..V ,.I-) - LJ.L.'-f\. V U.L..L.CJ.l ~~ .L..L./~U~~~ U~.~.L..J-U ~~yc:;: .L.L
0 --
~ 7-
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
-
Sound Source Levels:
Sounds created by wind turbines come from several sources which result in several sound types
including: broadband noise from the blades; tonal noises from fans, generators, pumps and
gearboxes; infrasonic noise due to tower shadow; and impulsive noises from brake
clamping/release, limit stops and general creaks. Wind turbines create noise from within the
outer casing, or 'nacelle, that houses the turbine generator and the bearings that link to the
rotating blades. The noise levels immediately outside the nacel1e are considerably less than the
levels inside. These are seldom measured. The point source noise level measurements are
typically provided as a manufacturer's specification derived from factory floor testing within 1
metre of the equipment rather than noise levels on the outside of the nacelle casing.
The source-noise pressure level inside a turbine nacelle of a 600 kW wind turbine, varies with
die wmd speeaar. hub height and blade rotation speed but 15 typically between 95 'dB(A) and 100
dB(A) for wind speeds in their nonnal operating range between 14.4 km/h (4 m/s) and 36 km/h
(10 mJs). A 600 kW Tacke wind turbine has been installed by Ontario Power Generation at
Tiverton near the Bruce Nuclear Power Stati.on and is similar ill liU.t: to those being considered
for use in Toronto by TREe and Toronto Hydro. The Tacke 600 instalJation has a technical
t noise-so.urce specification of98.6 dB(A). Wind speed varies naturally but blade rotation speed is
artificially held coustant, cc; on the Tacke 600 at either 18 rpm or 27 rpm through breaking
devices that create different noise levels in consequence of different breaking requirements.
Changes of rotation speed, including the extremes of starting and stopping, typically create
additional n.oi.se.
There is also noise created by the rotation of the blades themselves. The noise varies with the
speed of rotation and blade design. The leading edge of the blade is of considerable importance.
Current leading edge technology is attempting to duplicate the design of the leading edge of an
owl's feathered wing (owls as hunters benefit from their "silent wings") on the leading edge ofa
, turbine blade. However, the noise of the blades alone is typically a barely audible "swoosh" (as
detected at 50 metres from turbine base) as a blade passes in front of the tower. This obviously
varies a~ the nacelle and blades are designed to operate in upwind or downwind directions.
Noise levels also vary with the number of wind turbines installed. Obviously, "wind farms"
comprised of m~y wind turbine units are noi.sier than oingk turbine installations.
Arnbicnt Noise Levels:
Ambient, or background, noise levels vary by land use in general and by other specific site
factors in particular. Residential and rural areas are more sensitive to noise intrusions because of
. their rel.atively low ambient noise level.
., The US Environmental Protection Agency and other sources have developed dB(A) ranges for a
variety of common noise sources and typical residential locations.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99
0429 .
.t'.M.....~;:,K. Ll..LI VI: J.VKI"",'I'JJ.V 1....1.) - U.LL.;K V DL'..1.t::-U H.\". .l.l./....)U/-,-:: U"::;'."il..'::'U .t""C1\.p:: .1..,,)
,
-8- ~
-
Quiet Suburban _ . . 45:';:" 52 ..' . ':
-" ~~."
.. ~ ' ) ,_ 10.:::.., .....' 'U '. -", ~4 ~.
,. .. _~.. "...w ~ :;.';l~
., .: .... Y~an 5.8 ~'62"
-
""" _:v ~ .. JO; ~ t~"'t:. -~'.
:, ,.' ,~. . .. . ~." :.."". . . ~ . '.
Very Noisy-Urban 68 - 72 ~
Exp"l;"UCC hfls-sWWE.-fuat--typical.-P:Side1lti~l V~hlP" in TOTontQJJID the gamut from ouiet -
suburban equivalent to very noisy urban equivalent and vary from 45dB(A) to 75dB(A).
A further complication IS that quantitative sound pressure level measurements may nul reflect
everyone's qualitatjve assessment. For example, one person's "deafening" may be another's
_ _. _ _ -..~silence'~(Eoc .examp.l~, ~'9..l:E-.fe.ning''':' S:Qlp.plajnts~he~ ii_e~jnv~i~ted J>r _C~~ _staff some .
times, don't even register on the City's sound meters.) - - . - -.
Distance Decay:
In essence, sound pressure levels diminish with distance from a point source at n rate of
approximately 3 dB(A) for every doubling of the distance from the point source. The accuracy
of the first distance and noise measurement is critical if this assumption is going to be relied
upon to predict noise decay from a point source. As noted above, manufacturers' specifications
are typically equivalent to levels inside the nacelle not immediately outside or beyond. Certain
inherent dangers are associated with taking measurements one or two metres beyond the nacelle
at operating height except under the calmest of conditions, but that is when the turbine does not
normally operate as wind speed is too low (i.e. less than 4 m/s). Consequently, few (if any) point
source measurements e^-iemal to the nacelle are available.
However, manufacture's measurements of ground level noise levels, averaged for different wind
speeds and taken in downwind directions, as for instal1ations of a Vestas V 4 7 turbine and a
Tacke 600 turbine reveal some interesting similarities and implications. The data has been
nonnalized for a wind speed of 8 rrJs (28.8 km/hr) and a height of 10 metres above ground
(weather station wind anemometer readings arc normally taken at tbis height).
t
0430 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
""~.............,. _.......... -.J.. ................................ ,...., --'-...... -............... ........ ........,........., -- ........ .-.-- --~.... -.
I
,
:'. . ~ - 9 -
-
.@lOOm 49.9
. '-..:@ 200 ill 46.5... .44.3
_111I--
.' .... ..@.3OQ In. . .42.7 3~:O..
_.... ~_' !<-':i<;;=
. . . . i . ~. ."
, ~ ".,1.. .... . '. '",
~ ' .~. ~. ".' -=.l; 10 "~~ '." t :. s,~
@ 500 m 37.4
Cm/cm
__I -. .- _ . _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ .- -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ .. . _ _ _ _ .-.. _ .. _ . h -- _ -. _ ..- _ -. -- _ _ _ . _ _ . -. .. . _ _ _
Q~'
.
December 17. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0431
RES.#D111 /99 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY, DON RIVER WATERSHED
Funding Request to the City of Vaughan in Year 2000. Funding request to
the City of Vaughan for the Bartley Smith Greenway project in Year 2000.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Vaughan be
requested to consider $180,000 for the Bartley Smith Greenway Project in their development
of the 2000 Capital Budget;
THAT the Bartley Smith Greenway Project be allocated $ 26,000 in support from the Valley and
Stream Regeneration account, $75,000 in support from the York Natural Heritage Restoration
account, and $119,000 in support from the Stormwater Management I mprovement Fund from
Developers account pending final 2000 TRCA budget approval;
THAT sta~f be directed to initiate projects in coordination with the City of Vaughan;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek additional funding in coordination with the City
of Vaughan, Langstaff EcoPark Steering Committee, local schools and community.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Bartley Smith Greenway is a 15 kilometre valley corridor that follows the west branch of the Don
River through the centre of the City of Vaughan. The regeneration of this valley corridor was sparked
by the generous donation of $401 ,000 from the estate of Anne Bartley Smith for whom the Greenway
was named.
The project was originally adopted by the Authority at Meeting #3/93 Res.#A72/93. Staff were
directed at that time to pursue funding partners, and request the support from the City of Vaughan.
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto adopted the project and carried out a formal
fundraising campaign which concluded in 1997. At Authority Meeting #5/98, Res.#A 121/98, the
Phase II report was received and supported in principle subject to available funding.
RATIONALE
The Phase I (1993 - 1997), total budget for the Bartley Smith Greenway was $1,034,080, with the City
of Vaughan contributing annually to a total of $ 336,650. Other major contributors included the
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto ($ 441,500), TRCA ($119,100), Environment Canada
($136,800), cash and in kind contributions from local businesses ($100,000), the Evergreen
Foundation ($20,000), the Rotary Club of Vaughan ($10,000) and the Canada Trust Friends of the
Environment Foundation ~$1 0,000).
0432 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
In early 1998, the Authority sought to establish Phase II (1998 -2002) for the Greenway, which the
Authority submitted to the City of Vaughan in March of that year. This work is consistent with Forty
Steps to a New Don and addresses targets in Turning the Corner, the Don Watershed Report Card.
The Don Council is in full support of this initiative. This proposal suggested a five year framework
for the completion of the Greenway, with a preliminary estimate of $ 2,600,000, and suggested that
the City consider allocating $ 200,000 of this amount each year for 5 years starting in the 1998
Capital Budget. The City staff has accepted the plan in principle, indicated a preference to complete
sections that have some work done prior to initiating work in new areas, and would seek City funding
annually. Accordingly, in 1999, the City committed $174,000 to the Greenway for the stormwater
pond retrofit at Killian Lamar, trail system construction, and plantings at Rupert's Pond, and the start
of trail work in the Highway 407/Hydro Corridor.
For 2000, four specific components of the Greenway have been targetted which will subtantially
complete the following initiatives under construction:
. At Killian Lamar, the TRCA proposes completing the stormwater management pond retrofit.
The TRCA has proposed $10,000 from the Valley and Stream Regeneration budget and also
has developed a funding proposal to Canada Trust - Friends of the Environment Foundation
for $10,000. A community planting event will be scheduled in the spring of 2000 which will
involve the TRCA, City of Vaughan, local schools and residents. The TRCA will request
$12,500 from the City of Vaughan for a community planting event and planting/construction
contingencies.
. At Rupert's Pond, the TRCA will continue with the completion of the stream naturalization
and the major trail system within the park. The TRCA proposes $50,000 from the York
Natural Heritage Restoration Project and has submitted a funding request of $25,000 to the
Great Lakes Renewal Foundation. The TRCA will request $1 00,000 from the City of Vaughan
for continuation of the trail system, bridge design, community plantings, and initiation of the
stormwater pond improvements.
. In Langstaff EcoPark, the completion of the last phase of this project was delayed in order
to incorporate the Region of York's Maple Collector Relief Sewer project into Langstaff
EcoPark and to build a partnership involving the TRCA, the City of Vaughan, the Langstaff
EcoPark Steering Committee, and the Region of York. While the section of the Maple
Collector Relief Sewer north of Langstaff Road is in on-going design, the contract for the
Maple Collector Relief Sewer south of Langstaff Road, running through Langstaff EcoPark
to about 200 metres north of the Keffer Marsh, will be awarded by York Council on
December 9,1999, at a value of approximately $1 ,500,000. In recognition of the requirement
of enhancing the ecological value of the valley corridor above its pre-construction state, and
to make a contribution to Langstaff EcoPark, the Region agreed to provide work worth
approximately .$300,000 to. Langstaff EcoPark. This work consists of the following: the
construction of the trail and bridge systems, infrastructure changes to a stormwater outfall,
and complete designs for a stormwater management pond. After the work of the Region has
been completed, the TRCA will be contributing $125,000 from funds received from
developers which are to be used for stormwater management pond improvements in the
watershed, as well as $25,000 proposed from the York Natural Heritage Restoration Project.
These funds will be used for the creation of a stormwater management pond which will treat
stormwater runoff from a 93 hectare drainage area which has no present water quality or
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0433
quantity treatment prior to draining into the Don River. During 2000, the Langstaff EcoPark
Steering Committee will be completing their work plans and funding proposal initiatives for
future works. The TRCA will request $ 25,000 from the City to complete the trail access
requirements at Langstaff Road.
. Finally, within the Highway 407 Ontario Hydro Corridor Open Space, the TRCA started trail
construction from Glen Shields Avenue to Highway 7 in 1999 and proposes its completion
in 2000 providing 1.3 kilometres of trail. The TRCA will be contributing $10,000 from the
Valley and Stream Regeneration budget. This completed trail link will now permit public
access to the Bartley Smith Greenway from Dufferin Street and Steeles Avenue all the way
north through Langstaff EcoPark, a distance of 7.5 kilometres. The TRCA will request
$42,500 from the City to complete this trail segment.
In 1999, there were many activities completed through the Bartley Smith Greenway Project:
. At the Killian Lamar Stormwater Management Pond Retrofit Project was 90% completed
consisting of the construction retrofit of the stormwater management pond, and associated
aquatic and riparian plantings.
. At Rupert's Pond, 150 metres of stream naturalization, 320 metres of trails and riparian
plantings were completed.
. At Keffer Marsh in the Langstaff EcoPark, four interpretive signs were installed; Rivermede
Road pedestrian crossing lines were painted, trails were upgraded; safety wingwall fencing
adjacent to the diversion structure was installed, and replacement of plant material and
maintenance was completed.
. The Riparian Planting Project through the Highway 407 segment was completed. This
$90,000 project was a partnership between EcoAction 2000 ($35,500), City of Vaughan
($10,000), TRCA ($26,500), Ministry of Natural Resources ($1,000), Don Council ($1,800)
and involved over 1,000 community volunteer planters ($ 17,000) who planted 5,000 trees
and shrubs. Also, at the Highway 407 segment, trail construction was started and will by
competed by the summer of 2000 and a erosion control proje;ct will be started in mid
December and completed by the end of December.
. For the Tudor Valley Open Space, two York University volunteers completed a project that
they called Concept Site Planning Process for the Tudor Valley Reach of the Bartley Smith
Greenway. whereby the volunteers compiled background data and developed concept site
plans to meet their vision to contribute to the formation of integrated trail system that has
potential to stretch from the Oak Ridges Moraine to the shores of Lake Ontario and to
contribute to-the improvement"of the ecological integrity of the Don River.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Project planning and fund raising for the Bartley Smith Greenway Project remain important
components of the work to be done. Staff will be working with the City of Vaughan, Langstaff
EcoPark Steering Committee, Region of York, other local community leaders and the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto to determine priority projects and secure funds for them.
0434 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
FINANCIAL DETAilS
Staff have been working with the City of Vaughan in the development of the 2000 work schedule and
potential funding sources for the Bartley Smith Greenway. To further advance this project, the TRCA
will be requesting the City of Vaughan to consider $180,000 for the Bartley Smith Greenway in the
development of their 2000 Capital Budget; TRCA staff will seek-approval for the allocation of
$220,000 from the TRCA's accounts listed below pending final 2000 budget decisions; and staff will
be working with other partners to seek additional funds from other sources to implement the Bartley
Smith Greenway Project.
Proposed Funding Sources
Bartley Smith Expenditures
Greenway Sectors 2000
City of
Vaughan TRCA Other Partners
Killian Lamar / Maple $ 32.500 $ 12,500 $10,000 Valley & Stream $10,000 Canada Trust
South Corridor (not approved) (not approved)
Rupert's Pond $ 175.000 $100,000 $50,000 York Natural Heritage (not $25,000 Great Lakes
approved) Renewal - (not approved)
Langstaff EcoPark - $ 475,000 $ 25,000 - $119,000 Stormwater $300,000 York Region
Maple Collector Relief Management Improvement Funds (approved)
Sewer from Developers (funds received);
- $6,000 Valley & Stream and
- $25,000 York Natural Heritage
(All above are not approved)
Highway 407 / Hydro $ 52,500 $ 42,500 $10,000 Valley & Stream
Corridor Open Space (not approved)
Total $ 735,000 $180,000 $220,000 $335,000
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Prepared by: Garry Misumi, extension 5293
Date: December 6, 1999
RES.#D112/99 - _WHlTEVAlE GOlF,ClUB
Remedial Erosion Control And Regeneration Works
Town of Pickering, West Duffins Creek. Construction of remedial erosion
control and regeneration works, using bioengineering techniques, adjacent
to the 13th and 15th fairways of the Whitevale Golf Club.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 D435
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with the design and
construction of remedial erosion and regeneration works adjacent to the 13th and 15th
fairways of the Whitevale Golf Club in the Town of Pickering, at a total cost of $180,000 and
subjec;:t to the receipt of the necessary approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Province recently sold the existing Whitevale Golf Course to the Whitevale Golf Club. The
Province had expropriated the golf course from the Whitevale Golf Club in 1974, and had been
leasing back to the Club the 176-acre property. A portion of the golf course is located in the West
Duffins valley corridor and the Whitevale corridor ESA. Through negotiations between TRCA, the
Province, and the Club, the Province agreed to convey the valley lands and ESA portions of the
property to the TRCA with a lease in place that would permit the Club to continue to safely operate
the course. The arrangement at hand provides for the continuance of the existing golf course holes
. situated in the valley while giving the TRCA, with ownership, the necessary control to prevent further
intrusion into the valley as well as input into the management practices being used by the Club.
During negotiations, extensive river erosion at two locations along the east bank of the Creek were
identified as areas of concern by the Club with respect to both public safety and continuance of
playability. These areas, approximately 250 metres in total adjacent to the 13th and 15th fairways,
were inspected by TRCA technical staff. Staff are in agreement that there is a risk to life and
property, and that remedial works can be implemented in a manner that enhances riparian plantings
and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The Club has asked the TRCA to undertake a project
to remediate these areas of concern on their behalf.
RATIONALE
The TRCA's goal in implementing remedial erosion and regeneration work is to:
Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks,
valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the
valley and lakefront settings.
Works (improvements) of this nature are permitted by the lease subject to approval by the TRCA.
Staff are in the process of designing remedial works that utilize bioengineering techniques (live crib
structures), which will limit erosion, are conducive to maintenance, and enhance aquatic and
terrestrial resources. Staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources have also visited the site and
reviewed conceptual designs with TRCA staff, and are in concurrence with our approach to dealing
with this problem.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The remedial works -consist- of ,constructing live crib structures along the east bank of the West
Duffins. The structures will limit erosion and facilitate the propagation of woody riparian plant
material, ultimately enhancing the aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The works will also include
fisheries enhancement structures.
At present the riverbank and adjacent fairway is void of riparian plantings, and consists of eroding
bank and manicured golf turf. The work will result in a creation of vegetated riparian buffer along
approximately 250 metres of the West Duffins Creek.
0436 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans approval is pending.
The estimated cost for the regeneration work is $180,000.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the regeneration work will be provided by,the Whitevale Golf Club.
Report prepared by: Nick Saccone, extension 5301
For information contact: Nick Saccone, extension 5301 and Ron Dewell, extension 5245
Date: December 7, 1999
RES.#D113/99 - STEWARDSHIP FORUM
Details regarding the Stewardship Forum which is being developed for
community based restoration groups. Direction to support City of Toronto
and its partners in the development of a Stewardship Forum for community
based restoration groups.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Stewardship Forum which has
been proposed for Saturday, February 19,2000 be supported through TRCA involvement and
cost sharing of approximately $2,000;
AND FURTHER THAT representatives of the Etobicoke/Mimico Task Force, Humber Alliance,
Don Council, Rouge Alliance and the Toronto Waterfront Naturalization Initiative be advised
of this opportunity to network with other groups from throughout the TRCA's jurisdiction.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A focus group meeting was held on August 9, 1999 to discuss an Environmental Task Force, Quick
Start related to the idea of the City of Toronto developing a Stewardship Forum with the support of
its partners. TRCA had been requested by the City to assist in the development of the forum. In
attendance were representatives from a number of community based stewardship groups, the TRCA
and city staff. During this meeting it was decided that the forum would be helpful in developing and
strengthening partnerships between community environmental groups and their partners. The City
of Toronto and the TRCA also.agreed -that.there was-a need to clarify agency and departmental
responsibilities to facilitate community based partnerships.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0437
RA TI ONALE
During the August 9th meeting the focus group identified a number of reasons why a Stewardship
Forum was needed. Firstly, it was determined that the forum could help identify all of the many
community based environmental groups that are active within the TRCA's jurisdiction. Secondly,
the representatives from the community stewardship groups expressed their desire for an
opportunrty to meet and network with these other groups. Thirdly, the forum was seen as providing
the framework for sharing information about new initiatives and exploring specific issues regarding
natural heritage within the Toronto Region. These key points encouraged agreement between the
stakeholders to proceed with a Stewardship Forum for non-government organizations, with the City
of Toronto taking the lead and the TRCA providing support and information related to "headwater"
based groups.
Subsequent meetings have been held by the City ofToronto to get feedback regarding details such
as the size, location, date and format for the forum. As well, the City has asked for assistance in
developing a list of potential participants and in selecting a Master of Ceremonies and a Keynote
Speaker.
To date, it has been confirmed by the City that the forum will be held on Saturday, February 19,2000
between 9:30 a.m. and 3: 15 p m. in the Metro Hall Council Chambers. Between 75 and 150
representatives from community based restoration groups located within the TRCA's jurisdiction will
be able to attend. The Rotunda will be reserved for displays and three meeting rooms will be
booked for break out discussions which will facilitated by the City's Public Consultation staff.
City of Toronto staff has most recently been able to confirm Joe Pantalone, City of Toronto's Tree
Advocate as the M.C. and has suggested two potential Keynote Speakers.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Identify potential participants.
. Select and confirm Keynote Speaker.
. Advertise and register participants for the forum.
. Develop a map which depicts the location and distribution of the community groups
participating in the forum.
. Finalize schedule and topics of discussion for breakout groups.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The costs associated wit-h Stewardship Forum will include items such as catering, advertising,
mailing, printing costs, and payment of the Keynote Speaker. The TRCA has agreed to cost share
expenses related to the promotion and facilitation of the forum to a maximum of $2,000. Funds will
be made available from account 118-10 in the 2000 budget.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extention 5238
Date: December 6, 1999
0438 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
RES.#D114/99 - ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE ORGANIZATION
Recommendation on the structure and membership of the Rouge Park
Alliance.
Moved by: I rene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference for the Rouge
Park Alliance be endorsed;
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance reconfirm that the membership of the Rouge Park Alliance
remain at eleven organizations, twelve representatives including:
Province of Ontario, City of Toronto (2), Region of Durham, Region of York,
Town of Markham, Town of Pickering, Town of Richmond Hill, Town of
Whitchurch-Stouffville, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto Zoo
and Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.
AND FURTHER THAT as outlined in the Terms of Reference the Committee structure be:
Heritage Committee, Finance Committee, Communications and Interpretation
Committee, and, Evaluation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Rouge Park Alliance Organizational Structure Review Committee met to review the report
prepared by the LURA Consulting Group, address the Provincial comments received on that report
and to make a recommendation for the Rouge Park Alliance as requested at Meeting #3, June 7,
1999, Res. #63/99.
The Province responded to the LURA Report by recommending that an Alliance-like structure
continue. The Rouge Park Alliance is to decide on what structure would best suit the needs of the
Rouge Park. In reviewing the LURA Report, the Committee noted the recommendation for an
expanded Alliance and new Executive Committee. The Organizational Structure Review Committee
recommends that an Executive Committee not be formed and that the Alliance remain the same with
an enhanced committee structure. This would provide the best opportunity for the Alliance to remain
an autonomous body. The Committee also proposes that the committee structure be revised to four
committees and that membership on these committees be expanded.
The Committee noted that the Rouge Park Alliance is currently accessible through deputation or
committee reports thus ensuring an open and transparent process for Alliance decisions. The
Committee also recognized that the Alliance has completed a majority of the plans for the Rouge
Park and is now -moving'into an 'implementation stage. The Province has followed through on its
promise to dedicate the Little Rouge Corridor. Therefore, considerable direction and input will be
coming from the committees. Direct involvement in Alliance activities and programs would be
available through the committees (see attached).
For information contact: Gord Weeden, (905) 713-7374
Date: December 7, 1999
Attachments {2}
December 17, 1999 WA TERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 D439
Attachment 1
-'0 >'.
~i ... u
~~.s
:; > E
:> ... ...
~ ~ bJ) Vi c:: <lJ
CI) =' >. o <lJ
~CI) - t::
~ 'E
OJ E
0 :> 0
.......c::<lJ U-JU
u-
o ~:-::
~] ~
u ='
o.~ 0
f-;;<Zi
.....
,-""
o c::
0_
~E2
o.z5~
f- ,-
IX
~
U
Z '- E ...
o '" <lJ <lJ
;S ~~ u t::
c:: ;::
,.J '" c::
o '" ~ ,5 E
~ f-;2 "" 0
"""' U
<lJ
~ ~
'- ~~
0 'I:'"..-..cc-.
c::~ o en ro Q.) P..
o .... ~c::'U;:r::.c
~~ 5iJ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ I
<1)
><~ ~ ;2 ~ < .... l;; t::
_ 'E: ,cE!::: '"
~u ctI ::1 ~ ::: (1) <Zi
~:::J .... 'U ~
'- "" ... ~ CI) ~
0.5 ;:; ""~';;'
ZO F t; ..- ) 00<-0 '"
cc: ~...::.:: '-" U '-" E tI'l t:l.
~w o u c::'-':':!.2'" <lJ
'- .- ~~~"'~ ~
~- ' t:l. ='
~~~6~ 0
~~ '- ~
~~~~~ I
-<~ o E ~
c:: OJ ",,<lJi::c2E
0 .9 i: l-::1ro-ro <lJ
""=' OCl)..c::='CI) <lJ ...
~ ~Ci o U"" ""t::
.s ,-
E 'C E
'" ... E
t:l.
'- :r: 0
E-- 0 U
<lJ 0
u u C
0 c:: ~
'- c::
~ 20
E-- t:l.
r/J
'- 0
o~
c::~
bON
.... '-'
.- 0
Uf-
O
C 0
o 0
CiN
f- c:
9 c:
o <lJ
",' - <lJ
U ~ t:
c: 'E: ~ ~ 'E
C::Sb =' e- c::
E ~ ~ 'C E <lJ (3
-" c: ~ 1: 0 g i::U
~i e ~ <lJ-5
o Vl =' U -
f-~g<
U
~
0440 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 2
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0441
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.0 MANDATE
The Rouge Park Alliance is a voluntary partnership of groups and agencies whose mandate is to
oversee and coordinate the implementation of the Rouge Park Management Plans and be an
advocate for the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Rouge Watershed. The Rouge Park
Alliance in consultation with partners is responsible for:
. preparing resource plans, strategic plans, organization plans and work plans;
. overseeing and co-ordinating the implementation of the Plans;
. ensuring a solid financial plan;
. monitor success, amending and updating the Plans;
. remaining a strong, informed and reasoned leader and advocate for the health,
biodiversity and integrity of the Rouge Park; and
. ensuring an ecosystem perspective is maintained.
1.1 The Work of the Rouge Park Alliance
More specifically the Rouge Park Alliance responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
. recommend and initiate rehabilitation, restoration and stewardship projects and activities
in consultation with local and regional municipalities and other watershed stakeholders
that will lead to the realization of the Vision for the Rouge Park;
. act as the Rouge watershed advocate in projects that cross municipal boundaries;
. support projects advocated by others which will protect, restore and enhance the
Rouge;
. provide a forum for watershed-wide communication;
. continue to promote the Rouge Park to municipal councils, agencies, businesses,
community organizations and others throughout the watershed;
. work cooperatively with local community groups in pursuit of the Goals and Objectives
of the Rouge Park;
. in conjunction with the members and partners and others, host technical forums leading
to improvements in planning and practice, throughout the watershed;
. inform watershed communities about Alliance programs and activities through public
meetings, publications, displays, and cuitural events;
. consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry,
municipalities and government agencies in the realization of the vision for the Rouge
Park;
. assist in gaining financial and in-kind resources for Rouge Park projects;
0442 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
. adhere to the basic ecosystem principles that recognize the interrelationship between
and among cultural heritage, natural heritage and economic processes, and the
integration of conservation, restoration and economic activities necessary for the
ecological health of the watershed.
1.2 Rouge Park Alliance and Member Roles and Responsibilities
The Rouge Park Alliance will develop Memoranda of Understanding with members outlining
the respective roles and responsibilities of each. These Memoranda will be developed for
specific areas such as:
- Administration;
- Planning;
- Property Management;
- Financial Management; and
- Rouge Park Accord.
2.0 ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP
2.1 Appointment of the Chair
The Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance is appointed by the Province. The Chair is also an
ex-officio member of all Rouge Park Alliance committees.
2.2 The Rouge Park Alliance members shall include:
. Province of Ontario
. Watershed Municipalities
- City of Toronto (2)
- Region of Durham
- Region of York
- Town of Markham
- Town of Pickering
- Town of Richmond Hill
- Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
. Other Public Agencies
- Toronto Zoo
. Watershed Interest Group
- Save The Rouge Valley System Inc.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0443
2.3 Alliance Membership
Alliance membership may be changed by a 2/3 majority vote by Rouge Park Alliance
members.
2.4 Appointment of Representatives
All member organizations of the Rouge Park Alliance as listed in Section 2.2 will be
requested to appoint one representative to the Rouge Park Alliance and at least one
alternate (except the City of Toronto who will appoint two representatives and appropriate
alternates). In the absence of the appointed representative, the alternate will have full voting
privileges.
2.5 Roles and Responsibilities of Appointed Representatives
The role of appointed representatives will be to assist the Rouge Park Alliance in promoting,
leading and inspiring Alliance activities.
2.6 Term of Appointment
Representatives or alternates to the Rouge Park Alliance will serve on the Alliance until
replaced by their respective agency or group.
2.7 Attendance
Representatives and alternates are responsible for ensuring representation at all Rouge Park
Alliance meetings.
Representatives and alternates are responsible for reporting to their respective organization
or group of Rouge Park Alliance activities in a manner thought appropriate by the
organization.
2.8 Agency Staff Liaison
Each partner will be requested to designate a staff liaison for the Rouge Park Alliance. This
staff person-would facilitate-communication between Alliance staff and member staff.
2.9 Workinq Committees
The Rouge Park Alliance will appoint the Chair of each Committee from among the
appointed representatives or alternates of the Alliance. The Rouge Park Alliance will
undertake its work through the active involvement of its member representatives on at least
one committee of the following:
0444 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
General Manager
. personnel;
. budgets;
. work program planning;
. coordination of Committees.
. Communications and Interpretation Committee
- educational brochures, publications and programs;
- watershed newsletter;
- media relations;
- information dissemination;
- interpretive signage;
- ensure implementation of Communications and Interpretation Plans.
. Heritage Committee
- Natural and Cultural Heritage Project funding;
- Natural and Cultural Heritage planning - aquatic; terrestrial;
- production of information for Communications group;
- monitoring success of projects;
- monitor protection and restoration of Natural and Cultural heritage of the
watershed;
- private land stewardship - protection and enhancement of natural and
cultural heritage;
- funding for private land stewardship;
- incentives for participation in stewardship;
- information dissemination;
- implementation of heritage plans;
- trails.
. Finance Committee
- i nvestm e nts;
- fundraising;
- budgets;
- realty tax;
- property management and acquisition and priority setting.
. Mandate and Organization Committee
0.0.0.0.1 review implementation of Rouge Park plans by the Rouge Park Alliance
and partners;
0.0.0.0.2recommend changes to Rouge Park Alliance in relation to:
. - 'mem bership' and structure
- mandate
- terms of reference
- Memoranda of Agreement
0.0.0.0.3dispute resolution;
O.O.O.OARouge Park Alliance policy;
0.0.0.0.5Management Plans;
O.0.0.O.6strategic plans;
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0445
0.0.0.O.70perating procedures;
O.O.O.O.8recommend changes in roles and responsibilities of Rouge Park Alliance
partners, including but not limited to:
- planning and land use;
- park planning and management;
- public use;
- rules of conduct.
0.0.0. O. 9adm inistration.
2.9.1 Committee Chair
Each Chair of the Working Committees will be responsible for addressing and
implementing the Terms of Reference for the Committee and reporting to the Rouge
Park Alliance 0':1 a regular basis.
2.9.2 Terms of Reference for Committees
Terms of Reference will be developed and approved by the Rouge Park Alliance for each
Committee established.
2.9.3 Work Plans
The Committees will develop work plans. These work plans will contain resource
requirements to support the proposed activities based on the Terms of Reference
approved by the Rouge Park Alliance.
2.9.4 Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities of Working Committees based on
approved work plans. Committee members are encouraged to secure technical
resources and expertise and other resources and partnerships for projects and activities.
In-kind and other support for projects and activities will be welcome from business,
industries, other government agencies and private foundations, educational institutions
and others.
3.0 RULES OF CONDUCT
The Rouge Park Alliance will generally follow the TRCA's Rules of Conduct, Policies and Procedures
(attached) as they may be modified from time to time.
0446 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
RES.#D115/99 - ROUGE PARK NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Project Recommendations. The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
has reviewed the projects for Year 2000 and provides project funding
recommendations.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the reports from the Rouge Park
Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee, as approved by the Rouge Park Alliance on
December 6, 1999, on project recommendations for Year 2000, be received . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Rouge Park Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee met for two days in November to review
nineteen Year 2000 projects throughout the Rouge watershed. All applicants that submitted projects
were invited to attend the first day of the meeting, gave a summary of their project and were asked
questions about their project. As you may recall, the Rouge Park Natural and Cultural Heritage
Committee is composed of representatives from all of the municipalities, agencies and group
members on the Alliance:
Dena Lewis, TRCA Professor Michael Bunce (U. of T.- Resource)
Karen Boniface, Town of Markham John Riley (Resource Person)
John Nemeth, Town of Richmond Hill Ron Christie, Rouge Park (observer)
Paul Harpley, Toronto Zoo Gord Weeden, Rouge Park (observer)
Mark Heaton, MNR Pam Fulford, Rouge Park
John Minor, City of Toronto Alex Semeniuk, City of Toronto
Glen DeBaeremaeker, SRVS
These people have worked extensively in the Rouge watershed and use their knowledge of the
Rouge and their technical expertise in the challenging task of reviewing natural and cultural heritage
projects. The Committee recognizes that the Rouge Park Alliance members should have the
opportunity to see the results ot the projects that they have funded in the past. They recommend
that the Rouge Park Alliance be invited on a tour of projects with the Committee in May 2000, so that
the Alliance can see the results of their good work. It was also recommended that the next Rouge
Park newsletter be used to report on the status of all projects and that groups be invited to make
presentations to the Alliance on their projects.
RATIONALE
All projects were reviewed and rated using the Natural and Cultural Heritage Project Criteria.
(Attachment 1) and were screened using the Cost/Quality Control report (approved by the Alliance
in 1998). A financial summary-ot-the project recommendation is also provided in the following table.
A financial summary of all project funded in the past is also attached (Attachment 2). Information
and recommendations on each project are presented for each project in the following reports.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0447
The Committee was advised that there would be funding in the range of $120,000 to a possible
$200,000 for projects. A total of $327,494 of funding was requested in project submissions,
representing a total cost of projects (including in kind contributions) of $1 ,381 ,639. Therefore, the
Committee tried to "pare down" most of the projects, so we could still fund a number of worthy
projects, although at a lower funding level. Once the total of recommendations added up to
$143,000, the Committee was asked how to further scale down the funding. The Committee
suggests that 10% to 15% could be taken off every project, but that there was a real danger of some
of the projects not getting enough funding to be implemented. Furthermore, since the Committee
had to "pare down" the funding recommendations to all projects, if more funding were to be
made available, all projects could benefit from 10 to 15% added to their Rouge Park funding
amount, except for those already funded to the full amount requested.
The Committee found that fourteen of the nineteen projects fit our criteria, were located on
appropriate sites, and worked toward the Rouge Park Management Plan goal (1994) and the Rouge
Park Action Plan targets, as approved by the Alliance in 1999.
Please note that our review process started earlier this year and most groups do not have other
funding organizations committed yet. However, all groups will notify the program manager of their
project's financial status before the funding is sent out. In this way, the requirement in the second
clause of all of the recommendations is fulfilled:
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of
participation and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their
application.
For information contact: Gord Weeden (905) 713-7374
Date: December 10, 1999
Attachments (16)
0448 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 1
TABLE 1: ROUGE PARK NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITIEE
YEAR 2000 RECOMMENDED PROJECT PRIORITIES
Project Name (in order of priority) Amount Amount Total Cost
Recommended & Requested
of Project
(% of Total Cost)
1 Year 2000 Planting - (10,000 Trees) $14,200 $17,000 $94,065
2 Rouge Marshes (MNR/Ontario Streams) $16,780 $20,000 $92,669
3 Restoring Forest Con[1ections (Friends $16,780 $49,900 $233,680
(Of the Rouge Watershed)
4 Community Tree Planting- Wideman $3,356 $8,000 $25,915
Site (Little Rouge Restoration Project)
5 Morningside Aquatic Habitat $8,390 $15,500 $42,943
(MNR/Ontario Streams)
6 Upper Rouge Interpretive Centre $8,390 $15,000 $165,000
(Rouge Valley Foundation, Richmond Hill)
7 Milne Creek Rehabilitation (Little $12,585 $25,000 $70,600
Rouge River Restoration Project)
8 Unionville/Kennedy Rd. Rehabilitation $4,195 $40,000 $159,707
(Toronto & Region Conservation Auth,)
9 Beare Road Restoration (Friends $4,195 $22,990 $188,790
Of the Rouge Watershed)
10 Amphibian Monitoring and $10,068 $25,243 $55,485
Wetland Inventory (Rouge River
Restoration Committee)
11 Earth Day Scarborough Year 2000 $4,195 $5,000 $12,790
Planting (Earth Day-Scarborough)
12 Milne Park Planting (Milne Park $6,715 $16,000 . $17,700
Conservation Association)
13 Cattle Fencing &Riparian Planting $1,678 $5,000 $10,472
(Little Rouge Restoration Project)
December 17. 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0449
14 Rouge Headwaters Aquatic Rehab $8,390 $16,000 $55,618
(MNR/Ontario Streams)
15 The Slope Stabilization Project 0 $2,000 $4,695
(Little Rouge Restoration Project)
16 Earth Week Tree Distribution 0 $10,000 $30,000
(Markham Conservation Committee)
17 Wetland Creation (Little Rouge 0 $20,000 $74,150
Restoration Project)
18 Cachet Creek (Ontario Streams) 0 $10,000 $35,200
19 Pool and Riffle Project (Neighbourhood 0 $4,864 $12,1 60
Environmental Science & Technology)
TOT ALS $119,917 $327,494 $1,381,639
0450 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 2
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS -10,000 Trees Year 2000
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the 10,000 Trees for the Rouge Valley Year 2000 Project for Year 2000.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park. Alliance allocates $17,000 to the 10,000 Trees for the Rouge Valley Year
2000 planting event;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
For 10 years, 10,000 Trees for the Rouge Valley have voluntarily donated their spare time and
energy planting over 70,000 trees in the Rouge watershed with the help of approximately 1500
volunteers each year. This group has given an extraordinary effort towards the Rouge Park
Management Plan objective of reforestation and reconnection of natural areas throughout the
Rouge. They plan the entire event from finding a suitable site (with the help of Rouge Park staff),
ordering sufficient number and species for the site, teaching volunteers from the surrounding
communities how to plant the trees and shrubs properly, organizing the planting of 6500 trees by
1400 people all in one day. and monitor the planting sites for years. The dedication and
organizational skills of this group is extraordinary. They are not paid for their many hours and days
of work. Partners that 10,000 Trees has brought to the Rouge: Canada Trust Friends of the
Environment, Bell Canada, Rohm and Haas, Freeway Ford, Rouge Park Alliance, CIBC Development
Corporation, Ministry of Natural Resources CWIP program.
For the year 2000, 10,000 Trees and Rouge Park staff chose a 10 acre site in the Town of Markham
at the northeast corner of the junction of 16th Ave and the 10th Line. Access to the site will be from
the south end of the site, on 16th Ave, close to the bridge. The project planting date will be April 30th,
2000. It is on public land; the site is in the new Provincially dedicated area of the Rouge Park! The
site is a 10 acre farm fie1d, that slopes from east to west down toward the Little Rouge River. The
objective is to restore a 400 metre natural river corridor to fill in a gap where farming operations have
intruded into the corridor. The plantings will be a mixture of native trees and shrubs, chosen for both
food and shelter sources. The planting plan will be reviewed by the Heritage Committee members.
The project integrates revegetation with an hierarchy of habitat structures, such as coarse woody
debris and cavity snags. These landscape features will provide nesting, foraging and overwintering
opportunities for a wide variety of birds, mammals, and herptofauna. This site has been identified
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0451
by Rouge Park staff as a primary restoration site. This project moves our Rouge Park Action Plan
targets in restoring woodlands and wildlife habitat and supports the Rouge Park North Management
Plan of expanding and connecting forests. A monitoring plan is in place to undertake a survival
survey the year after the planting, and in fact, surveys have been conducted on a yearly basis on
all sites.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The benefits were explail"!ed above. We usually have some parking problems, but 10,000 Trees have
parking organizers that do their best to minimize traffic congestion. Adjacent landowners, especially
farmers, should be notified a week in advance that wide farming equipment may not be able to get
through from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. on April 30.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
10,000 Trees have put together a detailed financial summary (available on request). The total value
of their project is $94,065. .They are requesting $17,000 from the Rouge Park Alliance which is 18%
of the total value of the project (includes in kind contributions). Other proposed funding partners are:
Friends of the Environment Foundation (Canada Trust), CIBC Development Corp., Bell Canada,
Rohm and Haas, Freeway Ford, CWIP program. This project is very cost effective as this group
works totally on a volunteer basis.
0452 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 3
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM-
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - ROUGE MARSHES PROJECT
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Rouge Marshes Project.
RECOMMENDATION
THA T the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $20,000 towards the Rouge Marshes project, as
submitted by the Ministry of Natural Resources;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This project is located at the mouth of the Rouge River at Lake Ontario. The Rouge River Marshes
separate the Town of Pickering from the City of Toronto. The wetland extends from Lake Ontario
north to Highway 401 and encompasses most of the river valley floor. The goal of this project is to
protect, restore and enhance the natural, scenic, educational and cultural values of the Rouge River
Marshes in an ecosystem context, and to promote public responsibility, understanding, appreciation
and enjoyment of this heritage. Greater than 90% of coastal wetlands in the Toronto region have
been lost to urban encroachment, while the remaining wetlands suffer continued degradation by
urban and industrial development. The Rouge River Marshes constitute 55% of the total remaining
wetlands in the Toronto area at a size of 68 hectares. It is the largest, but only one of four provincially
significant wetlands in the Rouge River watershed. The Rouge Marshes support a variety of plants
and animal species, many of which are classified as vulnerable by COSEWIC or are provincially
~ignificant species. Historically, the Rouge Marshes provided important breeding grounds for sport
and commercial fisheries, and wildlife. High siltation and turbidity, abundant exotic species,
increased flooding and erosion, encroaching development and degraded fish and wildlife habitat
plague today's Rouge Marshes. This ongoing project has addressed some of these issues.
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) initiated this project to achieve the targets outlined in the
Metro Toronto Coastal Wetlands11ehabilitation'Plan. The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Project
Working Group guides all of the various rehabilitation efforts. This group is composed of various
stakeholders: Environment Canada, MNR, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). City
of Toronto, Rouge Park Alliance, Save the Rouge Valley Inc, Metro East Anglers, West Rouge
Community Association, Ravine Property Owners Association, Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters and Ontario Streams. Other groups that have donated many hours of planning and work
to this project are Harrington and Hoyle Landscape Ltd Landscape Architects, 2nd Chance Program,
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0453
TEAM Program, University of Toronto Internship Program, Tecumseh Secondary School, and
Bayview High School Co-op program volunteers and Ontario Streams have donated many hours
planning this project. The Rouge Park has funded this project in the past (see Attachment 2). To
date, l11any of the remedial recommendations and structural targets outlined in the Coastal Wetland
Rehabilitation Plan have been attained:
. A series of experimental barriers to keep Canada Geese out of the marsh were installed and
biomass surveys were conducted to determine the success of plant regeneration in the barriers -
evidence suggests that the manual removal of purple loosestrife from a wetland is not effective
in controlling this invasive species. Preventing large populations of Canada Geese from feeding
on native vegetation, however, seems to allow native plants to compete against purple
loosestrife;
. An open water marsh experimental carp barrier was erected;
. 5000 mature and 8500 young purple loosestrife plants were removed as part of the experimental
design of the plant regeneration;
. 9 weeks of fisheries data were collected every 2-3 days from April to June, 1999 to determine
the abundance and diversity of spawning fish in the marshes;
. An amphibian inventory was done in partnership with the Rouge River Restoration;
. Garbage (17 bags and 2 rusty oil drums) and debris were picked up along the Rouge River, the
marshes and Lake Ontario shoreline;
. 2 vegetative facines were planted on an exposed bank on Earth Day with volunteers;
. 50 bird boxes, 8 basking logs and 7 brush bundles were installed for overhead fish cover and
wildlife habitat;
. 1 osprey nesting platform and 6 black tern nesting platforms were built;
. A concept plan was designed to remediate the Rouge Beach Parking Lot, including improved
public access via an elevated boardwalk;
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE:
Development of the parking lot design that is acceptable to all members of the Working Group and
to the public will continue in Year 2000. Commencing in the late fall of 1999, this phase of the work
will concentrate on establishing the floating, submergent, and emergent vegetation communities
along the southern shoreline and install the foundation for the elevated boardwalk. Seeds from
native wetland vegetation will be inoculated into sandy soils. These soils will then be graded along
the shoreline to provide the appropriate slope into the marshes for the various species of wetland
plants. These soils will also be free of purple loosestrife in the first year, allowing native vegetation
a jump-start in providing fish and wildlife habitat. Revegetating the southern shore of the marshes
with such plants as cattails, soft stem rush, broad leaf arrowhead and lilies will provide 4 hectares
of habitat for fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. These plants should help bind the soil,
thereby reducing turbidity and improving water quality. Basking logs, brush shelters, and nesting
platforms will also be installed to provide additional habitat for turtles, frogs, and wetland birds such
as the Black Tern. .The--barriers .surrounding .the newly vegetated area should also discourage
Canada Geese access to the parking lot, thereby reducing public interaction and feeding. A wetland
thicket will be established to further prevent people from feeding geese in the parking lot.
Educational signs will be installed along the elevated boardwalk and parking lot. Nesting boxes, fruit
bearing shrubs, and earth mounds will provide additional habitat for snakes, amphibians, and
wetland and upland birds. The boardwalk will provide viewing and educational opportunities for
users of the Park. Volunteer days to collect garbage and pull purple loosestrife will continue. Based
on the past research plots in the marsh, all areas requiring the removal of purple loosestrife will be
0454 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
co-ordinated with waterfowl and carp exclosures and native seed plantings. The recently fenced
island, will be planted with native wetland vegetation and netting will be installed over the fences to
prevent geese from flying into these rehabilitation areas. This will increase native vegetation diversity
and abundance, and provide fish and wildlife habitat over an area of almost 4000 sq. metres.
Common and Caspian Terns were seen using the marshes throughout the summer of 1999. Low
water levels, however, provided easy access for predators to the mud flats, thus preventing nesting
by the terns. A raised platform will be constructed further out into the centre of the open water to
reintroduce nesting populations of Caspian and Common Tern. Monitoring of sediment loading will
also commence at this time.
Long term biological monitoring, planting, garbage removal and annual maintenance of habitat
structures by volunteers will be organized through continued fund-raising efforts by the Working
Group partners. Created vegetation units should be self-maintaining after their second year of
growth. MNR assumes responsibility for long-term maintenance of habitat structures and supports
long-term community inv.olvement in conservation activities.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
This project helps contribute to a healthy watershed in the following ways: restores an existing
Provincially Significant Wetland, increases species diversity, restores woody riparian cover,
increases fish and wildlife habitat, improves water quality, increases populations of native self-
sustaining flora, enhances buffers and connectivity between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and
removes exotic invasive species. Recreating habitat suitable for extirpated fish species increases
the recreational fishing opportunities.
Individual interests of the stakeholders on the Working Group have been divergent at times in the
past, but maintaining the health of the marshes has always the primary objective by all agencies and
groups. Development of a parking lot design that is acceptable to all members of the Working Group
and to the public continues to be a drawn out process due to the complexity of the issues arising
from the managerial, ecological, public perception and recreational points of view. The parking lot
and shoreline naturalization will be carried out under the direction of the Working Group through
continued public consultation. We have held two public meetings already, and have received
overwhelming public and City of Toronto Council (Ron Moeser) support for this project. With all
parties co-operating, we do not anticipate any problems.
The research on marsh conditions and purple loosestrife impacts is very intensive, and will direct
future work in this marsh and other coastal shoreline marshes in the Lake Ontario basin.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
This project has been cost effective with many partners which share much of the financial and work
force cost. Two thousand and two hundred volunteer hours have been logged in the marshes in
1999. For example, on pl:lrple loosestrife and debris removal work days, the City of Toronto Parks
Department donates staff time and trucking costs to remove the pulled loosestrife and garbage. The
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, City of Toronto, has also
spent many hours of staff time at the Working Group sessions, aiding in the design of the wetland.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0455
For the Year 2000, MNR is requesting $20,000 (21 % of total cost) from the Alliance, out of a total
project cost of $92669. Other partners that have been approached for funding are: Great Lakes
2000 Cleanup Fund, MNR CFWlP, Friends of the Environment Fund (Canada Trust), The Body Shop
Charitable Foundation, Mott's Foundation, Royal Bank Charitables, Labatt Community Investment
Fund.
0456 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 4
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM-
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - RESTORING FOREST CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN THE ROUGE AND LITTLE ROUGE
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Restoring Forest Connections project, submitted by Friends of the Rouge Watershed.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $20,000 to the Restoring Forest Connections project,
submitted by Friends of the Rouge Watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This site is located on Reesor Road and south of the railway in the City of Toronto. The site is owned
by the TRCA for Rouge Park purposes. The site is accessible via Reesor Road and the lane at 3
Reesor Road. Site preparation will occur in the fall of 1999 (if approved) and the spring of 2000.
Plantings will occur in the spring and fall of 2000. Approvals may be necessary from the TRCA and
RPA, but staff at the Rouge Park have worked closely with the applicant to ensure that the location
was a priority site. The site contains three fields (A, B and C) which will have different planting
prescriptions (available on request).
RATIONALE and DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
These sites are all designated in the Rouge Park Vegetation Management Plan as areas for high
priority restoration. The restoration objectives of this site are:
- to disperse/sow more than 20,000 locally collected native tree seeds;
- plant 10,000 native trees and shrubs, at a spacing of 3 to 4 metres between trees;
- erect 20 cedar raptor posts and 20 nesting boxes for native birds;
- significantly reduce dog strangling vine, purple loosestrife, European buck thorn, and other
invasives on the site;
- create small wetland excavations in wet areas of the site and place habitat structures to
provided salamander, small mammal and amphibian habitat;
- work with Rouge Park, TRCA, City of Toronto and Toronto Zoo to design a small mammal
and amphibian passage tunnel beneath Reesor Rd.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0457
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
Benefits are outlined above, no problems are anticipated. This project helps fulfill the Rouge Park
Management Plan natural heritage objectives and is described as a high priority in the Rouge Park
Vegetation Management Plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant has requested $49,900 for Year 2000 of this project, but the Committee thought that
the project could be scaled down in consultation with Friends of the Rouge Watershed. This lower
level of funding is recommended due to lack of funds for Year 2000 and the Committee would
recommend further funds be allocated to this project should they become available. The Committee
recommends that $20,000 be allocated toward this project for Year 2000 work. Other proposed
funding partners are: Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Fund, City of Toronto, Human
Resources Development Canada, Trillium Foundation, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Honda Canada,
Toronto District School Board Co-op Program, EcoAction 2000. FRW will bring 1500 students and
volunteer for a total of about 6000 volunteer hours. More detailed financial details available on
request.
0458 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 5
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - COMMUNITY TREE PLANTING
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Community Tree Planting as part of the Little Rouge Restoration Project, submitted
by Save the Rouge Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $4,000 to the Community Tree Planting Project,
submitted by Save the Rouge Valley Inc. ;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
There are two sites described in this application, one on private land (Wideman site) at one on a
portion of the Glen Eagle site. The latter site is not recommended for funding at this time since a
steering Committee has been proposed to develop a management plan for the entire Glen Eagle
site.
The Wideman site is situated on the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and McCowan Road on the
Little Rouge River. The landowner has planted a few trees adjacent to the river, but additional
plantings would increase the riparian buffer and would create a tableland forest community.
RATIONALE and DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The planting on this site represents 15% riparian and 85% tableland. Riparian planting will include
species such as bur oak, green ash, white birch, tamarack, red-osier dogwood, serviceberry, willow
and sumac. Nut producing trees such as bur oak provide a high energy food source for deer,
squirrels, turkey, and other small mammals. Serviceberry, red-osier dogwood and sumac will attract
a host of birds including woodpeckers, vireos, blue jays, chickadees, sparrows, cardinals, cedar
waxwings and scarlet tanagers. A total of 105 trees and 120 shrubs will be planted in the riparian
area and 1400 trees will be planted on the tableland to increase forest cover.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0459
FUTUREBENEATS/PROBLEMS
The Heritage Committee members will review the listing of proposed species prior to planting. There
are many anticipated environmental benefits resulting from the community planting component
such 8.$: establishment of a vegetated corridor, enhancement of native species diversity, restoration
of wildlife habitat, enhancement of the buffer zone and connectivity between aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, and added soil retention potential. This project will assist the Rouge Park Action Plan target
of planting more than 15 km of wooded riparian vegetation per year by 90 metres of riparian planting
and 2800 sq. metres of upland planting. There are no problems anticipated.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Committee recommends that the Alliance allocates $4000 to this project ($8000 was requested,
total cost of project is $25,915). The Committee suggested that the landowner show commitment
to this project in terms of funding or in-kind contribution.
0460 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 6
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - MORNINGSIDE AQUATIC HABITAT
PROJECT
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Morningside Aquatic Habitat Project, submitted by Ontario Streams.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $10,000 to the Morningside Aquatic Habitat project,
submitted by Ontario Streams;
THA T the work done is conditional on agreement from the City of Toronto, TRCA and the
Rouge Park;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This project is a partnership project of Ontario Streams and the Ministry of Natural Resources and
is a mixture of research, monitoring and in-the-ground work. It has provided up to date habitat
assessments and biological data, maintained and rehabilitated degraded reaches thereby restoring
its natural heritage value, promoted partnerships in stream rehabilitation, restored native
communities of fish and wildlife in the Morningside Tributary, promoted Gommunity awareness and
stewardship. Ontario Streams is a registered Non-Profit Organization dedicated to fostering and
supporting projects which enhance the health of streams and watersheds across Ontario. The
Ministry of Natural Resources is a working partner on this project with Ontario Streams.
In the past, 1.5 km of cold water fish habitat were restored in an urban watercourse, maintaining the
in stream structure necessary for all the life stages of multiple fish species with an emphasis on
rainbow trout and redside dace. 500 metres of riparian (stream side) trees and shrubs were planted
with the help of volunteer community an'd business groups. Work on this project involved the
habitat assessment of 3.5 km of the Morningside Creek. Garbage and debris removal occurred on
this reach and stream habitat improvement structures were built including: 45 sweeps, 4 sets of
double winged deflectors, 2 step pool fish ways, 4 cabled log jams, 5 single wing log deflectors,
numerous rock vortex weirs, 6 brush bundles, 50 cavity nesting boxes, 2 bat boxes, 1 lunker
structures, 40 log placements, 10 debris-jams, 5 song bird nesting poles, 1 rocky ramp and 50
metres of channel definition.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0461
RATIONALE
Environmental problems that are addressed in this project are: insufficient in stream cover, low water
quality, erosion, and habitat fragmentation. Techniques used in this project are "soft" engineering
and bioengineering methods that are relatively new. The underlying principle is to work with natural
elements to achieve long term sustainability and naturally productive watersheds. Also, new
community based and corporate partners are being sought and encouraged to adopt sections of
the tributary, so that long term "buy in" by the community is obtained.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In the Year 2000, Ontario Streams proposes to: restore 1 km of cold water fish habitat in an urban
watercourse, undertake 500 metres of riparian planting along the Morningside, and design a bypass
channel to mitigate the zoo energy dissipater to allow for fish passage. Minimal maintenance is
required as most of the project involves using materials which are biodegradable over several years
and naturally blend in with the surroundings. The monitoring and maintenance of the in stream
habitat structures in conjunction with the fisheries and benthic monitoring is the responsibility the
partners in this project, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Streams for the next
two years. New community based and corporate partners are being sought and encouraged to
adopt sections of the tributary.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
The slope stabilization methods used in this project prohibit silt and sediment from entering the
stream to the extent that it has in the past. Riparian plantings have contributed to water temperature
cooling of this cold water stream. The addition of structure (sweeps, deflectors, etc) have created
a diverse environment for fish and invertebrates, and can only improve recruitment to these
populations. It has also made the area richer for waterfowl especially upland ducks which have a
better chance of survival with well developed riparian cover and tableland forest linkages. More fish
species can be sustained in a more diverse habitat. This leads to better recreational fishing
opportunities for the Subwatershed.
The City of Toronto, Toronto Zoo, TRCA and the Rouge Park Alliance need to be in agreement with
the site locations, bypass design and work proposed in this project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant has requested $15,500, 23% of the total cost of the project. The Committee
recommends $10,000 toward this project to cover implementation of detailed biological monitoring,
garbage cleanup, debris removal, installation of habitat structures and co-ordination of volunteers.
This lower level of funding recommendation is due to lack of funds for Year 2000 and the Committee
would recommend further funds be allocated to this project should they become available. This
project is extremely cost effective, with the majority of the work being lead by people trained in
resource management but mainly done by community volunteers (a total of 500 volunteer hours).
Previously in kind support was provided by the City of Toronto (equipment and staff time). and the
Ministry of Natural Resources donated the time .of summer students, vehicles, equipment, and staff
supervision. It is anticipated that this support will continue for this project. Other partners include:
The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto Zoo, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund,
Metro East Anglers, Toronto and Region Conservation, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, and Save
the Rouge Valley System. The proposed funding and in-kind contribution partners for this year's
work are: OMNR, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto Zoo, Metro East Anglers, TEAM
Program students from Milliken Mills H.S., Second Chance Program, Friends of the Rouge
Watershed and SRVS.
0462 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 7
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM.
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - UPPER ROUGE INTERPRETIVE CENTRE -
DEXTER HOUSE RESTORATION
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the restoration of the Dexter House as part of the Upper Rouge Interpretive Centre.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $10,000 towards the restoration of the Dexter House;
THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding is conditional on the support of this project by the Town
of Richmond Hill;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This project is different from all of the rest, and different from any that the Rouge Park Alliance has
funded in the past. The Alliance has funded only one cultural heritage project in the past, the
Cultural Heritage Inventory and Assessment of the Rouge Watershed submitted by TRCA in 1996.
The Dexter House project will restore an historical building, originally built in 1801. The Richmond
Hill Chapter of the Rouge Valley Foundation began discussions in 1997 with the Town of Richmond
hill regarding establishing an Interpretive Centre in the Phyllis Rawlinson Environmental Park. The
plans incorporate an historic house, the John Dexter House, believed to be one of the earliest built
structures in York Region, and, that after its restoration, it will be converted into the Upper Rouge
Interpretive Centre. The Dexter House was dismantled in 1984 to save it from demolition. The Upper
Rouge Network (a chapter of the Rouge Valley Foundation) is now raising funds to rebuild the Dexter
House at the Phyllis Rawlinson Park. The land, located at 11715 Leslie Street, R.R.2, Gormley, in the
Town of Richmond was deeded by the late Phyllis Rawlinson to the Town of Richmond Hill to be
used as an Environmental Park. This location contains the headwaters of the Rouge and has
excellent potential for renaturalization. Two tributaries of the Rouge River run through the one
hundred acres that also contains wetlands and other intermittent streams. This land has high
potential for ecological restoration.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0463
RA TI ONALE
The interpretive centre will focus on ecological protection and restoration and provide a place for
interested community members to create, develop and fulfill cultural and environmental programs.
This project has the support of the Town of Richmond Hill and the Commissioner of Parks and
Recreation. All stakeholders are in the process of negotiating terms and conditions for a partnership
arrangement between the Town of Richmond Hill and the Richmond Hill Chapter of the Rouge
Foundation including both capital and ongoing operational issues. It is proposed that programs at
the Interpretive Centre will be operated by a volunteer program staff drawn from the community.
Typical work projects conducted by this chapter at the centre would include tree plantings, wildlife
rehabilitation, wetland enhancement, and outdoor environmental classrooms.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The original logs and building material will be reconstructed into the original design according to
historical plans.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
This project will give the community the ability to relate to the importance of the Rouge Park North,
the important role the Rouge River played in our early development, and an appreciation for what
we still have. It will provide a meeting place for those interested in natural and cultural heritage
issues. A partnership agreement is now being drawn up by the Town, and with this in place, no
problems are anticipated.
This work fits well with the recommendations of the draft Rouge Park Interpretation Plan that
recommends interpretation is done on an "outreach basis". The Richmond Hill Interpretive Centre
offers us a rare opportunity for a partnership in interpretation that will draw in the community, but
will not carry a high overhead cost for the Rouge Park Alliance.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Town of Richmond Hill and the Rouge Valley Foundation are presently working on detailed
costs, but it is estimated that the cost of construction directly related to the Dexter House Interpretive
Centre is $165,000. An understanding between the Town of Richmond Hill and the Richmond Hill
Chapter of RVF is being established as to the sharing of capital costs directly related to the Dexter
House. The applicant requested $15,000 of Rouge Park Alliance funds. It is recommended by the
Committee that this project receives $10,000, which would provide a go'od start towards the costs
of the reconstruction. The funding of this project will be conditional on the support of this project
by the Town of Richmond Hill and sufficient other partners to ensure project sustainability.
0464 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
Attachment 8
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - MILNE CREEK REHABILITATION
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Milne Creek Rehabilitation Project.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $15,000 toward the Milne Creek Rehabilitation Project,
submitted by Save the Rouge Valley Inc;
THAT funding is conditional on a design approved by the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the Town of Markham;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This site is a 340 metre reach of a tributary of the Rouge River, located in a residential area, East of
McCowan Road and South of Highway 7, in the Town of Markham. It is public land, owned and
managed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Members of the community and the
Milne Park Conservation Association have requested that the creek be restored. The creek is prone
to flooding and erosion, and recent heavy rains have exposed the stone rip rap, contributed to bank
erosion and are placing the local resident's property in jeopardy.
RATIONALE
The objective of the work would be to restore the natural function of the creek and to encourage
community participation involving residents in all stages of the project from planning to planting.
Opportunities also exist to involve local colleges in the bioengineering work.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The design phase of this project will be initiated in November of 1999, and will involv~ intensive
public and agency consultation. Wooded riparian cover will be restored, the soil will be stabilized,
water temperatures will be reduced through shading, and erosion will be controlled through
bioengineering of the slopes. Rouge Park funds would be used on the bio engineering and
vegetative plantings to be done in the year 2000.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0465
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
This project compliments the restoration goal of the Rouge Park North Management Plan. It also
contributes to the specific target of planting woody riparian vegetation along the Rouge. It will help
restor~ a degraded valley corridor and natural stream channel, restore woody riparian cover, fish and
wildlife habitat, water and air quality and it will promote community involvement. Maintenance costs
will be incorporated into the budget. Long term maintenance at the site will be the responsibility of
the landowners, TRCA and the Little Rouge River Project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant has requested $25,000 from the Rouge Park Alliance. The Committee recommends
that $15,000 be allocated toward the project; this is 21 % of the total cost of the project. This level of
funding is due to lack of funds for Year 2000 and the Committee would recommend further funds
be allocated to this project should they become available.
0466 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
Attachment 9
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - UNI ONVI LLE/KENNEDY ROAD
REHABILITATION
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Unionville/Kennedy Road Rehabilitation Project.
RECOMMENDATION
THA T the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $5,000 toward vegetative plantings and
bioengineering in the Unionville/Kennedy Road Rehabilitation project, submitted by the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;
THAT the funding is conditional on the transfer of the valley lands into public ownership;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other pa~ners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This project was originally submitted for Committee review of 1999 funding by the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority. During our review of the initial submission, the Committee did not
recommend the project to the Alliance for funding. The Committee was asked to review the
application again by the Alliance because new information was available. In the March, 1999
Committee meeting, Nick Saccone, and Russel White from TRCA and Ran.dal Dickie from the Town
of Markham presented further information on this project. The Committee found that the project, with
the new information, has environmental merit and is in agreement with the goal and natural heritage
objectives of the Rouge Park North Management Plan and the Rouge River Fisheries Management
Plan. The Committee made the attached recommendation to the Alliance which was approved at
the April 12, 1999 meeting. As the recommendation stated, when additional funding and information
about the project became available, the Committee could recommend funding on this project in
relation to the other projects submitted for 1999 funding. The above recommendation is the result.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0467
RATIONALE
The site lies in the valley of the main Rouge River in the Town of Markham, east of the Kennedy
Road by-pass and north of Highway #7. The river traverses the site which is presently comprised
of three residences which together make up approximately 0.7 hectares. The homes on these lots
were approved to be constructed below the valley top of bank and have minimal setbacks from the
river itself. The valley slopes and river banks along this 140 m. reach have had various erosion
control treatments, ranging from sheet pile retaining walls to the dumping of concrete and other
debris. Poor management practices and neglect has resulted in channelization of the watercourse,
the loss of woody riparian vegetation and habitat, and the loss of table/valley land vegetation and
habitat.
The homeowners, TRCA, Town of Markham, Rouge Park Alliance and a developer are presently
discussing a redevelopment plan that:
. provides for the establishment of a riparian zone along the recognized cold water fishery
resource;
. provides the necessary level of river bank erosion protection including slope rehabilitation
which would involve the removal of existing concrete/rubble, retaining walls, and other
debris, and stabilizing the slope and riverbank through bioengineering technologies and
plantings;
. provides for public ownership of the undeveloped portion of the land.
The acquisition of the valley corridor will allow us to rehabilitate this degraded section of the Rouge
River, and reconnect it with surrounding public green space.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
It is suggested that two of these houses will be removed and the third (the farthest from the river)
will be replaced by a one story commercial building, approximately 4000 square foot in size. This
building would be municipally serviced and the septic systems that are currently operating on the
properties would be discontinued. Parking for this building will extend into the other properties. This
project would establish a narrow riparian zone along the recognized cold water fishery resource,
provide the necessary level of river bank erosion protection, remove concrete retaining walls and
other debris, stabilize the slope and riverbank through bioengineering, armouring and extensive
valley and table land plantings. The existing septic systems would be decommissioned.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The funding of this project is conditional on the transfer of this land to public ownership. Property
negotiations are taking place at the present time. One problem with the project is that set backs of
the existing and proposed buildings from the valley top of bank are minimal (less than 5 metres).
In fact, in some of the site photographs, the buildings appear to rise straight out of the river. An
environmental gain, however, is anticipated in this project due to the removal of the septic system
and cement and sheet-piling debris-aJong the watercourse , and restoring a vegetated riparian zone.
The Committee suggests that this project is not so much within the Rouge Park Alliance mandate,
as it is within TRCA's and the Town of Markham's mandate. The Committee, however, has
recommended that funds be allocated toward the restorative works for this site, over and above what
the Conservation Authority or municipality would normally do.
0468 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The TRCA and its partners will be responsible tor the design and implementation of the slope
rehabilitation works. Based on preliminary designs, it is estimated that this work will cost $150,000
to impl\3ment. The TRCA originally requested $40,000 from the Rouge Park Alliance in its January
15, 1999 submission, and again $40,000 in its October, 1999 submission. The Committee
recommends that this project receive $5,000. These funds would be allocated to the restorative
works required tor this site.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY SOARD #7/99 0469
Attachment 10
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM-
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - BEARE ROAD LANDFILL RESTORATION
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Beare Road Landfill Restoration Project, submitted by Friends of the Rouge
Watershed. .
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $5,000 toward the Beare Road Landfill Restoration
project, submitted by Friends of the Rouge Watershed;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
The Beare Landfill is east of the Little Rouge River, south of Old Finch Road, north of the Hydro
Corridor and east of the Pickering Townline. The land is owned by the City of Toronto. The Beare
Road landfill occupies 290 acres within the lower Rouge in the City of Toronto and has now become
a landmark as it is one of the highest points of land for many kilometres around. The top of the
landfill provides an impressive look-out point for the lower Rouge and GT A. This site now also
attracts a large number and variety of hawks, other birds, and wildlife particularly during the fall
migration, due to the efforts of Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW). The landfill accepted over
12 million tonnes of waste before it was closed in the mid 19S0s. The site includes meadows and
wetlands in the old borrow pit area and, before the vegetation plantings, a huge, high sparsely-turfed
and barren landfill mound. Many invasive species (such as dog strangling vine) had colonized the
area and the site seemed virtually devoid of life before the work was done. As an additional
innovation to the site, the City of Toronto has constructed gas wells and vacuum lines which convey
landfill gas to a facility that upgrades the gas and generates electricity through gas combustion. In
summary, this project is the ultimate in facilitation of a degraded area into a structurally diverse
mixture of native forest, meadow and wetland habitats. It is also an excellent example of how
community and municipal support can work together in restoration. The Friends of the Rouge
Watershed has planted and maintained more than 30,000 native trees and shrubs at several sites
within the Rouge River watershed since 1997. Over 3,500 youth and community volunteers were
used for this work.
In past years on the Beare Road landfill site:
. 5.0 hectares (12.5 acres) were planted with 7500 native trees;
0470 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
. 540 volunteers planted the trees and shrubs at the Beare site in 1999;
. 10 tree nucleation plots were designed and planted within the borrow pit;
. 26 Nature walks on ecological issues were provided for 15 school classes;
. 8 Kestrel nesting boxes, 8 bat roosts, 25 raptor snags, 2 wood duck nesting boxes were built and
erected by students;
. Two University students were hired to conduct tree survival and vegetation surveys;
. topsoil and organic mulch was added to improve soil depth and structure, fertility and moisture
retention, and to moderate soil temperature, reduce invasive weed competition;
. deep tilling was done to improve soil aeration and structure for water infiltration and rooting;
. Over 90% survival rate for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority trees purchased
after 1 at year.
RA TI ONALE
The long term goals of this project are to:
. enhance 60 hectares of meadow habitat with native wildflowers and flowering shrubs;
. restore a 40 hectare forest connection between the Little Rouge and Pickering forests;
. enhance 1 hectare of wetland habitat in suitable non-Iandfilled areas.
This project has and will continue to develop a practical understanding of the native species which
are most suitable and sustainable for local restoration work. It is an excellent example of adaptive
management and a research project that plants trees at the same time as monitoring for adaptive
management. Good species selection and restoration design has already helped the barren landfill
landscape to become more natural, biodiverse and self sustaining. However, native wildflower,
meadow and wetland areas may require some ongoing management to reduce the invasion of non-
native plants and trees/shrubs. By enhancing and inter-connecting forest, wetland, and meadow
areas, the project has improved habitat for a variety of birds, mammals and other wildlife. By
rehabilitating the rutting and erosion caused by sparse vegetation growth and by improving site
hydrology, the restoration of native vegetation will reduce surface runoff, silt and pollutants entering
the river.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In the year 2000, 6,000 native trees and shrubs will be planted on the site. Native wildflower and
grasses will be planted in small plots filled with 15 cm of sand and surrounded by logs to reduce
competition from invasive species. These "nucleation: plots help to spread native species to suitably
prepared adjacent areas.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
Some of the benefits of this project are:
. turn a scarred and barren landscape into a productive and attractive area for long-term Park use;
. link the Little Rouge Valley forests and the Townline Forest wetland;
. enhance the native species content and structural diversity of the Rouge Park;
. develop local experience which will help restore other disturbed sites in the Rouge Park.
No problems are anticipated.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0471
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant is requesting $22,990 to this project and the Committee is recommending $5,000 or
3% of the total cost ($188,790) to go towards the project. The Committee believes this project is very
worthy. from an ecological viewpoint and want to encourage Rouge Park support. The Committee
also recommends that the City of Toronto continues to support this worthwhile project.
This project has been cost effective with the donation of staff time and materials from the City of
Toronto and the hundreds of volunteer hours of planting. The City of Toronto has been totally
supportive of this project and has worked along with Friends of the Rouge Watershed in designing
this project, contributing funds, and lending equipment and materials ~uch as mulch and soil. With
the help of Toronto Works Department, watering has been possible for the first three plantings. With
the help of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), FRW hired youth workers to help
protect, water, maintain and monitor the planted trees. Canada Trust Friends of the Environment,
E.S. Fox (the landfill gas extraction company) has provided in kind help, Brooklin Cycle Marine and
Honda Canada have loaned an ATV and trailer to the project. Last but not least, 540 volunteers
learned about how to plant trees, and actually planted most of the 7500 trees. These volunteers were
from Youth Challenge, Laurier C.!., Tecumseh P.S., Berner Trail P.S., Hillside Outdoor Education
Centre, 3rd Highland Creek Scouts and Scarborough College Environmental Club.
0472 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 11
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM-
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - AMPHIBIAN MONITORING AND WETLAND
INVENTORY
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Amphibian Monitoring and Wetland Inventory Project, submitted by the Rouge River
Restoration Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
THA T the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $12,000 towards the Amphibian Monitoring and
Wetland Inventory Components of the Rouge River Restoration Committee Project, submitted
by Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.;
THA T the Rouge River Restoration Committee continues to assure that the amphibian
monitoring protocol is complementary to and consistent with the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority protocol;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
In March, 1999, the Rouge River Restoration Committee (RRRC), in partnership with the Rouge Park
Alliance, the Toronto Zoo, TRCA and Ontario Streams, began an amphibian study to monitor the
distribution, species diversity, relative population density and breeding habitat of salamanders,
newts and spring breeding frogs and toads in selected wetlands of the Rouge River watershed: All
monitoring activities, under the direction of the project coordinator, were carried out by 63
volunteers. The Toronto zoo helped train the "Frogwatch" volunteers to recognize 12 different calls
of frog and toad species native to Ontario. The RRRC and TRCA provided the volunteers with a frog
monitoring protocol and taught them the method of data collection. Volunteers "adopted" a wetland
to monitor, and visited the wetland once or twice a week to monitor the presence/absence of frogs
and toads. Concurrently, salamander survey volunteers were trained by the Toronto Zoo Curator of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Bob Johnson. Throughout the month of April, under the direction of the
RRRC coordinator, this group of volunteers met every Sunday morning to search for salamanders
and newts in areas of the Rouge watershed.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0473
Monitoring amphibian populations is important. Amphibian populations are valuable components
in an ecosystem and they are considered indicators of environmental health. These populations
have naturally high fluctuations from year to year depending on precipitation levels and temperature
patterns. As is the case in most wildlife population, it is necessary to monitor amphibians
consecutively for several years to achieve an accurate baseline data collection. It is also important
to verify data collected by volunteers.
RATIONALE and DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Year 2000 of this program would concentrate on three components, monitor amphibians to obtain
accurate baseline data, verify data collected by volunteers (with a "frog logger" , a mechanical device
that constantly records amphibian calls in a wetland), and continue to inventory wetlands that have
not been assessed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The wetland inventory will be done using
a Geographic Positioning System Unit (GPS), in order to note location, general shape and size of
wetland areas throughout the watershed. The amphibian monitoring program will be launched in
all major communities of the Rouge, including Scarborough, Markham, Pickering, Whitchurch-
Stouffville and Richmond Hill. Each program launch will involve an amphibian monitoring training
session and volunteer recruitment. The monitoring period of the 2000 program will begin in April and
extend into the months of June and July in order to catch the breeding period of the Green Frog and
Bullfrog. Minor changes will occur in the previous methods as we are continuing to standardize the
protocol with that used by the TRCA.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
Private landowners will be contacted for their permission, before any access to private land is
attempted. There are no problems anticipated.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant has requested $25,243 for this project. The Committee recommends $12,000, or 22%
of the total cost of the project. This level of funding is due to lack of funds for Year 2000 and the
Committee would recommend further funds be allocated to this project should they become
available. Other potential funding partners are the "Millennium Bureau of Canada", the Ministry of
Natural Resources CWIP, and the Trillium Foundation.
0474 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 12
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - EARTH DAY SCARBOROUGH YEAR 2000
PLANTING
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Earth Day Scarborough, Year 2000 Planting Event.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates.$5,OOO towards the Earth Day Scarborough, Year 2000
Planting, submitted by Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
Earth Day Scarborough has proposed another tree planting event, as part of Earth Day celebrations
taking place in 2000. Scout and Guide groups from the Scarborough area will be participating, along
with other volunteers. The planting will be on public land, former aRC lands, on part of the hydro
corridor south of Steeles Ave., now under management by TRCA.. This land is in the City of Toronto,
just south of Steeles Ave and west of Beare Road.
RATIONALE
On the east side of the Little Rouge River is a clearing that was previously used for agricultural
purposes. This area appears to be left to regenerate as a hay crop has not been harvested this year.
Stag horn sumac is beginning to revegetate along the tableland bordering the river. In planting 1000
native trees and shrubs on this site, Earth Day Scarborough will be restoring 100 metres of wooded
riparian vegetation on the Little Rouge.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Oaks and hickories will be planted along the bottom of the slope, areas on the west side of the river
that are dominated by herbaceous vegetation will be planted with White cedar and various native
shrub species. The area under the hydro corridor would be planted with low growing tree and shrub
species that will not encroach the power lines. Planting of taller growing tree species will be planted
approximately 15 metres from the dripline of the hydro wires so that the crown will not grow into the
wires.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0475
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
Permission from Ontario Hydro and TRCA is in the process of being obtained.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant has requested $5,000 for the planting, and the Committee recommends this amount.
This is 39% of the total cost of the project. Other funding partners are Canada Trust Friends of the
Environment Fund and the MNR CFWIP program.
0476 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 13
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM-
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - MILNE PARK PLANTING
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Milne Park Planting project, submitted by the Milne Park Conservation Association
(MPCA).
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $8,000 towards the Milne Park Planting by the Milne
Park Conservation Association;
THAT the planting is done in accordance with the Milne Park Master Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
The project is located on 80 acres of provincial land that is currently being transferred to TRCA for
Rouge Park purposes. The area to be planted is located beside the Hwy 407 fence west of Hwy 48
in the Town of Markham. The Town of Markham operates the Park under an agreement with TRCA.
Currently the municipality is undertaking a review of its park master plan. However, Markham staff
(Karen Boniface) have indicated that is would be appropriate to plant a linear buffer beside the Hwy
407 fence line to create a visual and noise buffer as well as providing a wildlife corridor across the
current barren farm fields. The planting is proposed in the spring of 2000 with 2000 native tree and
shrub species.
RATIONALE and DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
This project would lessen noise from the new Hwy 407, create a visual barrier between Rouge park
lands and Hwy 407, absorb carbon dioxide from vehicles, prevent soil erosion on the fields, involve
the community and educate guides and scouts in planning and participating in tree planting and
environmental events and contribute to York Region tree cover target of 25% . The area is currently
exposed to wind erosion and the 407 sediment pond or the Rouge River receives this as sediment.
2000 native trees and shrubs would be planted with a species list approved by the Rouge Park
Heritage Committee, TRCA and Markham.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0477
FUTURE BENEFITS I PROBLEMS
Future benefits are stated above. This project will be done with the knowledge and approval of
TRCA, Rouge Park and the Town of Markham.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant is requesting $16,000 for the purchase of trees. The Committee recommends $8,000
which is 45% of the total project cost.
0478 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
Attachment 14
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - CATTLE FENCING & RIPARIAN PLANTING
PROJECT
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Cattle Fencing and Riparian Planting Project, as part of the Little Rouge Restoration
Project, submitted by Save the Rouge Valley Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
THA T the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $2,000 to the Cattle Fencing and Riparian Planting
Project submitted by Save the Rouge Valley Inc.;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND and RATIONALE
This site is on private land east of McCowan and north of Stouffville Rd. The landowner would like
to restrict cattle access to a section of the Little Rouge River since bank erosion is resulting from
unrestricted access. The funds would be used for the" on land" work only. The issue of landowner
commitment was raised - the landowner will supply split rail fencing for the project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In discussions with the landowner, it was decided that an extension to the. existing split rail fencing,
combined with an extension to the electrical fencing would work well to keep the cattle out of the
stream. The post holes would be dug, concrete placed at the base and the posts back filled by a
contractor. Volunteers would install the cedar rails and plant riparian vegetation.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
This project combines restoration of woody riparian cover, buffering of natural areas and systems,
promoting stewardship and community based projects are recognized as a top priority of the Rouge
Park Management Plan and the Action Plan. The landowner will supply split rail fencing. No
problems are anticipated.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant requested $5,000 for this project; the Committee recommends $2,000, which is 19%
of the total project cost. This level of funding is due to lack of funds for Year 2000 and the Committee
would recommend further funds be allocated to this project should they become available.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0479
Attachment 15
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM -
PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS - ROUGE HEADWATERS AQUATIC
REHABILITATION PROJECT
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance allocates
funding to the Rouge Headwaters Aquatic Rehabilitation Project, submitted by Ontario Streams.
RECOMMENDATION
THA T the Rouge Park Alliance allocates $10,000 to the Rouge Headwaters Aquatic
Rehabilitation Project, submitted by Ontario Streams;
THAT locations of the work will be reviewed with the Town of Richmond Hill and the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority before the work is initiated;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park Alliance funding be subject to the agreement of participation
and/or provision of funding from the other partners as outlined in their application.
BACKGROUND
This project is a partnership project by Ontario Streams and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The
locations of ' this project are: Upper Rouge River Tributary designations Rouge A, B, and C in the
areas of Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street between Elgin Mills Road and Stouffville Road, in the
Town of Richmond Hill, York Region.
Highlights of 1999 work:
--: 650 metres of channel naturalization
- total of 900 metre of debris cleanup producing 65 bags of garbage
- total of 670 volunteer hours
- 400 eastern white cedars planted
- bioengineering using 500 willows
- removal of one check dam and channel reconfiguration
- biological assessment (electro fishing) of 5 reaches;
- building and placement of nesting boxes and other habitat structures.
0480 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
RATIONALE and DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The objective of the Year 2000 work is to restore and enhance approximately 1 kilometre of high
value cold water fish habitat. This section of the Rouge River headwaters has been altered or
relocat~d as a result of urban development. The primary focus of this year's work will be on Rouge
"A" the section below the CNR tracks downstream to the confluence of Rouge "B". The trapezoidal
channel has been lined with rip-rap and gabion baskets making the stream and the riparian corridor
devoid of natural function. This project proposes the mitigation of two fish barriers, and the
naturalization of 500 metres of channel through providing enhanced habitat for both aquatic and
terrestrial species. Extensive riparian plantings within this area of native vegetation are also
proposed.
Minimal maintenance is required as most of the project involves materials which are biodegradable
over several years or naturally blend in with the surroundings (wood and gravel). The monitoring and
maintenance of the in stream habitat structures in conjunction with the fisheries and benthic
monitoring is the responsibility of the MNR, Town of Richmond Hill and Ontario Streams partnership
over the next three years (example: continued garbage cleanup, debris removal). A five year
biological monitoring program has been initiated to catalogue annually the results of the project in
terms of fish and benthic community success. This monitoring effort will be extremely important to
monitor sensitive fish and invertebrate species in light of the future development proposed for the
area. Increased productivity and diversity within the fish, benthic, and terrestrial communities is
expected to demonstrate the long term benefits of stream and riparian restoration.
FUTURE BENEFITS / PROBLEMS
This project enhances and protects the watershed physically and through the education of all of the
volunteers that take part in the project. Also the monitoring and reporting component of this project
is very important to monitor the success of the activities and use this information for future adaptive
management of other sites.
Bioengineering techniques, dam removal in the form of step pool sequences, using natural materials
and approaches in the river are all innovative techniques used in this project. The emphasis on
adaptive management ensures the success and sustainability of the project.
All agencies and the Town of Richmond Hill will be involved in the selection of work sites.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The applicant is requesting $16,000 and the Committee recommends $10,000 be allocated toward
this project which is 18% of the total project cost of $55,618. This level of funding is due to lack of
funds for Year 2000 and the Committee would recommend further funds be allocated to this project
should they become available. Proposed funding sources for this project are: the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources for Summer Experience students, and Community Fisheries Involvement
Program, The Town of Richmond Hill, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, and Canada Trust Friends
of the Environment Fund.
December 17,1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0481
Attachment 16
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #6/99, December 6, 1999
FROM: Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee
RE: NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM-
PROJECTS NOT RECOMMENDED
KEY ISSUE
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed nineteen projects, five of those required
further information, location changes or did not fit within the Rouge Park mandate.
RECo.MMENDATION
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance receives the report on projects that were not recommended for
Rouge Park funding.
BACKGROUND
As directed by the Rouge Park Alliance, all projects not recommended for funding were contacted
and told that if they wished to be heard by the Alliance at the next meeting, they could be included
on the agenda as a delegation. The five projects that were not recommended for funding by the
Rouge Park Alliance are: The Slope Stabilization Project (Little Rouge Restoration Project), Earth
Week Tree Distribution ( Markham Conservation Committee), Wetland Creation (Little Rouge
Restoration Project) , Cachet Creek (Ontario Streams) and the Pool and Riffle Project
(Neighbourhood Environmental Science & Technology). A summary of each project follows:
The Slope Stabilization Proiect - submitted by the Little Rouge Restoration Project: This project is
on public land south of Steeles (same site as the Scarborough Earth Day Planting). On the site
adjacent to the Little Rouge, there is an unstable stream bank that has exposed soil and has
collapsed in some sections. Bioengineering was recommended to remedy the site. Some members
of the Committee thought, however, that perhaps the slope was not a big problem, and may be
beneficial in contributing fines to the stream. There was enough doubt that the natural erosion
process in this area may be of value, that we decided not to recommend funding the project.
0482 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17,1999
Earth Week Tree Distribution ( Markham Conservation Committee): This project was designed to
encourage homeowner stewardship through the free distribution of native trees to Markham
residents to plant in their own back and front yards. The Markham Conservation Committee and the
Town staff would be on hand during the free compost distribution to train residents to plant and care
for the trees properly and to provide literature on the "hows and- whys" of the tree distribution.
Although the Committee could see the educational value of this project, the comments that were
relayed to the Markham Conservation Committee were that it does not fit with the overall
"watershed" or "ecosystem" objectives of the Rouge Park. One of the Committee members
suggested a cost recovery scheme for the relatively well off people in Markham may be a good idea
ie. "A Tree for a Twonee". It was also mentioned that bare root stock needs to be kept wet and may
not fit well with busy weekend morning schedules to get planted in time. It was suggested that there
needed to be a method to judge the success of the project. This project would fit well as part of an
education "package" or part of the federal "releaf" program. All of these comments were well
received by the applicant as suggestions for the project.
Wetland Creation on Reesor (Uttle Rouge Restoration Project): This project was proposed for public
land north of Steeles on the Uttle Rouge, on Reesor Road. Wetland creation is a high priority in the
Rouge Park Management Plan and Action Plan. Some Committee members thought that this
particular location was doing well on its own, without intervention. Another location may be more
appropriate, even though this location was in close proximity to an historical wetland (across the
road) .
Cachet Creek (Ontario Streams) - This site is located in the Cachet Woods Subdivision, northwest
of Warden Avenue and 16th Avenue in the Town of Markham. Cachet Creek is a 1 st order tributary
of Carlton Creek, which flows into Berczy Creek of the Rouge watershed. The applicant showed
some very alarming photographs taken in early November (to be available at the Alliance meeting).
These photographs showed thick "plumes" of sediment flowing down Cachet Creek into Carlton
Creek and then into Berczy Creek. In 1994 this problem was occurred as a result of construction
activities in the Cachet Woods development. A settlement was reached in 1997 and the developers
received a nominal fine and were required to provide compensation. However, the sediment
discharges are still occurring. The source of the problem appears to be a settling pond at the
headwaters of Cachet Creek. The drainage design of the development has destroyed a couple of
hundred metres of prime Coldwater fish habitat and is causing sediment loading in Cachet Creek,
Carlton Creek and Berczy Creek. The applicant was requesting funds to collect baseline information
for the evaluation of rehabilitation and compensation. The following information was discussed at
the meeting: The applicant has contacted the Department of Fisheries and Oceans - they are
presently understaffed, but will attempt to make a site visit; Dena Lewis, TRCA will discuss the site
with TRCA engineering and enforcement staff to try to remedy the problem; TRCA engineering staff
will contact Markham staff.
The Committee, a1thoogh-aJarmed by,this,situation, did not make a recommendation on funding this
project. Most Committee members thought that Rouge Park funds should not pay for this situation,
but the developers should pay. Committee members on TRCA and the Town of Markham staff,
however, have committed to reviewing this situation with their staff. The Committee agreed that it
should keep the Alliance informed on this matter, and other development related issues in the
watershed.
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0483
Pool and Riffle Proiect (Neighbourhood Environmental Science & Technology): The purpose of this
project was to add pools and riffles to a 200 metre reach of the Rouge River, involving 40 high-
school students in surveying the geometry of the stream, calculating water flow volumes and placing
stones in the stream to create pools and riffles. Although this project is of high educational value,
some Committee members knew the site and did not agree that the location for this work was
appropriate for the location. No recommendation for funding could be made until a suitable location
for the work was found.
Report prepared by: Pam Fulford
For information contact: Pam Fulford or Gord Weeden
Date: November 18, 1999
0484 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 December 17, 1999
RES.#D116/99 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/99 and #2/99. The minutes of Etobicoke and Mimico
Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting#1/99 and #2/99, held on October
28,1999 and December 2,1999, respectively, are provided for information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting #1/99 and #2/99, held on October 28,1999
and December 2, 1999, respectively, as appended, be received .............. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Strategy, dated June,
1999, and adopted by t~e Authority at meeting #6/99 held on June 25, 1999 by Resolution
#A 166/99, includes the following provision:
Section 6.1 (c) Mandate
The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis,
to the TRCA, through the Authority's Watershed Management Advisory
Board.
For information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: December 7, 1999
RES.#D117 /99 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/99 held on November ~3, 1999. The minutes of
Humber Watershed Alliance meeting#4/99, held on November 23, 1999, are
provided for information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed
Alliance meeting#4i99;-held on'November 23,1999, as appended, be received. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and adopted by
the Authority at meeting #4/97 held on May 30,1997 by Resolution #A66/97, includes the following
provision:
December 17, 1999 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/99 0485
Part 1 . Section 1.1 Mandate
The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on the progress
of implementing activities.
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: December 6, 1999
RES.#D118/99 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #6/99. The minutes of Meeting #6/99 held on November
25,1999 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for
information.
Moved by: Irene Jones
Seconded by: Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #6/99 held November 25, 1999 be received. . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authodty
through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record
of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members
informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty
Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed.
For information contact: Adele Freeman, Extension 5238
Date: December 9, 1999
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:52 p.m., on December 17, 1999.
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
/ks