HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board 2000
~
, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00
February 18, 2000 Page 01
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/00, was held in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, February 18, 2000. The Vice Chair, Cliff Gyles, called the meeting
to order at 10:05 a.m
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon Member
Milton Berger Member
lIa Bossons Member
Cliff Gyles Vice Chair
Jim McMaster Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell Chair
Irene Jones Member
Pam McConnell Member
Bill Saundercook Member
Mike Tzekas Member
RES.#D1/00 - MINUTES
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' Bas Balkissoon
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/99, held on December 17,1999, be approved. . CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) John Willets, of 31 Aberdeen Cres., Bramalea, inviting Authority Board Members to join him
in an organized trail ride or walk of Claireville Conservation lands North of Hwy 7 on March
5 or March 11 at 1 0 am
RES.#D2/00 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by' Ila Bossons
Seconded by' Jim McMaster
THAT the above-noted delegation (a) be heard and received. . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
D2 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 1 B, 2000
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Presentation by Adele Freeman, DonlHighland Specialist, in regards to Activities on the Don
Watershed.
RES.#D3/00 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by' lIa Bossons
Seconded by' Jim McMaster
THAT the above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received . .. .. .. .. . . . CARRIED
RES.#D4/00 - PALGRAVE MILL POND COMMUNITY ACTION SITE
Approval of restoration plans for the Palgrave Mill Pond Community Action
Site, which includes a fishway, dredging, trail construction, parking and
interpretive signage.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the restoration plans for the Palgrave
Mill Pond Community Action Site, which includes a fishway, dredging, trail construction,
parking and interpretive sign age and a series of trails be approved ...... . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Palgrave pond is an on line pond on the Main Humber River in the Village of Palgrave, Town of
Caledon. The mill dam was originally constructed in the mid 1800's, and the pond has become the
focal point of the Village.
In 1996, Ontario Streams initiated the Palgrave Dam Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project. It was
through this project that residents became aware of the negative environmental impacts of the dam
and pond on the health of the Humber River watershed Residents have clearly indicated that they
support efforts to rehabilitate aquatic habitat, however, are not supportive of any measures that will
result in negative changes to the aesthetics of the pond.
Based on the concerns expressed by the community, combined with other concerns related to the
provision of fish access around the dam and the pond, the TRCA initiated the designation of
Palgrave Mill Pond as a Community"Action Site.
In 1998, three concepts that included the provision of a fishway, dredging, and a trail system were
developed. A preferred concept was selected and a technical investigation was completed in order
to establish detailed design criteria This report indicated technical difficulties with the construction
of the berm to effectively isolate the pond from the river by creating a bypass channel around the
pond. Greater engineering and construction costs were prohibitive. As a result, a revised concept
was developed
February 1 6, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 03
This revised concept, includes a fishway using the historic millrace, dredging of the pond and a trail
network with interpretive signage in the vicinity of the dam outlet and fishway Aquafor Beech
Limited was hired to prepare the detailed design while representatives from the TRCA, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources and the community guided the development of the design.
As part of the detailed design, a number of alternatives for fish passage were investigated, including
a Denil fishway under Highway 50, a configuration using the raceway and a Denil fishway, and two
open channel options. Viewing opportunities were also included in each of the designs. Based on
the pros and cons of each option, an open channel design using the existing raceway with an outlet
below the current dam spillway was selected as the preferred option (Attachment 1)
Dredging techniques, disposal options and depths were also investigated. It was estimated that
20,000m3 of material could be excavated from the pond and disposed of nearby A sediment
forebay approximately two metres in depth would be created which, based on sediment loads,
would have a lifespan of 20 years. A second depression approximately one metre deep would be
built close to the outlet of the pond to improve fish habitat and recreational opportunities
(Attachment 2)
The original proposal included the construction of a bottom draw outlet within the pond. Following
much discussion, the steering committee felt there was insufficient information to decide on the
provision of a bottom draw outlet in the design Temperature data will be collected once the
dredging has been completed and a final decision on the bottom draw outlet made at that time. The
opportunity exists to build a bottom draw in the future provided monitoring confirms that a positive
effect will result.
The proposed trails and interpretive kiosk will provide access to the pond and fishway and
educational opportunities to those visiting the site (Attachment 2) In the future, the community
hopes to connect the Palgrave pond to nearby trails including the Bruce Trail, Oak Ridges Moraine
Trail and Caledon Trailway
Many public meetings occurred over the course of investigating the preferred options. On January
12,2000, a public meeting was held in Palgrave to present the design option. Those attending the
meeting supported each of the components put forward during this meeting The community itself
is committed to this project and has already been in direct consultation with local corporate groups,
and other potential sponsors. The Region of Peel is also planning to include other enhancement
measures in this project including treatment of Highway 50 road runoff, wildlife plantings, additional
trail construction and interpretive signage.
Approvals will be sought during the spring of 2000, with construction anticipated to begin in May
or June and finish in August or September Each component of the project can be done
independently based on the available funding
RATIONALE
At Meeting #9/98, October 30, 1998, the Authority adopted Resolution #A2.02/98, endorsing the
Palgrave Mill Pond Community Action Site Restoration Project. The project objectives are reflective
of the Community Action Site goal of integrating natural, cultural and economic concerns in a way
that optimizes the function of the Mill Pond as an important feature of the Village of Palgrave. To this
end, the objectives of this project are.
D4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 1 B, 2000
1 To allow for the passage of fish species (brook and brown trout, Atlantic salmon, as well as
cyprinids) at the Palgrave dam on a year-round basis.
2. To improve the aesthetic value of the pond, through pedestrian trails, interpretation,
vegetation, planting, and dredging.
3. Preserve and enhance the wetland on the north side of the pond
4 Improve aquatic habitat within the pond.
5. Facilitate recreation, education, and tourism opportunities.
6. Maintain and enhance the human heritage values of the location.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Completion of detailed designs in February
. Seek approvals from appropriate agencies during February - April
. Tender construction of the project beginning in February
. Organize community riparian planting in the spring of 2000
. Construction anticipated to begin in Mayor June and continue until September
. Organize an official community event in the fall to announce the opening of the project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of implementing this project is estimated to be approximately $750,000. Numerous partners
have been approached for funding including the following'
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D5
FUNDING AGENCY Budget 1999/2000
APPROVEDAE$OURO!$
Federal Millennium Fund 90,000
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Region of Peel RAP) 200,000
Ontario Transportation Capital Corporation 40,000
Palgrave Rotary Club 15,000
, PROPOSEORESOUROES
Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund 80,000
Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation 50,000
Town of Caledon 80,000
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 200,000
Provincial Millennium Fund 20,000
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Community Fish and Wildlife Improvement 4,000
Program
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Protection and Enhancement Fund 35,000
Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation 10,000
Private Donation 5,000
Local businesses Inkind contributions
I TOTAL I 829,000 I
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: February 3, 2000
Attachments (2)
D6 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
Attachment 1
-- C>
-:::
~ it)
(l) !
>
0 I
'- /
CJ1
0
o_ J I If!
,I 'I ,/ I
I . \'
, I Ii " ,
I if 0
. \
.;
~~ . ,
~s~
.m~
e~~
~~~
~S~
\ \
\
\
,
/ "
~ \
~.% ,
~:: ,
;~
\
,
,
\
\\o~ I I
, 'to
I
/ '[;'.
5;
I ~
d~
,
, r'-..
I
, /
',_ /1
t,~
I
/ ---.,~--
-------------.
,
,
r:~u.~ I
"
February 18,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D7
Attachment 2
--.......--. ......"'-~.......... ~ I
.tt.. __.
_...-,--~ ' ,.....
----_._-------~ '
'\. J' "." --
II
II AAEAS TO BE DREDGED .
.. I
. . I
- ..,... PROPOSED T1lAl.
.1
i
,
,.,
f '\
I 1
, \
! '
\~ : \
I \
. - ,
. 1
r""
- I
.,.. II
,
"-
'"
0, .. T
" ~
... .,"
f
"-
'-
~., t~~
\. " )
v
\..
,
-...~....::::;.~-- f.
I r-~
) I I
"'\ ~ ( J ,....
".5 "", ! ./,/ I - 1.....J i
'I <. <)' '
( '\,.......... ,
,)
"
r,
I I
L... I
[] !
\
f
\ '
,-'\ ".
\ \ ':
08 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
RES.#D5/00 - TREE CANADA FOUNDATION
Proposal to become an Affiliate Member of the Tree Canada Foundation.
Approval to enter into an Affiliate Membership with the Tree Canada
Foundation through a Memorandum of Understanding.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (attached) as an Affiliate Member with
the Tree Canada Foundation;
AND FURTHER THAT Conservation Ontario be so advised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1999, the Tree Canada Foundation (TCF) made a presentation to Conservation
Ontario and representatives from approximately 15 Conservation Authorities. The meeting was
scheduled to solicit a partnership between Conservation Ontario and Tree Canada Foundation to
implement the programs of the Foundation. TCF is looking for the individual Conservation
Authorities to implement the planting events of the Foundation, with Tree Canada Foundation acting
as a catalyst for planting events and assist in providing sponsorships for TRCA projects.
Jim Anderson, General Manager of Conservation Ontario, stressed the importance of this type of
partnership and encouraged every Conservation Authority to participate in any way possible with
the Tree Canada Foundation. Tree Canada Foundation has one other Associate Member in the
Province of Ontario that being the Ontario Forestry Association.
Tree Canada Foundation provided an overview of their many programs and initiatives. A brief
overview of the programs relevant to Conservation Authorities is provided below
Tree Canada Foundation Overview
The Tree Canada Foundation is a not-for-profit, charitable organization established in 1992. Under
the direction of a sixteen-member volunteer Board of Directors, the Foundation provides education,
technical assistance, resources and financial support through working partnerships to encourage
Canadians to plant and care for trees in our urban and rural environment in an effort to help reduce
the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions.
February 1 B, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D9
Greening School Grounds
The Tree Canada Foundation generates sponsors for the Program on a national and regional level.
Money is provided for a full planning process and implementation of the plantings. The schools
must provide matching funding Each school is eligible for up to $5,000 from the Foundation
($2,5OO for design and materials, and up to $2,500 for the implementing agency for administrative
costs etc.) Funding available nationally for 1999 was $220,000 It is anticipated that there will be
over $500,000 for year 2000. The Foundation tries to provide projects for approximately 60 schools
a year, nation wide and involves all stakeholders. The Tree Canada Foundation would look to the
local Conservation Authorities to identify schools that are priority for restoration and also participate
as part of the school selection committee. Conservation Authorities would promote the program,
provide technical advice and make recommendations for school funding and sponsors. Tree
Canada Foundation would be recognized for their contribution.
Millennium Tree Program
This program is directed at planting 1.5 million Millennium Trees, a "Living Legacy" sponsored in
part by the Federal Millennium Program The tree itself is a white spruce tree that has been the
subject of over 40 years of research carried out by the Canadian Forest Service. This tree will
flourish everywhere in Canada, as it adapts well to different soils and conditions. The tree offers
organizations a unique and environmentally friendly way to recognize and thank those they conduct
business with. This program offers the seedlings for sale at $2.50 each. Tree Canada Foundation
suggests they be given to employees, preferred clients, suppliers, corporate partners, youth and
community groups, company associations, and others. All of the money made from the sale of
these trees will be added to the funds available for the Tree Canada Foundation projects. They
anticipate that the money brought in from a particular region will be spent on projects within that
region next year Tree Canada Foundation stressed that the more each Conservation Authority sold,
the more money they would be eligible to plant the next year For each order form that is returned
to Tree Canada Foundation by the TRCA, under our letterhead, Tree Canada Foundation would give
us a commission of $0.25 per tree.
Sponsorship Tree Planting
The Tree Canada Foundation has prepared a Sponsorship Action Plan which is undertaken on a
national level Many corporations have expressed interest in funding projects in areas where
corporate headquarters are located, or where there are retail stores present. For example, Eddie
Bauer is a significant contributor to the Tree Canada Foundation, most of the money to date has
been spent in British Columbia. Eddie Bauer has expressed an interest in planting in Ontario as
there is a high density of stores in this province.
Corporate sponsorship money has been spent on trail development, aggregate rehabilitation,
wetland creation or wildlife habitat creation, as part of a larger Renaturalization program and general
restoration planting events. Another example of sponsorship is Canadian Airlines who have
supported many projects in other parts -of Canada. They have also expressed an interest in
spending more money in Ontario. Some of the sponsoring companies provide criteria as to the type
of event or project they want, others just give money IKEA Canada and Kimberly Clarke are also
big sponsors in the Greater Toronto Area. Money can be spent on public or private lands.
Tree Canada Foundation thought that watershed based programs for restoration would be a great
sell to many of their corporate sponsors, one corporate donation to be applied to projects in many
within a particular watershed
D10 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
Carbon Program
This program encourages the planting of trees on private land with corporate sponsorship, the
carbon credits going to the corporation. If the corporations do not want the carbon credits, it goes
into a Tree Canada Foundation carbon bank. The Foundation has utilized the knowledge of two
professors on their Foundation Board of Directors, to produce a very comprehensive, informative
flyer regarding the benefits of planting trees to reduce the effects of CO2.
RATIONALE
The TRCA has been implementing Tree Canada Foundation projects for several years, on a very
small scale. The role of an Affiliate Member is to'
. assist the Tree Canada Foundation in promoting its programs;
. assist in matching projects with appropriate groups;
. provide technical assistance to groups implementing Tree Canada Foundation
projects;
. coordinate projects for Tree Canada Foundation based on sponsor requests; and
. ensure sponsors, affiliates and Tree Canada are recognized for their support to a
project.
The Tree Canada Foundation are particularly interested in developing a TCF/CA collective program
in which they market a broadly based tree planting program to corporate Ontario This program
would, if established, be multi-year and would relate to the activities of all Conservation Authorities.
It was suggested that the Conservation Authorities and Conservation Ontario work towards defining
such a program, seeking all CA endorsement, and then move towards fundraising under the Tree
Canada Foundation leadership
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA staff will meet with the Tree Canada Foundation to establish what level of involvement The
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will participate in regards to the Foundation's
programming. Staff will report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board once a program
has been developed to implement the Tree Canada Foundation projects.
For information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: January 26, 2000
Attachments (1)
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D11
Attachment 1
APPENDIX 2
To Local CA
Dear
This Letter of Understanding will confirm that Tree Canada Foundation ("TCF") will
establish a working alliance with the XXX CA with respect to the delivery of
TCF activities in the areas of tree planting, education and awareness in the
province of Ontario .
reF and the XXX CA acknoWledge that:
TCF is an incorporated, non..profit, charitable organization engaged in activities in relation to
the promotion of public awareness, education and support of tree planting;
the XXCA or its Foundation is a non.:profitt charitable organization having an established
network of technical contacts and planting partners, and resources and experience to deliver
tree planting projects, as well as other specific reF activities, in the province of Ontario
TCF and the XXXCA (hereinafter referred to as the Parties) agree that the parties
will work with TCF on a. project by project basis. A formal written agreement outlining
" action plans, fees, and reporting schedules will be neiotiated for each separate project.
During the time the XXXCA is working in collabora.tion with the TCF, the following
principles will be adhered to, and will be included in the appropriate project agreements:
i All trees shall be planted in rural and urban areas for non~commercial
purposes;
ii Planting groups shan. be responsible for all care and maintenance of planted
trees for a minimum of thr~ years t
ill. All tree planting projeets are to be coordinated and planted by volunteer
planting groups, and not by paid contractors (unless otherwise authorized in writing by
the TCF);
iv Where tree plantings are related to the TeF's carbon sequestration program,
the planting groups must assign their carbon credits back to the applicable sponsor or
sponsors .
v. TeF'g role and contribution. and use of its official marks will be referenced in
all materials produced by the XXXCA in connection with any project.
Nothing in this Letter of Understanding is to be construed as authorizing one Party to contract
or to incur any obligation on behalf o~ the other. Nor does it commit either Party to any
specific level of resources, f'mancia16r human to any project.
D12 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
--. -- ---- - - - ------- -- - -
Furthermore, it is understood this Letter of Understanding does not create any legal
obligations between the Parties In respect of any project presented by the TeF to the
neither Party is bound to enter into a definitive agreement or precluded from requiring that a
definitive agreement contain further and other appropriate prOVisions in addition to those
mentioned in this Letter of Understanding
This Letter of Understanding will remain in effect for a period of one year from. the date
hereof, at which point, it may be replaced by a subsequent Letter of Understanding, or by a
Letter of Agreement, or until earlier termination, upon the giving of 10 days written notice to
the other Such notice is to be sent by registered mall at the addresses set out in this letter
If the above is acceptable I we would ask that you sign and return this copy to our offices
Tree Canada Foundation
,
C.H. (Chuck) Geate Date
Executive Director
CAO/Chair
Local CA
\
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 013
RES.#D6/00 - COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT PARK
Police Homicide Investigation. To provide information on the police
homicide investigation at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park.
Moved by' lla Bossons
Seconded by' Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue to assist
the police with their homicide investigation, as required, and to monitor the restoration of the
shoreline structures at Colonel Samuel Smith Park. . . .. .. .... ........... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As part of an investigation into the homicide of a child, the Toronto police were at the Colonel
Samuel Smith Waterfront Park on 3 separate occasions: December 15, 1999, January 20, 2000 and
January 30, 2000, searching for the body parts of a child
As part of this investigation, armour and rip rap stone shoreline structures were partially removed
by a City of Toronto backhoe. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority offered to supply a
backhoe and operator as we were concerned that the stone would not be placed as per our
engineering standards. Our offer was declined, and the City of Toronto Works Department used
their own equipment for the removal and replacement of the materials. Repairs to the structures
following the December 15, 1999 and January 20, 2000 investigation did not meet with our
engineering standards.
On February 2, 2000, TRCA staff met on site with Donald Sorel, Chief Works Supervisor (City of
Toronto Works and Emergency Services) At this meeting, it was determined that City forces had
already repaired the disturbed areas of all 3 groynes dismantled as part of the police investigation
by bringing on to the site gabion stone to fill voids between the armour stone. Mr Sorel also
indicated that he would be redoing the restoration of the disturbed area at Hardpoint 4, and that the
City was prepared to make sure that TRCA was satisfied with the quality of the work performed. The
City has a full time Supervisor on site to oversee the work. It was agreed that additional gabion
stone and rip rap stone were to be purchased to restore the shoreline structures to the pre-
investigation condition
TRCA will conduct an inspection of the work with the City staff, prior to the com pletion of their work.
It should be noted that some site restoration will be required this spring, due to the damage caused
by vehicular traffic used in undertaking the repair work. The City has also agreed to do some minor
regrading to repair this damage.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Mr Sorel advised the TRCA that the City of-Toronto Works -and Emergency Services would be
absorbing the costs for the shoreline restoration, and that the Police Department would not be
expected to pay Costs to the TRCA are minimal, for staff time to monitor the work.
For information contact: Joe Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
Date: February 7, 2000
D14 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
RES.#D7/00 - BIODIVERSITY MONITORING FOR THE PICKERING NUCLEAR SITE
In cooperation with Ontario Power Generation, Authority Staff have
completed a Biodiversity Inventory for the Pickering Nuclear Site.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the a copy of the report be forwarded
to Ontario Power Generation for their review;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to work with Ontario Power Generation to continue the
Biodiversity Monitoring Program and further develop monitoring and rehabilitation initiatives
for Hydro Marsh . . .......... .......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Ontario Power Generation's Pickering Nuclear facility is located east of Frenchman's Bay within the
City of Pickering. Although only 5% of the (fenced) 270 ha site is vegetated, the property is unique
in that it is adjoined by several significant habitat features including a 30 ha Class II marsh wetland
(Hydro Marsh), the Alex Robertson recreational park, a 6 ha woodland plantation, and several small
mature oak/maple/beech woodlots. These existing natural features, combined with Ontario Power
Generation's desire to enhance the natural areas and habitat potential at their facility, will provide
an excellent foundation to increase local and regional biodiversity
In 1998, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) developed a general plan for site management of wildlife
and biodiversity conservation at their Pickering Nuclear facility This plan reflects Pickering Nuclear's
desire to "safeguard the long-term ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and productivity of the
nearshore lands and waters by actions that are locally relevant but fit into the regional ecological
landscape" (OPG 1998)
The improvement in biodiversity of the habitats within the Pickering Nuclear Site is dependent on
the development and implementation of OPG's Pickering Nuclear Natural Areas Management Plan.
During 1999, the TRCA in partnership with OPG implemented a local monitoring program for the
Pickering Nuclear Site. The goal of this monitoring program was to provide baseline environmental
data for the Pickering site (specifically Hydro Marsh) in support of the OPG's biodiversity and natural
areas management plan (OPG 1998)
The following objectives were identified in support of this goal:
1 Establish a baseline of species presence/absence data based on breeding and migratory
bird data; resident reptiles; amphibian accounts; and incidental wildlife observation.
2. Establish a bird monitoring protocol to permit standardized monitoring of bird communities
on an annual basis and provide opportunities for community involvement and public
education.
3. Delineate the vegetative communities on-site, including a more detailed assessment of
Hydro Marsh.
February 1 e, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D15
4 Provide baseline information on abiotic conditions within the Hydro Marsh and the Krosno
Creek watershed, specifically water and sediment quality conditions and water temperature
regimes.
5. Document and determine the local fish community characteristics within the study area
Our monitoring program is based on an ecosystem approach to environmental monitoring and
encompasses the following abiotic and biotic investigations:
Abiotic Conditions Biotic Conditions
. Bathymetry . Botanical Communities
. Land Classification . Wildlife
. Water Quality (birds, mammals, amphibians)
. Sediment Conditions . Fish
. Water Temperature . Biomonitoring
RESULTS
Field investigations commenced in June, and were completed by November 1999. All results have
been documented in the TRCA report "Biodiversity Monitoring Program for the Pickering Nuclear
Site", and the collected data is archived in a central database suitable for integration into the TRCA
GIS system A brief synopsis of selected results are presented below'
Biotic Conditions
Botanical Communities
A wetland evaluation was preformed at the OPG site and focused primarily on the Hydro
Marsh Wetland Complex. This site was reevaluated as a Class II Provincially Significant
Wetland In addition, existing woodlots were inventoried and defined under a number of
classification schemes.
Wildlife
A total of 80 bird species were documented during the 1999 monitoring program Species
were investigated through a variety of methods including point count surveys, marsh bird
monitoring, and through incidental observation. A master list of the birds found at OPG's
Pickering Nuclear site is included in the report. This master list of 144 species includes the
species encountered during the biodiversity monitoring as well as 64 additional species
documented by other sources. Most of the species found at OPG Pickering are common
and widespread in the Region and in Southern Ontario
Only five species of reptiles and amphibians were encountered during the 1999 field work,
all of which-are considered common species for the area. A total of 13 mammal species
have been documented at the OPG Pickering Nuclear site. Of these, seven were
encountered during the monitoring program 1999 and the remaining six species were
identified through other sources.
D16 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 1 e, 2000
Fish
Thirty four species of fish were collected from within the study area, 30 species were found
in Frenchman's's Bay, 17 species in Hydro Marsh, and 20 species of fish within the
discharge channels of the plant. Of interest, was the sample site in Frenchman's Bay were
a brook silverside specimen was collected. This species has been absent for a number of
years in the area and is intolerant of turbid water and indicative of high quality wetland
habitat. The discharge channel within the plant had the most interesting fish community
within the entire study area Due to the constant discharge of warm water, many fish species
utilize the outfall area We investigated this community and found a robust population of
small mouth bass, a large number of common carp and collected a rarely seen longnose
gar This localized population of fish may have significant influence on other areas of the
waterfront including Frenchman's Bay and Duffin's Creek Marsh.
Abiotic Conditions
A Bathymetric map of Hydro Marsh complex was produced during this program This map helped
to identify the depositional areas within the marsh and assisted in the site selection for sediment
samples.
Water Quality
Water quality sampling consisted of a biomonitoring program using caged clams and grab
samples within the Hydro Marsh complex. Our results indicate that in the lower sections of
Hydro Marsh nutrients in the surficial waters did not meet Provincial Water Quality Guidelines
(PWQG) Bacteriological conditions were also poor but were limited and concentrated in the
upper sections of Krosno Creek. The biomonitoring result from the caged clam study
showed that trace metals were comparable to other waterfront locations and no substantive
levels of PAH's or PCB/Pesticides were detected
Sediment Conditions
Sediment samples were collected within the Hydro Marsh Complex and the results are
reflective of the local quality conditions. Our results indicate that there is elevated nutrient
and copper levels within lower sections of the marsh. Copper only marginally exceeded
guidelines whereas the nutrients in the sediment were found at levels five times greater than
the prescribed guidelines. These nutrient levels were thought to be originating from the
large local population of waterfowl that utilizes this area and the discharge from a local
aquaculture facility
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff are now discussing the possibility of future monitoring activities within the Pickering Nuclear
Site. This field season, we would like to expand our investigation into sediment quality conditions
and continue water and biological investigations within the Hydro Marsh complex. In addition, we
would like to test on.a small 'scale the"feasibility of restoring selected areas of wetland vegetation
within Hydro Marsh. We are also interested in the possibility of developing and implementing a radio
telemetry survey of smallmouth bass in an effort to understand the relationship between the plant's
warm water discharge area and habitats like Hydro Marsh and Frenchman's Bay Also we intend
to integrate aspects of the Biodiversity Monitoring into the Frenchman's Bay Watershed
Rehabilitation Project to provoke a broader public understanding of ecological assets associated
with the Power Station
February 1 B, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D17
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for this project was provided by Ontario Power Generation and the Toronto Remedial Action
Plan as follows:
Ontario Power Generation $10,000
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority $ 5.000
Total $15.000
TRCA contribution consisted of in-kind use of the electrofishing boat RN Night Heron and the RN
AQUALAB.
Report prepared by: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
For information contact: Scott Jarvie extension 5312
Date: February 8, 2000
RES.#D8/00 - MODIFICATION OF THE DONALDA GOLF COURSE BARRIER TO
IMPROVE FISH PASSAGE ON THE EAST DON RIVER
Proposed modification of the instream barrier on the East Don River at The
Donalda golf course to improve passage of migratory trout and salmon.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the weir at The Donalda golf course
on the East Don River be mitigated to improve fish passage;
AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be directed to obtain any necessary
approvals to implement the project ........... . . . .. ................... CARRI ED
BACKGROUND
In 1992, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) initiated the Don Watershed Task
Force in order to develop a management strategy for the Don Watershed. The report prepared by
the Task Force entitled, "Forty Steps To A New Don", is the Task Force's blueprint for regeneration.
The watershed fisheries management plan was developed concurrently with the watershed strategy
and at Meeting #7/97, held August 22, 1997, the Authority adopted Resolution No. A 178/97
"THA T the Don Watershed Fish Community and Habitat Management Plan, dated
August, 1997, be received;
THA T staff work with the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Ministry of Natural
Resources, municipalities, interest groups, VOl and other partners to implement the
plan, subject to available funding;
D18 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report in the future on any aspects of
implementation of the plan which would require amendments to Authority policies and
practices. "
The plan, presently in draft, is embodied in step 16 of the watershed strategy "Improve the Don's
stream habitats and connections for fish" The watershed fisheries management plan provides the
direction for managing the various aquatic habitats and fish communities within the watershed. One
of the most strategic rehabilitation activities identified in the plan is the mitigation of the effects of
instream barriers to fish movement.
The construction of structures in the watercourse to dissipate energy, monitor flow, or to harness
the streams energy for power, has been taking place for over one hundred years. In many situations
these structures contributed directly to the elimination of migratory species such as the Atlantic
salmon by stopping adults from reaching their spawning grounds in the smaller tributaries.
Although the Atlantic salmon may never be reintroduced to the Don watershed, many other species
such as brown and rainbow trout and numerous small minnow species would benefit from mitigation
of the impacts of instream barriers.
The fisheries plan identifies more than sixty instream barriers to fish movement within the watershed.
These barriers effectively isolate watercourses and sections of watercourses by eliminating upstream
movement. One of these barriers, located on the East Don River on the Donalda golf course, keeps
migratory fish species from Lake Ontario from entering upstream reaches.
The Fish Habitat/Barriers Group which includes members of the Don Watershed Council and staff
from the Authority, considered numerous options for mitigating the weir A rocky ramp design
similar to the lower weir at Pottery Road and at Lawrence Avenue was selected as the preferred
option to achieve fish passage.
RATIONALE
In order to fulfil the goals of the FMP, it is necessary to improve access to the watershed from Lake
Ontario, particularly for migratory trout and salmon. Having modified two weirs at Pottery Road, and
one at Lawrence Ave the next major barrier to upstream fish movement is located on the Donalda
golf course.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Final designs have been completed and are under review by Environment Canada and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If necessary, the designs will be modified to incorporate
comments. It is anticipated that implementation will occur in February and March, 2000.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Mitigating the Donalda barrier continues to implement the goals and objectives of "Forty Steps to
a New Don" and the Don River Fisheries Management Plan by improving trout and salmon access
into the watershed. It is anticipated that this barrier will allow rainbow trout, brown trout and chinook
salmon access to potential spawning areas in Richmond Hill and Vaughan
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 019
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The cost of mitigating the effects of the Donalda golf course barrier is approximately $150,000.
Funding has been approved through Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000; The City of Toronto;
Canada Trust; and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
For information contact: Dave Bell, extension 5338
Date: February 9, 2000
RES.#D9/00 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY
Year 2000 Activities. Update to the members regarding Year 2000 activities
on the Bartley Smith Greenway
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority express its appreciation to the Regional Municipality of York and the City of Vaughan
for their support of the Bartley Smith Greenway;
THAT the expenditures, as noted in this communication, for the Year 2000 Bartley Smith
Greenway activities be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to develop and submit any funding proposals required
for the completion of proposed Year 2000 Bartley Smith Greenway activities . . . . 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
020 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
At Authority Meeting #5/98, Res.#A121/98, 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 '7urning 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
At Authority Meeting #7/99, the Authority was updated on 1999 accomplishments, and approved
a request to the City of Vaughan for a capital budget allocation of $180,000 for year 2000 Bartley
Smith Greenway activities. This request was agreed to by the City of Vaughan, and staff from the
Authority and the City have agreed on construction priorities for 2000.
Members of the Authority should also be aware that the Regional Municipality of York has
incorporated many suggestions from the Authority and the City of Vaughan on the construction of
the Maple Sewer, as per TRCA Permit C-99255, into the ecological enhancement of the Langstaff
EcoPark segment of the Greenway
Based on the above, as well as on-going staff discussions between the TRCA, the Region, the City,
and the Langstaff EcoPark Steering Committee, a detailed work plan has been developed, as
described below
RATIONALE
The details described below address the second year of the Five Year Framework to complete the
Greenway
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. On Dufferin Street, a 100 metre segment of sidewalk to take pedestrians from the Dufferin
Steeles loop to the traffic light at Glen Shields Avenue to access the Marita Payne Park
section of the Greenway
. Within the Highway 407 Ontario Hydro Corridor Open Space, the TRCA will complete the
construction of the trail from Glen Shields Avenue under Highway 7 to Langstaff EcoPark.
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 021
. In Langstaff EcoPark, the completion of the last phase of this project will be done in
conjunction with the Region of York's Maple Collector Relief Sewer project. 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 hopes to have identified all of the funds
necessary to construct a stormwater management pond, which will treat stormwater runoff
from a 93 hectare drainage area which has no present water quality or quantity treatment
prior to draining into the Don River Other items where details are still being developed
address the Northern Wetland, trail access to Langstaff Road, and another EcoAction 2000
planting project.
. The completion of the above two segments will complete the Greenway from Steeles
Avenue to Langstaff Road.
. At Rupert's Pond, the TRCA will proceed with Phase III of the stream naturalization project
and the completion of the major trail system within the park. We will also be working with our
municipal partners to identify the best way to address Phase IV, the retrofitting of the
stormwater pond itself
. At Killian Lamar, the TRCA will complete the stormwater management pond retrofit. We will
also be approaching Canada Trust - Friends of the Environment Foundation for community
plantings, and hope to have an official opening in the fall
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Three more years of work (depending on funding availability) will be required to complete the
Greenway, with emphasis on Tudor Valley, Rupert's Pond, and the Maple Valley segments of the
Greenway
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Proposed Year 2000 Expenditures.
Dufferin Street 12,000 00
Highway 407 Sector 79,500.00
Killian Lamar 32,500.00
Rupert's Pond 125,000.00
Langstaff EcoPark 824,810.00
Held pending City's input 70.000.00
Total 1.143.810.00
Sources of funding include financial support from the TRCA Cash in Lieu and Valley and Stream
budgets, the Conservation Foundation, the Regional Municipality of York, and the City of Vaughan.
D22 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
In addition, applications for support have been made to the Great Lakes Clean-up Fund 2000, the
Region of York Natural Heritage Fund, EcoAction 2000, and the Great Lakes Renewal Foundation.
Finally, we hope to raise significant funds through Canada Trust's Friends of the Environment
Foundation and companies located near Langstaff EcoPark.
Report prepared by: Andrew McCammon, extension 5307
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: February 8, 2000
RES.#D1 0100 - CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP
Don Watershed Regeneration Council. The changes to membership of the
Don Watershed Regeneration Council
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the resignation of Mr. Tracy Smith of
the Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District, be received;
THAT the resignation of Mr. Paul Albanese, staff liaison member for the City of Toronto be
received;
THAT the resignation of Mr Steven Klose, the member appointed by the Ministry of the
Environment be received;
THAT the resignations of Mr. Eric Shapero and Ms. Kathleen Therriault, members of the Don
Council be received;
THAT the resignations of Ms. Sheila Boudreau, Mr. Vince Di Giorgio and Mr. Ken Smith;
associate members of the Don Council be received,
THAT the resigning members and associate members of the Don Council be thanked for their
hard work and dedication to Bringing Back the Don;
THAT the appointment of Mr Ian Buchanan as the member for the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Aurora District, be received;
THAT Mr Phil Goodwin be appointed as a member of the Don Council,
THAT Mr. Michael Nelson, Ontario Science Centre, be appointed as an associate member;
AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request the
Ministry of the Environment appoint a member and an alternate member to the Don Council.
. ..... ...... ..... . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 D23
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 and TRCA staff to ensure it is up-to-
date. The Don Council members and associate members are appointed for a three year term Over
this period, some members find they are unable to continue with their commitment and hence, need
to resign. To ensure the vitality of the Council, members and associate members are added. The
above recommendations reflect the current status of the Don Council membership.
At present, the Authority has not received formal appointments to the Don Council from the City of
Toronto. Agendas and information are provided to City of Toronto Councillors who have previously
been appointed to the Don Council by the former Cities of Toronto, York, North York and
Scarborough, the Borough of East York and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto prior to the
amalgamation.
In the course of the membership review, it was also noted that representation from the Ministry of
the Environment to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council needs to be filled.
The Don Council has recommended a further review of the membership which will include the
consideration of appointing some long-term Associate Members to full Members of the Don Council.
Further recommended changes to the Don Council membership will be reported on at the next
Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting
Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: February 8, 2000
RES.#D11/00 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #1/00, January 20,2000. The minutes of Meeting #1/00
held on January 20, 2000 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is
provided for information.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #1/00 held January 20, 2000 be received . . . . . . CARRIED
024 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 February 18, 2000
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 5238
Date: February 7, 2000
RES.#D12/00 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/00 held on January 27, 2000 The minutes of
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting#1/00, held on
January 27, 2000 are provided for information.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting #1/00, held on January 27,2000, as appended,
be received ....... ........ .. . . . . . .......... .. ....... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Strategy, dated June,
1999, and adopted by the 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: February 9, 2000
February 18, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/00 025
RES.#D13/00 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/00 held on January 18, 2000. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting#1/00, held on January 18, 2000, are provided
for information.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed
Alliance meeting #1/00, held on January 18, 2000, 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 5211
Date: February 9, 2000
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10'45 a.m ,on February 18, 2000
Cliff Gyles Craig Mather
Vice Chair Secretary Treasurer
Iks
~
, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00
April 14, 2000 Page 026
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/00, was held in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 14, 2000. The Chair, Dick O'Brien, called the meeting to order
at 10:09 a.m
PRESENT
Milton Berger Member
Lorna Bissell Chair
Ila Bossons Member
Cliff Gyles Vice Chair
I rene Jones Member
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon Member
Pam McConnell Member
Bill Saundercook Member
Mike Tzekas Member
RES.#D14/00 - MINUTES
Moved by' lIa Bossons
Seconded by' Jim McMaster
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/00, held on February 18, 2000, be approved . CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
a) Presentation by Brian Denney, Director, Watershed Managment on item 7 1 - Our Toronto
Waterfront.
RES.#D15/00 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by Irene Jones
Seconded by' Ila Bossons
THAT the above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received ............... CARRIED
027 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
RES.#D16/00 - OUR TORONTO WATERFRONT
The report of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force Preliminary
comments on the report of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force
entitled Our Toronto Waterfront.
Moved by' Irene Jones
Seconded by lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Government of Canada, the
Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto be commended for cooperating to launch this
critical initiative and that they be encouraged to pursue implementation as quickly as possible;
THAT the members of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force be congratulated for
producing an exciting, compelling and challenging vision in a timely manner;
THAT the Task Force Members be particularly congratulated for understanding and articulating
the vital connection between the quality of the waterfront and the health of the adjacent
watersheds and the urgent need to accelerate watershed restoration efforts concurrent with
waterfront specific initiatives,
THAT the three levels of government be advised that the Authority would be pleased to assist
in developing the detailed "Master Plan" and to implement, with its partners, various elements
of the report. The Authority has a thirty year history of implementing similar waterfront
projects and many of these features are acknowledged in the Report as contributing in a very
positive way to the current waterfront;
THAT the Authority also commends the recommendations concerning a revitalization of the
mouth of the Don including resolution of the flood risk issue which would provide a safer
framework for redevelopment of the West Don Lands and the Port Lands,
THAT the three levels of government be advised that the Authority would be pleased to assist
in discussions concerning the governance and implementation framework for the plan
particularly with respect to the areas outside of the Central Waterfront where many Authority
community driven initiatives, as outlined in the Task Force Report, are well advanced and
could easily be accelerated with financial support;
THAT the efforts of the Regional and Area Municipalities surrounding the City of Toronto to
protect and restore habitats, improve water quality and maintain base flows be acknowledged
and encouraged as major contributions to the health of the Toronto Waterfront and that the
efforts and responsibilities of those municipalities be represented by the Authority in the
continuing discussions-towards-lmplementation oHhe4"1lSk Force Report;
THAT the City of Toronto be encouraged to integrate the work of the Environmental Task Force
and the new Sustainability Roundtable into all aspects of implementation of the Task Force
Report;
April 14. 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 028
THAT the three levels of government be requested to consider, as part of the discussions on
governance and implementation, the utilization of the watershed based Task Forces and
Alliances, supported by the Authority, which currently exist for the EtobicokelMimico, Humber,
Don, Highland and Rouge as well as a similar, proposed Waterfront Alliance to coordinate
environmental regeneration from Etobicoke Creek to Carruthers Creek;
THAT the three levels of govemment be advised that the Authority sees implementation of the
Task Force Report as a major impetus towards achieving the Remedial Action Plan goal of
"delisting" the Toronto Waterfront as an "Area of Concern" within the Great Lakes Basin,
AND FURTHER THAT an environmental restoration of this scale is of international significance,
represents outstanding business opportunities and constitutes a global imperative.
, . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . ..... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
City Council adopted the following resolution at its meeting of February 1, 2 and 3, 2000 on the
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force chaired by Mr Robert A. Fung
"The City representatives on the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force be
requested to seek the comments of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
on the interim and any future reports of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task
Force, such comments to be appended to all Task Force reports. "
On March 27,2000, the Task Force released its report: Our Toronto Waterfront - Canada Gateway
to the New Canada. The recommendations of the Task Force Report and Mr Robert Fung's two
letters of transmittal are attached
Staff will make a brief presentation and provide more commentary on the report at the Board
Meeting
For information contact: Brian Denney, extension 6290
Date' April 5, 2000
Attachments (3)
~ D29 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
Attachment 1
Toronto Waterfront ~~
TASKFORCE~'-' ~
-,
CD
Monday, March 27, 2000 <
DearMr Denny' -s.
On behalf of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, I'm pleased to present to you today the -F
attached copy of Its business plan and vision for a revitalized Waterfront. The plan, which is being released
publicly today, makes sweeping recommendations that will radically change the gateway to Canada's most 0
populated metropolitan area.
I don't think I can stress strongly enough that the Task Force believes it is crucial for govemments and
industry to begin revitalizing the Waterfront right away This is necessary to protect the core's economic well
being and transform a neglected asset cut off from the city into a people - and tourist - friendly area. _ &>
The Task Force's key recommendations include: N
REMOVING THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY - The Gardiner would be torn down and 0
replaced by a ground-level boulevard with crossing routes for pedestrians and vehicles.
A NEW LAKE ONTARIO PARK - This park larger than High Park would be along the Outer
Harbour, connecting the park at Cherry Beach to Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant. creating an -+
"emerald necklace" of parklands.
A 'CONVERGENCE COMMUNITY' - The Task Force envisions developing a major --t
residentiallbusiness centre at the Waterfront, focusing on software development, entertainment, creative 0
and communications-based Industries, to take advantage of Toronto's unique position in New Media and
high technology
MAJOR EXPENDITURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION - The report :J
recommends cost-effective ways of cleaning up contaminated and degraded lands and water and making
the Don an attractive destination.
The fact is the status quo is not a real option for Toronto. The Waterfront presents a great opportunity, but if
dramatic rehabilitation and improvements do not take place, Toronto will face the prospect of economic
decline and erosion of Its tourist appeal.
With the Task Force's mandate complete, the report urges the creation of a mandated corporation to
oversee the waterfront's revitalization, the Toronto Waterfront Development Corporation.
We expect - and hope - that the report will quickly be reviewed by the three levels of govemment that
created the Task Force, and that the public will have opportunities to make their views known as well. It has
been a pleasure for me and for my fellow Task Force members, volunteers all, to have the opportunity to
become involved in the Waterfront's future.
Thank you for your interest. We welcome your views.
Sincerely,
.-
Robert A. Fung
Chair, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force
"'
~
April 14, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 030
Attachment 2
The Right Honourable Jean Chretien
Prime Minister of Canada
The Honourable Michael D Harris
Premier of Ontario
His Worship Mel Lastman
Mayor of Toronto
Gentlemen
It is my honour to report to you that the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Task Force has completed the mandate you set for it
We have concluded that there is a strong business case for the revitaliza-
tion of Toronto's waterfront. We are of the opinion that the revitalization
is necessary and will have a major, positive economic impact on the City,
the region and the country
The revitalization of Toronto's waterfront is an almost unprecedented
development opportunity We do not, however, see the undertaking as a
public megaproject, but rather as an integrated partial solution to the
environmental, transportation, infrastructure, housing, economic and
tourism challenges confronting the City
The Task Force has prepared a Development Concept, Organizational
Concept and Financial Concept to realize the potential of nearly 2,000
acres of undeveloped, misused or derelict lands In Toronto's Central
Waterfront A significant portion of the land is environmentally degraded,
lacks infrastructure and has totally outmoded plans and regulations
Many of the world's great waterfront cities have overcome Impediments to
revitalization and economic transformation They have lessons for
Toronto Barcelona, Spain is a good example. The combination of the
1992 Olympics and urban revitalization catapulted Barcelona from its
ranking as a 20+ European tourist destination to third, in the company of
London and Paris. The revitalization also sparked investments in the
waterfront and downtown core at an unprecedented level in the history of
Barcelona
\
D31 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
The current impetus for revitalization of the Toronto waterfront comes,
not only from a desire to support Toronto's Bid to host the 2008 Summer
Olympics, but also from the strict timelines dictated by the Bid
But apart from the Olympic Bid, the reality is the status quo is not a real
option for Toronto
The Task Force believes the prospect of economic decline of Toronto's
downtown core and its eroding position as a tourism destination must not
be allowed to persist.
The challenge of revitalization requires action on some tough decisions.
The history of inaction on Toronto's waterfront is rooted in inter-govern-
mental gridlock. Ironically, this gridlock has preserved a huge tract of
land for regeneration
The current support by you, the leaders of the three levels of government,
for a revitalization action plan will serve as the real catalyst for change
With or without a successful Olympic bid, the time to act is now This
plan required a vision, but it will take leadership to ensure we don't lose
another opportunity to get Toronto's waterfront right.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my volunteer
Task Force for their time, unselfish dedication and support. I would like
to acknowledge my two right-hand private sector executives Tony Coombes,
Principal of City Formation International (CFI) Inc and Gordon Thompson,
Director of The CIT Group, and all of the consultants listed at the end of
this Report for their diligence, loyalty and dedication to try to create a
conceptual blueprint for the waterfront of Toronto, this City in which we
all live, work and love.
Please accept the report and its recommendations which follow
Respectfully submitted,
r
~
April 14,2000 WA lERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 D32
Attachment 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
If Toronto is to maintain its role as a major world disciplines of creativity to take advantage of
city and act as a gateway or portal on the Canada of Toronto's unique position in New Media, commu-
tomorrow, it must confront some serious challenges nications, music, biotechnology, software and high
and grasp enormous opportunities. On one hand, technology.
Toronto must address the challenges to the vitality
of its downtown core presented by high taxes on . Provide a clean environment by improving water
commercial properties, declining tourism and quality, cleaning up contaminated soils, eliminating
restructuring in the financial services industry. On the risk of flooding and naturalizing appropriate
the other hand, Toronto's waterfront has the poten- areas.
tial to help Toronto revitalize its tourism industry
and to attract the high-quality jobs and economic After examining how other major cities have moved
spin-offs generated by the new creativity, New Media, ahead to realize the kinds of opportunities which
biotechnology and knowledge-based economy Toronto possesses, the Task Force has concluded
conceptually centred in an area of the Portlands that the following actions are necessary to provide
referred to as Toronto's Convergence Centre. the best chance for doing something important and
valuable for the Toronto waterfront.
The Toronto Revitalization Task Force has devised
a strategic business plan, with a development . The creation of a small, efficient, action oriented
concept, an operational concept and a financial corporation with a sunset clause by the Citr of
concept, to grasp those opportunities. The Task Toronto, the Province of Ontario, and the
Force's recommendations are to: Government of Canada.
. Make the water's edge an accessible, public amenity . The corporation should have a sunset after 15
from Etobicoke through the Central Waterfront to years. By that time the mandate of the corporation
Scarborough; should have been substantially completed, and the
ongoing development of the Central Waterfront
. Reconnect the City of Toronto with its waterfront can continue thereafter in a financially self-sustain-
from a physical, economic and social point of view ing manner, and without further action or involve-
The waterfront must be a place of fun, excitement ment by the corporation. All of the remaining
and entertainment for all year round, infrastructure assets should then be transferred
back to normal government management.
. Remove the elevated Gardiner Expressway in the
Central Waterfront and provide a new road and . The new corporation, called the Toronto
transportation network to better serve Toronto's Waterfront Development Corporation, should
downtown and revitalized waterfront; have all of the powers necessary to implement the
Development Concept proposed by the Task
. Create in the core of the City major new neigh- Force, including the disposition and use of all
bourhoods for working, living and recreation, lands described in the mandate.
resulting in a substantial increase in the City's stock
of affordable and market housing; and . This Corporation would have primacy over the
existing government organizations on the water-
. Create a "convergence community" that crosses all front on any matter relating to the Corporation's
\
I
D33 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
revitalization mandate, including the ability to hotel, food and beverage improvement taxes;
direct any such organization on the disposition and . Development charges on landowners who benefit
use of land. from infrastructure improvements;
. Union Station development lease income;
. The three levels of government should enter into a . Cruise ship terminal concessions; and
series of agrc;:ements with the Corporation to . A hotel and entertainment complex with or with-
establish clear, certain and concise regulatory out a casino.
regimes and fast approval systems.
All of these provide, in addition to government
. The adoption of this concept admittedly requires funding, a potential source of revenue for
careful consideration. The Task Force has conclud- Governments to consider. Some of these potential
ed, however, that following the necessary consulta- sources of revenue are politically controversial.
tion process, the Corporation should be incorpo- However, no one should underestimate the benefit
rated as quickly as possible and should set about to the City, the Province and Canada when this
developing a detailed "Master Plan", using the revitalization plan becomes a reality Independent
Development Concept as a foundation, with the consultant analysis also shows that over the life of
deadline for completion within 60 days of the date the project, the three levels of government would
when agreement to proceed is reached. receive in the order of $4.9 billion in direct and
indirect soft revenues from land development and
The infrastructure costs associated with implemen- construction.
tation of the Development Concept are estimated
to be in the order of $5.2 billion. Additional private The Task Force recommends that the three levels
sector spending is estimated to be in the order of of government should begin consulting among
$7 billion for a total project in the order of $12 themselves, and that public consultations begin
billion. The Task Force aimed for private partici- immediately on this report and its reconimenda-
pation to fund at least 70% of the total project tions, as part of the process for developing and
cost. A number of "public/private partnerships" implementing a Master Plan for the revitalization
are propos~d to achieve this percentage. of Toronto's waterfront.
There is a definitive time line if we are to assist and
In developing the Financing Model, the Task Force be complimentary with a serious Toronto Bid for
considered a number of revenue sources, including the 2008 Olympics.
debt and equity financings, such as:
The time to act Is now!
. Tolling the Gardiner Expressway;
. A parking surcharge;
. Sales and leases of residential and non-reSidential
lands;
. Easements and "utility corridors";
. A range of tax-related revenue streams, such as
GST and the PST rebates, land transfer tax rebates,
development charges, an area specific gas tax, and
April 14, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 D34
RES.#D17100 - TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000-2004 PHASE
Keating Channel Dredging, City of Toronto Continuation of annual
maintenance dredging of Keating Channel and commencement of Cell One
Capping at the dredged material disposal site at Tommy Thompson Park.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' I rene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
coordinating the dredging of Keating Channel ($450,000) and implementing the first phase of
the Cell One Capping ($450,000) project at a total cost in 2000 of $900,000;
THA T the Toronto Port Authority be requested to continue maintenance dredging of the
Keating Channel in 2000 and to fund one third of the cost for the dredging ($150,000) and the
Capping of Cell One ($150,000) up to a total project cost of $300,000;
THAT the City of Toronto be requested to fund one third of the cost for the dredging
($150,000) and the Capping of Cell One ($150,000) up to a total of $300,000;
THAT the Authority contribute its one third share of the cost of dredging ($150,000) and the
Cell One Capping ($150,000) up to a total amount of $300,000;
.
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority continue with the associated environmental monitoring
program . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) (formerly the Toronto Harbour Commissioners) dredged Keating
Channel from the time of its construction in the 1920's to about 1974 As the dredging became more
expensive and disposal of the dredged material more difficult, the TPA sought partners in the work.
Transport Canada initially agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged,
eventually the delta would spread into the north east corner of the Inner Harbour and affect shipping
channels where the federal government was responsible to maintain safe navigation depths. The
TRCA also agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, the threat of
flooding In the lower Don River valley was Increased The TRCA's participation was the subject of
an environmental assessment between 1980 and 1986 which was subsequently approved Hence,
a three party agreement was struck which saw the cost of dredging shared three ways during the
period 1986 to 1991 Le TPA, Transport Canada and TRCA.
The cost sharing agreement which began in 1986 was to fund the cost of dredging the material
which had accumulated between 1974 and 1986. It did not specifically address the funding of the
maintenance dredging which is required annually The channel will fill in over time if annual
dredging is not maintained The federal government has not contributed any funds towards the
annual maintenance dredging
During the past eight years of maintenance dredging (1992 - 1999), the TP A, City of Toronto and the
TRCA partiCipated in the cost sharing
035 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
RATIONALE
There is a continuing need for dredging of the Keating Channel. Recent studies for the City of
Toronto on Ataratiri confirmed the connection between the dredged channel and Lower Don River
flood risks. In addition, some navigation interests still exist in the north east corner of the harbour
TPA has estimated an annual siltation rate of between 30,000 to 40,000 cubic metres.
The approval of the Keating Channel Dredging Project under the Environmental Assessment Act
imposed conditions on the capping of the dredged material within the disposal cells at Tommy
Thompson Park (TIP) There are costs associated with the construction of the proposed cap which
were not part of the original funding for the dredging project. It was anticipated that the cap could
be constructed by placing clean fill over the dredged material, which would have been done at no
net cost. However the desire to create wetland habitat, while enhancing the existing fish habitat in
the disposal cells which is consistent with the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and the terms
and conditions of approval under the Environmental Assessment Act, has resulted in a solution
requiring a total budget of $600,000 in funding over a 2 to 3 year period
Cells One and Two are now full (see Figure 1) Cell One must now be capped to meet the
requirements of the Environmental Assessment approval
DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
The TPA will coordinate and carry out the dredging program It is estimated that up to 37,500 cubic
metres of material would be dredged this year from the channel and disposed of in Cell Three of the
Endikement (Tommy Thompson Park) TRCA staff will continue the environmental monitoring
program for the dredging and disposal operations.
We anticipate the plan for the wetland cap will be approved by the Regional Director, Ministry of the
Environment in accordance with the terms and condition of the Keating Channel Environmental
Assessment and the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan/Environmental Assessment as approved
Subject to receiving the final approval from the Ministry of the Environment and approval from the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Capping of Cell One will commence in 2000 Details of the
construction and implementation of the Cell One Capping will be co-ordinated between the TPA,
TRCA and City of Toronto staff
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Coastal wetlands are critically important ecological components of the Great Lakes ecosystem
Within Toronto, an extensive coastal wetland the Ashbridges Marsh, was destroyed by the early
1900's Within the Metro Toronto waterfront boundaries, the Humber and Rouge River estuary
marshes are the only remaining coastal marshes The shoreline from Toronto to Presquile Bay,
Including Frenchman's Bay, Duffins Creek and other coastal marshes within the TRCAjurisdiction
has lost approximately 31 percent of the original 2,044 acres of functioning wetland area.
April 14, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 D36
Within the TIP area, Cell One represents only one of many opportunities to replace a portion of the
historical Toronto wetlands Including the embayments, there is potential for approximately 95 ha
of coastal wetland habitat creation with an "urban wilderness" landscape Although, the creation
of a wetland at Cell One will not alter the history or trend of wetland loss in Ontario, it will offer an
opportunity for local wetland rehabilitation with additional opportunities for public education,
recreational benefits, wildlife habitat improvement, ecosystem diversity, and other environmental
benefits. In addition, the construction of a wetland would be useful as a demonstration of what can
be achieved in the way of wetland creation and the management of Confined Disposal Facilities
within the Great Lakes basin.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of the Keating Channel dredging for 2000 is $450,000. This is to be shared equally
by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority
The total cost of the first phase of the capping of Cell One in 2000 is $450,000. This is to be shared
by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority
The total funding requests for all of the partners is as follows:
TRCA City of Toronto TPA
Dredging $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Cell One Capping $150.000 $150.000 $150.000
TOTAL $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
The TPA has budgeted a total of $150,000 as its' share of the dredging cost and the City of Toronto
will be asked to confirm its' $150,000 share
Funding for the Cell One Capping will need to be confirmed by TPA ($150,000) The City's portion
($150,000) was previously raised and is available.
The Authority has budgeted a total of $300,000 for 2000 under the Toronto Waterfront Development
Project Phase 2000-2004 with funding available under Account No 207 - (Keating Channel Project)
and Account No 210 - 04 (Cell One Capping)
The Province's share (%) of the TRCA contribution was raised in prior year's and is available.
For information contact: Nigel 'Cowey extension -S244
Date: April 3, 2000
Attachments (1)
I
D37 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
Attachment 1
N
I
Toronto
Inner
Harbour Toronto
Outer -1
Harbour
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Lake
I Ontario
I
/"-- I
/ --.....:- I
/ --
/
~ Tug and Scow Route KEATING CHANNEL
~ Limits of Keating Channel DREDGING
Annual Mamtenance Dredgmg AND DREDGEATE DISPOSAL
--- Limits of Toronto Harbour
"' Commissioners (leased from MNR) Figure 1
r~ Dredgeote Disposal
'---'
I
-
Apn114,2ooo WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 D38
RES.#D18/00 - TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000-2004 PHASE
Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Toronto. Continuation of the
site development at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Toronto.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
2000 development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Toronto, under
the "Toronto Waterfront Development Project 2000-2004 Phase" at a total cost of $70,000.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . 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 the shoreline treatment was completed A navigation light was installed at
the entrance channel to the boat mooring basin
During 1999 the beach section on the south shoreline was stabilized by the addition of small rubble
material. Pathways were completed, as well as the site grading and topsoil placement.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development component for 2000 is to complete the landscaping from Hardpoint 3 to the
west end of the breakwater arm, and to landscape an area south of the weir pond at the harbour
entrance. This work includes the planting of trees, shrubs, topsoil and seeding. Work in 2000 will
substantially complete the project.
Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff, utilizing the annual
equipment supply contractor Staff will endeavour, as in the past, to arrange the assistance of the
community groups and the Lakeshore Yacht Club in the planting events.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for 2000 IS $70,000 under Account Number 204
The work will be carried out under the "Toronto Waterfront Development Project 2000-2004 Phase"
Funding will be subject to final budget approval
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 5, 2000
D39 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
RES.#D19/00 - THE CITY OF 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' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' I rene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
2000 construction program for the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Toronto,
under '"The City of Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001- at a total cost
of $175,000 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1994, approval was received to commence construction of $3.7 million 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, approximately 90% of the projects have been completed All headland structures 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 2000, it is proposed to final armour 100 metres of shoreline between the headlands, raise the
access road (Mure trail) to the final design height and alignment, and implement the next phase of
landscaping and wetland plants.
Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment
supply contractor
Environmental monitoring for the project will continue in 2000 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 the Sylvan Avenue Steering Committee meetings during 2000 to
provide input and direction to the project implementation
The local community residents and school groups will be invited to participate in the final planting
components as this project nears completion
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The work will be carried out under "The City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project,
1997-2001", approved at Authority Meeting#1/97
The total budget for 2000 is $175,000 under Account Number 133-03.
It is proposed that the remaining landscape work required to complete the Sylvan project will be
carried out in early 2001 and the final total project cost is estimated at $3.3 million
April 14, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 040
Funding will be subject to final budget approval
Report prepared by. Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact: Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
Date: April 5, 2000
RES.#D20/00 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
Fishleigh Drive Shoreline Improvement Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront,
City of Toronto. To develop a final design for shoreline treatments for the
Fishleigh Drive/Wynnview Court sector of the Scarborough Bluffs; City of
Toronto, in accordance with the Conservation Ontario Class Environmental
Assessment for Water Management Structures Process.
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' I rene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
design, public consultation and approvals process for the Fishleigh Drive Shoreline
Improvements Project under the ''The City of Toronto Valley Shoreline Regeneration Project
1997 -2001 M at a total cost of $30,000;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board with a recommendation to complete the
final shoreline protection CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Fishlelgh Drive Erosion Control Project was approved under the Class Environmental
Assessment process in 1988 and was undertaken to provide shoreline protection for 28 residential
homes along the Fishleigh Drive sector of the Scarborough Bluffs. Construction of approximately
375 metres of shoreline protection work was completed in 1998.
The shoreline section to the west along Scarborough Heights Park has not been completed but has
temporary interim erosion protection consisting of broken concrete rubble. This 500 metre section
of unprotected shoreline extends westerly to below Wynnview Court and serves as the main access
route for ongoing maintenance and monitoring of existing completed shoreline treatments to the
east and west. The access road/trail down Fishleigh Ravine is the main access node for the public
to the waterfront for this-section of'shoreline wesh>f"8luffers Waterfront Park. The final shoreline
treatment is required to ensure the long term protection of this access road and proposed waterfront
trail. Other objectives include
. improved public safety
. opportunities to enhance fish habitat as part of the final shoreline treatments
. provide "softer" forms of shoreline treatment such as cobble beach units
. complete the final alignment and surface treatment for the waterfront trail along the Fishleigh
sector
D41 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
These objectives are consistent with the key management recommendations of the recently
completed Integrated Shoreline Management Plan for the section of waterfront from Tommy
Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will complete all the environmental inventories and assessments, complete final design for the
various shoreline treatments and prepare a total estimated cost to complete the project (Figure A)
Consultants will be retained to assist in the coastal analysis and obtain all necessary approvals as
required. It is proposed that a steering committee comprising City of Toronto staff and any
interested members of the public be established to assist in the consultation process towards
achieving an integrated solution for the final shoreline treatments.
A review of the preliminary design options will be undertaken, public input and selection of a
preferred design, approval of the Class E.A. and final design drawings completed as part of
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Coast Guard approvals.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the work in 2000 is $30,000 under Account No 138-03 The work will
be carried out under "The City of 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. Nigel Cowey, extension 5244
Date: April 3, 2000
Attachments (1)
~ WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00
Apnl14,2ooo 042
Attachment 1
.
;
~
c% Cl
~,g ;: 1::
C\I
5~ ~ ...
E"e '<"d) ~
.,0. 0 II
>-., ~
C7'.!: In ~
So; 0
~5 00
~~ 0-
0.-
W
Z
--I
W
0: en
01-
IZ
enW
W~
>W
->
0:0
00:
Ie..
,,~
<( W
.... (J) --I
l- I I
~ --z
C) en I
u:: U.
-
D43 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
RES.#D21 100 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #2/00, March 30, 2000 The minutes of Meeting #2/00
held on March 30, 2000 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is
provided for information
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #2/00 held March 30, 2000 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 5238
Date April 4, 2000
RES.#D22/00 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meetings #2/00 and #3/00 The minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meetings #2/00 and #3/00, held on
February 24, 2000 and March 23, 2000, respectively, are provided for
information
Moved by Jim McMaster
Seconded by' Irene Jones
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meetings #2/00 and #3/00, held on February 24, 2000
and March 23, 2000, 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 '1he-Authority at-meeting #6199 ileld on June 25, 1999 by Resolution
#A 166/99, includes the following provision
April 14. 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 D44
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: Beth Williston, 5263
Date: April 3, 2000
RES.#D23/00 - NATIONS IN BLOOM AND FOREST STEWARDSHIP AWARDS BY THE
CITY OF TORONTO
The City of Toronto has received two prestigious honours, Nations in Bloom
and the Forest Stewardship Recognition Program Award
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by' I rene Jones
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has been awarded the Nations in Bloom and Forest Stewardship
Recognition Program Award which recognizes the importance of parks and open space
planning, natural heritage protection, and environmental stewardship within the Toronto area
for over 40 years;
WHEREAS the City of Toronto Nations in Bloom submission outlines many of the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority programs implemented throughout the Greater Toronto Area;
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Toronto, the Economic
Development, Culture & Tourism Department, Parks and Recreation Division and the many
community members who have contributed to these efforts over the years be congratulated
on the receipt of these awards,
AND FURTHER THAT the Nations in Bloom submission be forwarded to the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's other watershed municipalities . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the City of Toronto staff with the assistance and sponsorship of the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) and others developed two submissions which celebrate the planning
and implementation of environmental projects directed at watershed and natural heritage protection
and management'by1he City,its10rmennunicipalities,-theIRCA and many other partners.
Nations in Bloom
Toronto placed first in the Nations in Bloom competition for cities with populations over one million
in the 1999 competition held in Japan. Nations in Bloom is the world's only international
environmental management competition One hundred cities from 28 countries were entered.
Submissions were judged against a number of criteria including - enhancement of the landscape,
heritage management; environmentally sensitive practices; community involvement and planning
for the future
D45 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 April 14, 2000
The following are a few excerpts from the Nations in Bloom submission
.. A turning point occurred in 1954 when Hurricane Hazel, one of the city's worst
natural disasters, caused severe flooding and damage along most of the
watercourses. This disaster had a dramatic influence on the planning history of
Toronto. As houses built in ravines were destroyed and lives were lost, a policy was
developed to remove existing developments from flood plains, and to prevent any new
development This experience led Toronto to acquire major vaJ/eylands, thus
demonstrating the ecologically complex relationships between cities and their
environments. Most ravines are now managed as parkland by the City of Toronto and
owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority II
"More than 1000 hectares of parkland and 58 km. of trail stretch along the waterfront.
Learning from past errors, new development is designed to ensure that the water's
edge is left largely public and accessible. A healthy ecosystem for fish and wildlife
is another goal, recent habitat improvements include wet meadows, mud flats,
seasonally flooded areas, fish habitat, turtle nesting and snake hibernating areas and
amphibian ponds. II
The TRCA's Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program, Aquatic Plants Program and Yellow
Fish Road Program were also highlighted The submission also notes:
"The efforts of the Don Watershed Task Force, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don,
the Humber Watershed Task Force and Friends of the Rouge watershed in providing
hands on restoration and public education has been instrumental in healing degraded
urban rivers. II
Forest Stewardship Recognition Program Award
The Forest Stewardship Recognition Program is a result of a partnership between conservation
groups, governments and industry, which recognizes innovative on-the-ground work in forest
stewardship and biodiversity conservation. The program's founding partners include Wildlife Habitat
Canada, the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
The City of Toronto's Natural Environment and Horticulture Section was elected to receive the FSRP
Award of Excellence for its Naturalization Program The City's Naturalization Program has become
the largest municipal naturalization project in Canada. The various projects under the Program
Increase the diversity of wildlife habitats, improve the aesthetic quality of the region and provide
community members and park users with an opportunity to develop a sense of stewardship for
these areas.
The TRCA and the Evergreen Foundation, co-sponsored this submission.
RATIONALE
Many of the efforts highlighted In these submissions are similar to works currently being undertaken
in the Regions of Peel, York and Durham Current data suggest that the number of regeneration
activities, led by community and agencies, continue to expand within all the watersheds. The recent
additions of Natural Heritage projects funded by the Region of Peel and the Region of York will
further assist in enhancing the environmental function of the watersheds.
April 14,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/00 D46
Mr Arthur Beauregard, Manager of Environment & Horticulture, Parks & Recreation Division,
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department for the City of Toronto will attend
Authority Meeting #3/00 to provide an overview of the Nations in Bloom Award
For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: April 5, 2000
NEW BUSINESS
RES.#D24/00 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK: PUBLIC URBAN WILDERNESS
Habitat Creation and Enhancement Projects, 1995-2000
Moved by' Jim McMaster
Seconded by Irene Jones
THAT the report entitled Tommy Thompson Park: Public Urban Wilderness be received for
information,
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate the report to all interested parties.
. . . CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10'33 a.m ,on April 14, 2000
Dick O'Brien Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
Iks
~
", THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/00
Friday, June 9,2000 Page D46
Due to lack of quorum, the agenda items from Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting
#3/00, which was to be held on Friday, June 9,2000 will be brought directly to the Authority at
Meeting #6/00, to be held on Friday, June 23,2000 The items were reviewed by those members
of the Watershed Management Advisory Board present on June 9, 2000, and are forwarded with
no negative comments
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell Chair
Cliff Gyles Vice Chair
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon Member
Milton Berger Member
lIa Bossons Member
Irene Jones Member
Pam McConnell Member
Bill Saundercook Member
Mike Tzekas Member
~ ITEM 1
, THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00
July 21,2000 Page 047
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/00, was held in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, July 21,2000 The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to
order at 1002 a.m.
PRESENT
Milton Berger Member
Lorna Bissell Chair
Cliff Gyles Vice Chair
Irene Jones Member
Jim McMaster Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon Member
lIa Bossons Member
Pam McConnell Member
Bill Saundercook Member
Mike Tzekas Member
RES.#D25/00 - MINUTES
Moved by Jim McMaster
Seconded by Irene Jones
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/00, held on June 9, 2000, be approved CARRIED
PRESENTATION
(a) A presentation by Richard Hoffman, Humber Watershed Alliance, in regards to Item 7 1 -
A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed
RES.#D26/00 - PRESENTATION
Moved by Jim McMaster
Seconded by Milton Berger
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received CARRIED
048 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
RES.#D27/00 - A REPORT CARD ON THE HEALTH OF THE HUMBER RIVER
WATERSHED
'A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed' Copies of
the complete document will be available at the meeting
Moved by Irene Jones
Seconded by Cliff Gyles
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the final version of the document
'A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed' be received,
THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance and staff be thanked for their hard work and
dedication to bringing The Report Card to completion,
THAT The Report Card be circulated to federal governments, provincial ministries,
watershed municipalities, groups, schools, and the public throughout the Humber
watershed,
AND FURTHER THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance continue to work on implementing
actions identified in The Report Card that will help protect, restore and celebrate the
watershed CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #3/98, held on September 18, 1998, the following resolution was adopted
that states
'THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the work plan for the Humber
Watershed Report Card be approved,
THA T the draft purpose statement, objectives, indicator selection criteria and preliminary
short list of indicators be received for information,
AND FURTHER THAT the final Humber Watershed Report Card be brought forward to the
Authority for approval when completed "
The document 'A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed' has been prepared
by the Humber Watershed Alliance The Alliance was formed in 1997 to implement 'Legacy' A
Strategy for a Healthy Humber', the Conservation Authority's vision and action plan for a healthy
Humber ecosystem. The development of a Humber watershed report card to identify the progress
made in implementing the objectives of 'Legacy' A Strategy for a Healthy Humber' was a primary
task for the Humber Watershed Alliance.
This report card assesses the current health of the Humber River watershed in three main
categories Environment, Society and Economy, and Getting it Done (stewardship) Within each
of these main categories, there are 28 indicators that provide a more detailed picture of the
existing conditions in the watershed Each of the indicators has been assigned a letter grade and
given an assessment of whether the indicator is relatively stable, in decline, or improving
July 21, 2000 ~!ATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 049
This document also identifies a series of time-linked, measurable targets for each indicator that,
if achieved, will ensure that the Humber River watershed has a healthier future Specific actions
are given to help achieve the targets
Overall, the Humber River watershed has been give a 'C', or 'fair' grade. This 'C' is the average
of the grades given to all 28 indicators The grades assigned to these indicators demonstrate a
wide range of health, from 'A' (very good health) for outdoor recreation to 'F' (extremely poor) for
stormwater management since so little of the urbanized area of the watershed has stormwater
management controls Grades also differ depending on which part of the watershed is being
evaluated A summary of the indicators and grades are attached
A few aspects of the watershed, including benthic invertebrate communities, publicly-owned
greenspace and municipal stewardship, are relatively healthy and were assigned a grade of'S'
Most aspects of the watershed - more than 50% - are in fair health These areas are not in critical
condition, but there is definite room for improvement in each These indicators include forest
cover, wildlife, groundwater quality, trails, heritage resources, and community stewardship
Nearly one-third of the Indicators are in poor health (graded as a 'D' or lower) Air quality, bacteria
levels in surface water, conventional pollutants (including phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorides),
the levels of chloride and nitrate contamination in groundwater, and the amount of agricultural land
protected from development are a few of the indicators that received a 'D' or lower rating
The health of 75% of the indicators is either stable or improving, only 25% of the indicators show
declining health These signs of improvement are a reflection of the efforts that have been made
to address these issues
Overall, the watershed system is in fair shape, but under significant stress, and some of these
stresses will likely increase in the future. The Humber Alliance will focus their future efforts on
working toward achieving the targets contained in the Report Card
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. circulate 'A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River Watershed' to government
agencies, watershed municipalities, groups, schools, and the public throughout the Humber
watershed,
. develop a work plan that identifies the next steps necessary for achieving the targets contained
in the Report Card,
. collect relevant information for each indicator to assist with future reporting, and
. prepare another report card in three years to determine progress in meeting the objectives
established in 'Legacy. A Strategy for a Healthy Humber'
Report prepared by Kristin Geater, extension 5316
For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date July 7, 2000
Attachments (1)
050 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Attachment 1
SUMMARY OF HUMBER REPORT CARD INDICATORS AND GRADES
CATEGORY INDICATOR GRADE
Environment
Landforms Indicator 1 Significant Landforms Cl
How well are significant landforms being protected from urban
sprawl?
Terrestrial Indicator 2 Forest Cover Cl
Habitat How well are forests being protected and regenerated?
Indicator 3 Wetlands El
How well are wetlands being protected and restored?
Indicator 4 Vegetation Communities
How well are different types of vegetation commUnities being Being
protected? developed
Indicator 5 Wildlife Cl
How well IS wildlife protected?
Groundwater Indicator 6 Groundwater Quantity CT
Is groundwater being used sustalnably?
Indicator 7 Groundwater Quality 01
How well IS the quality of our groundwater being protected?
Surface Water Indicator 8 Storm water Management FT
How well IS stormwater runoff from urban areas being managed?
Indicator 9 Bacteria El
How SWimmable are surface waters?
Indlca.tor 10 Conventional Pollutants OT
How degraded are surface waters with respect to conventional
pollutants?
Indicator 11 Heavy Metals and Organic Contaminants CT
What IS the condition of surface water with respect to heavy metals
and organic compounds?
Indicator 12 River Flow C
How stable are the flows In the river?
AquatiC Habitat Indicator 13 Benthic Invertebrates B
How healthy are benthiC (bottom-dwelling) Invertebrate
communities?
Indicator 14 Fish Communities C
How healthy are fish communities?
Indicator 15 Riparian Vegetation CT
How healthy is stream bank vegetation?
Air Indicator 16 Air Quality 0
How healthy IS the air we breathe?
July 21,2000 1Jv'/\TERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 051
SUMMARY OF INDICATORS AND GRADES (CONT)
CATEGORY INDICATOR GRADE
Soci$tY and Economy
Heritage Indicator 17 Heritage Resources C
How well are hentage resources being protected?
Indicator 18 Heritage Events Dr
How well IS hentage recognized and celebrated?
Outdoor Activities Indicator 19 Public Greenspace 8T
How much publicly owned greenspace IS there?
Indicator 20 Outdoor Recreation A
How extensive are outdoor recreation opportunities?
Indicator 21 Trails CT
What progress has been made in developing a system of Inter-
regional trails?
Agriculture Indicator 22. Agricultural Land 01
1-10....' well is agnculturalland being conserved?
Development Indicator 23 Sustainable Use of Resources Being
How well are people doing at uSing resources wisely and living developed
a sustainable lifestyle?
Getting It Done
Stewardship Indicator 24 Community Stewardship C
To what extent are people taking responsibility as
stewards of the Humber River watershed?
Indicator 25 Outdoor Environmental Education CT
What IS the extent to which young people are being educated
about the outdoor environment?
Indicator 26 Aesthetics C
What IS the aesthetic condition of the watershed?
Indicator 27 Business Stewardship CT
To what extent are businesses taking responsibility as stewards
of the Humber River watershed?
Ino!cator 28 Municipal Stewardship 8
To what extent do municipalities take responsibility as stewards
of the watershed?
D52 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
RES.#D28/00 - 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 Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to renew the
existing Federal Fisheries Act - Fish Habitat Management Agreement for a period of five
years CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 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. 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.
Original agreements were signed for a period of one year, allowing both parties the opportunity
to revisit the agreement at that time.
At Meeting #3/99, ofthe Watershed Management Advisory Board, staff received direction to renew
the Agreement for a period of one year After the initial year of implementation, opportunities to
improve customer service while protecting fish habitat had been identified Additionally,
operational changes to further streamline agreement implementation were being reviewed jointly
by both parties Given that operational changes had been identified and steps were being taken
to incorporate them into our internal protocol, staff felt that a one year renewal term was
appropriate. The one year term provided an opportunity for the Authority to review the
effectiveness of the agreement after the operation changes had been undertaken and implemented
for a reasonable period of time.
RA TIONALE
The second year of implementation proved to be more effective and efficient than the first year,
primarily as a result of the operational changes discussed above. The Department of Fisheries
and Oceans is committed to continually monitor this agreement and implement additional
operational changes as necessary As such, staff recommend that the agreement be renewed for
a term of five years
July 21, 2000 ._ ~\TERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 053
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff are not proposing any changes to the agreement and feel that the agreement is an asset to
the Authority providing more efficient and effective customer service Given that either party can
terminate the agreement with a 30 day notice period, staff recommend renewing the agreement
for a period of five years Staff will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the agreement and will
report back to the Authority if further direction is required over the five year term.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
With 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 two years of
implementation, staff feel that additional funding specific to our role under this level 3 agreement
is not required to administer the agreement for the time being Financial arrangements will
continue to be monitored and reviewed
For information contact: Sandra Malcic, extension 217
Date July 10, 2000
-
RES.#D29/00 - BRIDLE TRAIL PHASE V STORMWATER RETROFIT PROJECT
Bridle Trail Phase V Stormwater Retrofit Project, Rouge River Watershed,
Town of Markham. Implementation of detailed design
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THATTRCA staff be directed to carry out
the implementation ofthe retrofit project intended to maintain existing water quantity control
and provide for water quality and erosion control improvements, as prepared by Aquafor
Beech Limited CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In February of 1999, TRCA completed the Town of Markham Storm water Retrofit Study The intent
of the study was to develop a framework for a long term strategy to implement stormwater quality
and quantity controls within the existing urbanized areas of the Town The study assessed the
feasibility of retrofitting eXisting quantity control facilities and Identified opportunities to construct
new facilities in the location of existing storm sewer outfalls where no controls were currently in
place.
The Bridle Trail Phase V facility was identified as one of the existing priority facilities to be
retrofitted The existing facility is located on the south side of Carlton Road and to the east of
Kennedy Road Currently, the facility provides quantity control for a catchment area of
approximately 143.4 hectares and outlets to Burndenet Creek, a tributary of the Rouge River 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
054 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
TRCA and the Town of Markham commissioned Aquafor Beech Limited to undertake the detailed
design of the retrofit facility This process was administered by a Steering Committee with
members from the Town of Markham and the TRCA.
The retrofit project was subjectto 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 alt8rnative is a hybrid wet pond and wetland
Details of the preferred alternative include
. excavate pond bottom to provide permanent pool storage (shallow wetland area and deeper
wet pond component),
. provision of two sediment forebays to capture larger sediment particles at the inlet to reduce
maintenance costs,
. provision of maintenance access road,
. modify existing outlet structure to provide for extended detention storage, and
. 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 this summer
Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented and monitored throughout the construction
process
RATIONALE
The Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual Update (MOE, 1999)
discusses a number of ~he 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 offlows, signifi.....ant down cutting 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 it 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
Construction of the retrofit facility is expected to begin early this summer and will include
excavation works, modifications to the outlet structure and implementation of the landscaping plan
as per the detailed design drawings
,.
July 21 , 2000 ~.;i TERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D55
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total project cost is approximately $284,000 A total of $25,000 has been secured through the
York Natural Heritage Fund The balance of the required funding will be provided by the Town of
Markham.
For information contact: Nick Saccone, extension 5301 or Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
Date July 7, 2000
RES.#D30/00 - IMPLEMENTATION OF PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM FOR
PLANNING SERVICES
City of Toronto Implementation of the TRCA streamlining initiatives and fee
schedule for planning services in the City of Toronto and direction to finalize
a Partnership Memorandum for Conservation Authority Planning Services
with the City of Toronto
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to finalize a
Partnership Memorandum for Planning Services with the City of Toronto as generally set out
in the attached draft Partnership Memorandum,
AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized to implement the TRCA Fee Schedule for Planning
Services for development applications circulated by the City of Toronto CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority has adopted a series of resolutions which provide for the streamlining of the
development approval process and associated collection of fees Partnership agreements or
memorandums of understandings (MOU) have been finalized with the Region of York, Durham and
Peel as well as most municipalities within these Regions Discussions with the City of Toronto
were delayed due to the amalgamation in 1998
The purpose of the partnership agreements or memorandums of understanding (MOU) is to
- clearly outline tl:f.-' plan review and technical clearance services provided by the CA's in
response to the 1996 down loading of Provincial plan review responsibilities to the
Regions,
- pre-screen development applications, through the use of a TRCA Screening Zone map
These screening maps help municipal staff determine whether a development application
needs to be circulated to the conservation authority This practice significantly reduces the
volume of applications circulated unnecessarily to the CA's
- establish a fee collection format which relies on municipal support for the collection of
preliminary fees and the TRCA collection of Processing and Clearance fees,
056 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
- establish a framework for further streamlining Initiatives More recently, the partnership
agreements/MOUs have included stormwater management initiatives Through the
addition of clauses and schedules, the agreements/MOUs can be revisited and renewed
to incorporate further streamlining initiatives in the future
RATIONALE
Due to the Toronto amalgamation, discussion with the City were delayed until last year To date,
discussion on the TRCA Jtreamlining initiatives have taken place with each of the District offices
coordinated through the Policy & Research Division
Endorsement of an MOU by the Authority Board and City Council would strengthen current and
future joint partnership efforts in the streamlining of the development approvals process The
proposed MOU serves to clarify the plan review roles of the TRCA in relation to natural features,
functions and flood hazards It also formalizes the process and roles of the TRCA and the City in
pre-screening and fee collection By reducing the volume of unnecessary circulations to the
Authority and by providing the client with a one-stop process for submitting applications and initial
fees, these arrangements improve customer service and help to make the development approvals
process more efficient. For these reasons, Authority staff are recommending that staff proceed
to finalize the MOU in the form generally reflectED in the attached
Authority staff will also proceed to notify clients about the CA fees within the City of Toronto and
to collect fees where appropriate.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Proceed to finalize the MOU as generally set out in attachment A with the City of Toronto Planning
staff Further meetings with planning staff are necessary to finalize the implementation of the
streamlining approach, collection of fees and the finalization of the streamlining map
It is anticipated that Planrllng staff will be reporting to the Planning and Transportation Committee
in September and to Council in October with a finalized Memorandum of Understanding
For information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date. July 10, 2000
Attachments (1)
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 057
Attachment 1
June 23, 2000 version
Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Toronto and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority - Review or Development Applications and Collection of Fees
1. Purpose
This agreement outlines the responsibihues of the City of Toronto (the City) and the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authonty (TRCA) for'
a) revIew by TRCA of development applications and supporting studies received under the
Planning Act by the City;
b) type of conservation servIces TRCA will provide the City; and
c) collection of fees by the City on behalf of TRCA.
2. Responsibilities
,
The City and TRCA agree
Part A - Review of Development Applications
2.1 The City will screen development applications received under the Planning Act., and will
forward to TRCA those applications which require the review and comment of TRCA.
The City will screen the applications in accordance with the screening procedure In
Schedule 1 of this agreement.
2.2 It is acknowledged that the areas of TRCA interest and their boundanes, as shown in the
screerung map referred to in Schedule A of tlus agreement, are generally defined. The
map is intended to be used by the City as a guide for determining which applications
should be forwarded to TRCA for review and comment. The City will use its besr
judgement in interpreting the map to determine which applicauons are wholly or partly in
the TRCA areas of interest, and therefore should be forwarded to TRCA for review and
comment. The City will not be held responsible for the interpretation of the TRCA map
which may result in applications forwarded or not forwarded to TRCA for review and
comment.
2.3 The City will implement stormwater quality and quantity controls on site to the extent
practical. The City will implement stormwater controls in accordance with the
recommendations of the City's Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, once it has been
completed.
Part B - General Description of TRCA Services
2.4 TRCA will provide the City with the following conscrvatlon servIces.
D58 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
a) Information and analysis of natural features and functlons, such as. sIgnificant wetland!>,
slgruficant wildlife habitat; sigmficant woodlands; significant valley lands, slgmficant
areas of natural and sCtentific interest, habItat of endangered and threatened species, fish
habitat; flood and erOSIon hazards from dynamic beaches, watercour!>es and valley lands,
ground water recharge areas, and ground water and surface water quantity and quality
b) Provide input mto determining the need for and the adequacy of environmental studies to
assess and nuugate potenual impacts on the natural features and functions identified in a)
above.
c) Establtsh appropnate requirements and conditions to assess and mitigate potentIal
Impacts on the natural features and functions identified 10 a) above
d) Identify the need for a ground warer and surface water-taking permit.
e) Identify the need for an apphcation and the work to be conducted under the federal
Fishenes Act.
f) Identify the need for an applical10n under the provincial Lake and Rivers Improvement
Act; or any other legislation.
2.5 TRCA will reVIew and provide comments 10 the context of the approved or City Council
adopted Official Plans and amendments, and other municIpal documents endorsed by
City Council
2.6 TRCA will review and provIde comments on CitY-1Dmated planning matters. such as
Official Plans, OffiCial Plan amendment applications, and studies. TRCA WIll not charge
a fee for tlus service.
2.7 TRCA will reVIew, Identify issues and provide comments on development apphcations
and stuches in a timely manner, generally wItlun 4 weeks of the date of receivmg the
request for cormnems from the City TRCA will endeavour to be involved 10 pre-
consultation on development proposals to identify issues and solutions early in the
development approvals process
2.8 Nothing in this agreement prevents TRCA from reviewing and commenung on any
matter, as TRCA would normally exercise its rights.
2.9 TRCA will make provisions to attend Ontario MUniCIpal Board beanngs to !>upport the
City with the review of development applications outlined in thIS agreement, at no cost to
the City Notwithstanding the above, TRCA may, at itS discretion, appeal or refcF a any
development applicatlon to the Ontario Municipal Board for a heanng.
2.10 TRCA will provide the Clty WIth a screemng map, as described in Schedule A of th1s
agreement. TRCA and the City may propose changes to the map from time to time.
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 059
TRCA and the City WIll provide the acceptable rauonale for all proposed changes to the
map, and the changes shall be acceptable to TRCA and the City
Part C - Collection of Fee
2.11 TRCA will set and approve fees for the review of development applicatIons that the City
has screened and determined to be in an area TRCA may have an Interest. TRCA will
provide the CIty with a Schedule of Fees and reVIsed Schedule, as appropriate.
2.12 The CIty will collect the preliminary analysis of development applications fee from
appl1cants in the fonn of a cheque payable to TRCA. The City will forward the
preliminary analysis fee to TRCA in a timely manner The City will attach the TRCA
service fees mformation sheet and invoice sheet, to be produced and provIded by TRCA,
to development application forms for the purpose of informing applIcants of the TRCA
fees, and the possibility that the City may collect the preliminary analYSIS fee on behalf of
TRCA. The City will make a reasonable effort to inform applicants of the TRCA
preliminary analysis fee and to collect the fee on behalf of TRCA. If the preliminary
analysis fee is not submitted to the City, it will be the responsibihty of TRCA to collect
the fee from the applicants. The City shall not delay the processing of apphcations
because It has not received the TRCA preliminary analysis fee.
2.13 In the event a cheque collected by the City and forwarded to TRCA IS delinquent, TRCA
will be rcsponsible for follow-up actions to collect the fee from the apphcant.
Notwithstanding dehnquent fees, TRCA will review and provide comments on
development applicauons and studies in a timely manner, generally within 4 weeks of the
date of receIving the request for comments from the City
2.14 Aside from the prelIminary analysis fee described in this agreement., TRCA will be
responsible for collecting additional fees for its services as set in the TRCA Schedule of
Fees.
3. Term of Agreement
3 1 The term of thIS agreement is three years from the date It is executed by the City and
TRCA.
3.2 The agreement may be extended for additIonal three-year terms, on the wntten consent of
the City and TRCA. The City and TRCA WIll review this agreement, to consider changes,
at least three months prior to the expiry of each three-year lerm.
33 The City or TRCA may termmate th1s agreement at any time, with thiny days written
notice of termmatlon, by prepaid registered mail. Notice is deemed to be received on the
third business day from the date of mailing.
34 Any nOUce gIven by the City or TRCA will be delivered at the following addrc;:sses
060 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Schedule A - Screening Procedure for the Review of Development Applications
Part A - Development Applications
1 The City wi11 forward to TRCA for review and comment development apphcanons and
supponing environmental repol1s, received under the Planning Act, which are wholly or
partly in the TRCA screening area, as idenufied in Map 1 - TRCA Screening Area Map
of this Schedule.
2. Development applications include applications for' amendment to the official plan,
rezoning and changes to Miruster's Zomng Orders; plans of subdivision. plans of
condominium. consents, and site plan. An application for nunor variance wholly or partly
in the TRCA screening area may bc circulated to TRCA for review and comment if, in
the oplmon of the City. evaluation of the applIcation by rRCA will assist the City with
making an appropnate decision. In the circumstance of multiple development
applications submitted concurrently or at separate times, for the same development
proposal, the City shall circulate only 1 development application to TRCA.
Part B - City-initiated Studies
I The City will forward to TRCA for review and comment all studies initiated by the City's
Urban Development Services Department, which are wholly or parrly in the TRCA
screening area, as identified in Map 1 - TRCA Screening Area Map of this Schedule.
Such studies may include secondary plans for areas in the City, policy amendments to the
official plan, and sub-watershed reportS.
Part C - Other
1 NOIWlthstanding Pans A and B above, the City may forward to TRCA any development
application or study for comment and review if, in the opinion of the City, evaluatlon by
TRCA will asSIst the City with making an appropriate deCIsion.
A:\mou.doc
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 061
RES.#D31/00 - TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000 - 2004
Bluffers Park, Brimley Road South Pedestrian Walkway To commence
design and construction of a walkway down Brimley Road South, to provide
safe pedestrian access to Bluffers Park.
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff, in coordination with the City
of Toronto representatives and the community, be directed to complete the design and
phase 1 construction of a pedestrian walkway to Bluffers Park, City of Toronto, under "The
Waterfront Development Project 2000 - 2004" at a total cost of $182,500 CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Brimley Road South was constructed south of Barkdene Hills, in the former Borough of
Scarborough, to the watE'::!rfront of Lake Ontario in the mid 1960's, in a gulley that was part of an
old sanitary landfill site
Bluffers Park was developed between the mid 1960's and the early 1970's by extending the
shoreline south of the ravine by means of land reclamation
Since completion, the park has become an extremely popular facility offering a wide range of
public amenities
There is at present no assigned pedestrian walkway in or out of the park For safety reasons, this
forces pedestrians, using Brimley Road South, to use the narrow shoulders and the deep ditches,
during times of heavy traffic.
As a result of a slope failure near the south end of Brimley Road on April 15, 1991, the former City
of Scarborough retained Golder Associates Limited to provide engineering consulting services for
the investigation and remediation of slopes formed of landfill material Due of their extensive
knowledge of the site, staff retained Golder Associates to provide preliminary Professional
Engineering services for this project. Resolution #B154/99 directed staff as follows
II THA T the consultmg firm of Golder Associates be retained to complete preliminary
and final engirlee:. mg design drawings for the Brimley Road South Pedestrian
Walkway, at a total upset cost of $25,000 (excluding G S T) "
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The consultant has completed preliminary designs which were reviewed by City of Toronto and
TRCA staff Dunng 2000, the Consultant will prepare final design drawings for the preferred option,
and construction is scheduled to commence this fall
The construction will be tendered In accordance with the Authority's purchasing policy
Construction supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff
D62 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21.2000
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the work in 2000 is $182,500 under Account No 220-11
The work will be carried out under "The Toronto Waterfront Developme~lt Project, 2000 - 2004"
Report prepared by. Jim Berry, (416) 392-9721
Date. July 6, 2000
RES.#D32/00 - ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD STUDY
Rouge Duffins Wildlife Corridor, CFN 31243 Receipt of a motion from the
City of Pickering Council to protect and enhance the Rouge Duffins Wildlife
Corridor
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the resolution from the City of
Pickering on the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study, dated April 10, 2000, be supported by
the TRCA,
THAT the City of Pickering, Rouge Park Alliance, ORC, and the Province of Ontario be so
advised;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to participate in the discussions with the Province of
Ontario, the Rouge Park Alliance and the City of Pickering to negotiate the purchase of
various parcelslblocks as they become available, subject to Authority approval
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Rouge Duffins Wildlife COrridor can generally be described as extending east from the City
of Pickering/City of Toronto town line to the West Duffins Creek running between the Canadian
Pacific Railway line and Finch Avenue as shown on the attached plan It is recognized that this
area is an important east-west linkage between the Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and Duffins Creek
watersheds It also links three major environmental features, the Town Line Swamp, the Altona
Forest ESA and the Whitevale ESA as well as connecting three major publicly owned open space
areas, the Rouge Park (TRCA/ORC), Altona Forest (TRCA) and the West Duffins Creek
(TRCA/ORC) Property ownership within the Rouge Duffins Wildlife Corridor is a mixture of utilities,
Provincial and private lands, and as a result the corridor is somewhat fragmented The Provincial
lands have been identified as surplus and the Ontario Reality Corporation has been directed to
begin their disposal process
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D63
In 1999, the T own of Pickering, now City, Initiated the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study as shown
on the attached plan entitled Study Area. The purpose of the study was to ensure that the
development of the neighbourhood occurred in an orderly and appropriate manner and that the
features and functions of the Rouge Duffins Wildlife Corridor were protected Staff from MNR,
Rouge Park, and TRCA participated in the study
The Authority is in receipt of the following City of Pickering Council Resolution dated April 10,
2000
WHEREAS the City of Pickering has prepared the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study' which
involved public consultation and input from an Advisory Committee,
WHEREAS the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study includes provisions and planning
designations to maintain and enhance the protection and preservation of sensitive and
important environmental features, functions and wildlife habitat; and
WHEREAS the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study area comprises some 160 hectares of
land, of which 120 hectares is already or proposed by the study to be designated within
land use categories of the Pickering Official Plan that prohibit development, including 48
hectares (40% ofthe 120 hectares), within the Rouge Park, and
WHEREAS the Ontario Government, through the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) , owns
approximately 50% (or 80 hectares) of the lands in the study area, of which 84% (or 67.2
hectares) have been or are proposed by the study to be designated "Open Space System -
Natural Area" and therefore not to be developed, and the remaining ORC lands designated
in the Official Plan for development constitute approximately 128 hectares (16 %), and
WHEREAS the Rouge Park Alliance and a number of residents have requested that
additional provincially owned lands be protected, In public ownership, to further enhance
wildlife habitat and the Rouge Duffins Wildlife Corndor;
NOW THEREFORE the City of Pickering requests that the Ontario Realty Corporation
participate in discussions with the City of Pickering, the Rouge Park Alliance, the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Rouge River Restoration Committee, and
other interested /ondowners in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood towards protecting the
remaining 16% 01 provincially owned lands that enhance wildlife habitat and corridor
functions, and
FURTHER that these discussions investigate the opportunity to convey ownership of ORC
lands to the TRCA for conservation purposes, and,
FURTHER that the City Clerk be directed to provide the Ontario Realty Corporation, the
Rouge Park Alliance, the Rouge River Restoration Committee and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority with a copy of this resolution and that they provide a response as to
their participating in these aforementioned discussions.
064 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 JUly 21,2000
Staff feel the resolution adopted by the City of Pickenng to maintain the Provincial lands in public
ownership will help prote;t the features and functions of the Rouge Ddi'ns Wildlife Corridor In
addition there may be an opportunity to rationalize and consolidate public ownership in a more
meaningful form to help enhance the features and functions of the corridor and therefore staff
support the City resolution At Meeting #3/00 the Rouge Park Alliance adopted a resolution
supporting the City's initiative.
Report Prepared By. Ron Dewell, extension 5245
Date. July 10, 2000
Attachments (2)
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 065
Attachment 1
..,J,","""-"""\
LAKE ONTARIO
A
N
THE ROUGE DUF"F"INS CORRIDOR
- . - --
C Rouge Duffins Corridor
, \,/, ~ TRCA lands
, "
- . I ...!J" ~tTga
RE: Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Study
Rouge Duffin Wildlife Corridor
D66 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Attachment 2
RE: Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Study
Rouge Duffin Wildlife Corridor
CFN 31243
I ~
.
=
400 0
!"""--
P~u. 2 P 1ft :l-1ollOl
, Figure 2.1
Study Area
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 067
RES.#D33/00 - ADAPTATION MANAGEMENT FOR LOCAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Next steps for the Authority to integrate adaptation management for local
climate change into our approach toward watershed management.
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority receive the
proceedings of the Symposium on Climate Change and Watershed Management;
THAT the Authority ~ndorse the main recommendation of the proceedings that the
widespread call for emission reductions needs to be balanced with the early implementation
of adaptation management to deal with the unavoidable impacts of local climate change,
THAT staff continue to work with other agencies to improve our understanding of how
climate change might impact the region, as well as to integrate climate change mitigation
and adaptation into the Authority's approach to watershed management;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority offer to make a presentation to the Greater Toronto
Services Board on climate change and the need for adaptation management CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Further to Resolution #A 105/99, passed on April 30, 1999, the Authority hosted a Symposium on
Climate Change and Watershed Management in partnership with Environment Canada and the
Government of Ontario The Symposium was held on November 10, 1999, and was attended by
over 100 registrants, including over 40 municipal staff Later resolutions of the Authority thanked
the funding partners and committed the Authority to join the Partners for Climate Protection
Program of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which was affected in early 2000
The main recommendation from the proceedings of the Symposium is that while key national
programs are currently n.::!ing developed to help Canadians reduce the emission of greenhouse
gases, there is ~ correspondinq need for national, provincial, and reqional proqrams to help
Canadians address the ~'arlv implementation of adaptive manaqement policies, strategies, and
techniques to deal with the unavoidable impacts of local climate change. These impacts will occur
due to the anticipated doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the 10,000 year average,
with the doubling to be arrived at between 2020 and 2040 The proceedings of the Symposium call
for efforts in four areas
* an increased focus on the development of local climate change scenarios,
* substantial changes to federal and provincial strategies and guidelines for ground
water, surface water, water conservation, land use planning, energy conservation, and
transportation to help society reduce emissions and adapt to the expected impacts of
climate change,
068 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
-
* improved communication and co-ordination within municipalities between those
departments dee. .l1g with policy and planning issues and those dealing with water,
stormwater, sewage, energy, transportation, and the natural landscape, and,
* extensive social marketing from all levels of government, as well as from professional
organizations, about the need for new expectations, changed behaviours, and improved
technologies for both mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change
Members of the Authority should note that the Executive Summary of the proceedings is attached
to this memo The full proceedings, to be distributed to the members of the Authority separately,
are being sent to Regional Chairs, Mayors, and Commissioners, Symposium attendees and staff
at the TRCA, Environment Canada, and within Ontario Ministries, members of TRCA advisory
bodies, and to organizations such as the Toronto RAP and the City of Toronto Sustainability
Roundtable Finally, the proceedings will be available on the TRCA web site shortly
RATIONALE
While global and regional emission reduction strategies are imperative to help stabilize
greenhouse gas loadings to the atmosphere, the already unavoidable local impacts of climate
change will include more severe storms, increased flooding, increased erosion, less ground water
infiltration, reduced wate:-l:3.vailability, reduced water quality, and stresses IJn terrestrial and aquatic
bio-diversity Municipal and natural resource managers will need to know how to adapt to these
aspects of a changing local climate. The TRCA should partner with other government agencies,
therefore, to develop bottl local climate change scenarios and adaptation strategies for dealing
with changes to the local climate.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Authority will continue to address climate change at three strategic levels
1 Acquiring the best science on climate change by partnering with other levels of governments,
particularly with Environment Canada and the Air Policy and Climate Change Branch of MOE,
and by participating in projects such as Environment Canada's Integrated Mapping and
Assessment Program (IMAP) and the regional Toronto/Niagara Study Group,
2 Incorporating climate change into our current approach to watershed management by
developing local climate change scenarios, adopting to continuous flow hydrological
modelling, and establishing benchmarks to be used for future climate change data gathering
and assessment, and,
3 Developing a comprehensive TRCA position with respect to our Natural Heritage Strategy,
habitat restoration, and stewardship programs, the development of the TRCA Environmental
Management SYStRIl1 and the achievement of a reduction in TRCA greenhouse gas
emissions, and, the participation of the TRCA in any efforts to increase carbon sequestration
in the jurisdiction
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Positioning the Authority as a key player in the development of adaptation management in the
region
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D69
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Climate Change will have extensive staff and other resource requirements that need to be fully
quantified Continuous flow hydrological modelling, for example, can cost $100,000 - 250,000 per
watershed, depending on the size of the watershed, while other aspects of climate change can
Involve extensive GIS and monitoring costs While the Authority will need to identify climate change
priorities and establish departmental budgets, total costs should be reduced through efforts to
partner with other organizations and by incorporating climate change into existing TRCA projects
and staff responsibilities
Report prepared by Andrew McCammon extension 5307
For information contact Don Haley, extension 5226
Date. July 7, 2000
Attachments (1)
D70 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
Attachment 1
Sym.JPlosiwn - Novem.1eJr7 1999
Executive Summary
These proceedings seek to capture the presentations and discussions that took place at the
November 10, 1999 Symposium on Climate Change and Watershed Management, as well
as the recommendations made by the Planning Committee following the Symposium.
More importantly, they seek to expand on the original goal of the Symposium reaching and
Informing municipal and natural resource managers, as well as members of the public, on
the need for the early implementation of adaptation management: dealing with how climate
change may impact the Toronto area.
This printed version of the proceedings is being sent to all attendees of the Symposium, as
well as to other municipal and natural resource managers in the Toronto area. The Proceed-
Ings will also be placed on the web site of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(www.trca.on.ca), along with an Appendix containing all of the flip-chart notes from the
breakout groups. In addition, anyone can request an electronic (.pdt) or hard copy of the
appendix by sending an e-mail to amccammon@trca.on.ca, or by telephoning Andrew
McCammon at 416-661-6600 extension 5307
While the Planning Committee hopes each person will read the whole Proceedings, the key
elements of the Symposium could be described as follows:
A Attention on climate change is divided into three areas: developing sound sci-
cAee-;-!!m iti~atieA~hich-meafls-lessening-htlman-jmpacts-orrthe-atmosphere-a:ncHhSl:r- ------
mate through emission reductions; and "adaptation", which means finding ways to live with
a changino climate before the results of mitigation can begin to appear Unfortunately, the
least advanced of these areas of Interest, and the one of direct Interest to municipal and
natural resource managers, is adaptation,
B Recent scientific opinion, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Is that Global Climate Change is happening and will present practical challenges to local
ecosystems, Including the prospects of more severe weather, longer droughts, higher tem-
peratures, changes In local bio-diverslty, and reduced ground and surface water quantity,
quality, and temperature. These changes will impact everything from the natural landscape
to human health, built infrastructure, and socio-economic norms,
C The fundamental reality about climate change, and the reason adaptation Is so
important, is that even if we achieve the emission reductions of the Kyoto Protocol, we will
still be living in a world with twice the historic averages of CO2 by between 2020 and 2050
In fact, the real goal of the emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol is not to reduce
total emissions, but merely to-delay the doubling of the historic averages by twenty years.
Regardless of when we hit the two times carbon dioxide level, this alteration of our atmo-
sphere will drive climate change,
0 As the science of climate change modelling begins to move from the global to
the regional and local levels, as described In three keynote presentations, we are just begin-
ning to perceive what the local impacts might be. Therefore, we are also just beginning to
understand the areas where we will need adaptation strategies;
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D71
Cbate Change and Watershed Managem.ent
E The three keynote presentations, as described beginning on page 8. can be sum-
marized as follows
DR. JAMES BRUCE, providing an overview of Global Climate Change, stated that
the world is warming, and that weather patterns may become more influenced by
EI Nino and La Nina, which will mean that central Canada will probably have long
periods of hotter, drier conditions, with more frequent severe weather events, fol-
lowed by periods of cooler, wetter weather Municipal and natural resource manag-
ers should therefore extend existing risk management frameworks to watershed
and bio-diversity management. Specific suggestions were that these profession-
als
. review design criteria for storm sewers and floodplain mapping In light of
both upstream developments and changing climate,
. strengthen water conservation programs to save both water and energy;
and,
. develop drought contingency plans in municipalities that do not use Great
Lakes waters,
HEATHER AULD, speaking on Regional Trends and Impacts, stated that a gener-
ally hotter and drier climate. punctuated by the possibility of more severe weather
events, would challenge municipal Infrastructure and building codes, alter the ex-
Isting blo-diverslty of southern Ontario, present eco-system and public health prob-
lems, and alter water avallab/llty, water temperature, water quality, shorelines, wet-
lands, and fisheries. Environment Canada's Integrated Mapping and Assessment
Project suggests, for example, that a slight increase in average temperature would
increase bio-diversity in Ontario, which would have policy implications for conser-
vation and the management of invasive species. In addition, farmers would be
tempted by longer and warmer growing seasons to expand into more Intensive
agricultural production, converting woodlots and wetlands while increasing their
demand for irrigation. The net change would mean less forest cover and less water
availability in a landscape with a reduced capacity for water retention. The results
of the IMAP study underscore the importance of monitoring, detecting, and predict-
ing the results of subtle warming on aquatic and terrestrial environments, and sug.
gest that municipal and natural resource managers may need to adopt new ways of
thinking about how and where natural resources need to be protected,
ROBERT WALKER, addressing Watershed Level Implications, described three
climate change scenarios he had modelled for the future of the Moira I Trent wate.r-
sheds using climate estimates supplied by the Canadian General Circulation Model
and by.applyif:lg climate data from Washington, DC, and Dodge City, Kansas All
three scenarios suggest that a reduced snowpack, less run-off, and frequent sum-
mer droughts dominate the possible futures for the Moira / Trent. The data in the
modelling reveal the following climate change scenarios
D72 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
Symposimn - Novemlberp 1999
General Circulation Model similar amount of precipitation
18% less annual flow
25% more phosphorus
Washington scenario 33% more precipitation
16% less annual flow
80% more phosphorus
Kansas City scenario 27% less precipitation
83% less flow
360% more phosphorus
In addition, a lack of ice cover, a decrease in the annual spring freshette, increased
water temperature, a loss in wetlands, and reduced water quality would affect over-
all eco-system health, while socia-economic impacts would include disruptions to
the boating, cottage, and tourist segments of the local economy as well as possible
limits to future water-takings. All of these impacts require new approaches to water-
shed management and a significant effort at developing adaptive responses to cli-
mate change,
F A Panel of Experts dealing with Practical Implications suggested that climate
change will present sweeping challenges to municipal and natural resource managers for a
wide range of responsibilities. At the broadest level, new provincial and professional guide-
lines might come Into play for everything from land use planning and water takings to hav-
ing to develop new natural heritage and other scientific inventorying and monitoring proto-
cols. Specific impacts will probably be felt with respect to habitat and bio-diversity manage-
ment; changes in water availability, quality, quantity, and stormwater management, and, the
impact of climate change on both operations budgets and public recreation. Practitioners
will also need to ensure both more education and social marketing around public expecta-
tions as well as to provide support to and encourage leadership on climate change from
politicians, and,
G A strategic assessment of the AdaptatIon Suggestions from the Breakout
Groups consists of the following
. there are over-arching social needs for improved climate change science,
public education and awareness, political leadership, new legislative and regulatory
mechanisms, and professional guidelines for climate change mitigation and adap-
tation,
. all government agencies need to set emission reduction targets for their
own operations, -as well as to identify goals for local carbon sequestration, and,
. municipal and natural resource professionals need to develop and incorpo-
rate local climate change scenarios into their long range management strategies,
identify potential impacts, establish climate change benchmarks, and develop ap-
propriate adaptation strategies for everything from natural heritage, water and en-
ergy conservation, agriculture, and greenspace management to building codes, land
use planning, transportation and transit planning, stormwater management, and
more, as detailed on pages 21 - 23
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 073
CRllm.&te Change and Watershed Management
In conclusion, at a time when key national programs are being developed to help Canadi-
ans reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, the Planning CommIttee notes the corre-
sponding need for national, provincial, and regional programs to help Canadians
address the early Implementation of adaptive management to deal with the unavoid-
able Impacts of local climate change, and recommends the following to help Canadians
develop the appropriate adaptation strategies
1) an Increased focus on the development of local climate change scenarios.
These scenarios should be developed using a variety of approaches, be funded by a part-
nership of governmental and other organizations, and Involve municipal and natural re-
source practitioners in their development in order to identify possible local impacts,
2) substantial changes to federal and provincial strategies and guidelines for
groundwater, surface water, water conservation. land use planning, energy conservation,
and transportation to help society reduce emissions and adapt to the expected impacts of
climate change.
3) Improved communication and co-ordination within municipalities between
those departments dealing with policy and planning issues and those dealing with water,
stormwater, sewage, energy, transportatloJ:1, and the natural landscape, and,
4) extensive social marketing from all levels of government, as well as from profes-
sional organizations, about the need for new expectations, changed behaviours, and im-
proved technologies for both mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change.
Participants of the Symposium. I to r, Alexandra Campbell (MaE), Don Haley (TRCA),
Carr McLeod (EC), Joan King (City of Toronto), Andrew McCammon (TRCA), Heather
Auld (EC), Diek O'Brien, (TRCA), James Bruce, (GCSllne), Bruce Walker (EBNFLO),
Jane Cloheey (TRCA), Craig Mather (TRCA), John Mills (EG)
D74 "',ATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
RES.#D34/00 - ONTARIO WATER RESPONSE-2000
A Plan to Deal with Drought in Ontario TRCA participation in developing
a Water Response Team as defined within the report on the Ontario Water
Response-2000
Moved by Irene Jones
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority participate with the
province in the "Ontario Water Response-2000" by developing a Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority Water Response Team CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Following several years of below normal precipitation, extreme low flows and low ground water
levels were experienced throughout much of Southern Ontario dUring the Spring and Summer of
1999 In some cases, rivers and streams ran at extremely low levels and many private and public
well systems ran dry
In addition, we continu~ .:J see the impacts of these dry years reflected in the levels of the Great
Lake's including Lake Ontario While we have been experiencing one of the wetter springs in the
last decade, the potential for drought conditions continues to be of concern The potential impacts
related to climate change are also expected to create conditions of future drought problems, as
noted in the Authority's Climate Change Symposium of last Fall
The Province of Ontario has prepared the "Ontario Water Response-2000" document to assist in
preparing a provincial response plan to deal with drought and low flow issues The proposed
approach is based on three principles
1 the process must be simple, straight forward and clearly state the roles and responsibilities
of the agencies involved,
2 the management of any response needs to occur at the local and provincial level, and
3 as low water conditions occur over extended periods, there is an opportunity to plan for
these occurrences
In this Plan, the province has recognized the following key provincial ag8ncies to be involved the
Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Economic Development and Trade, Agriculture, Food
and Rural Affairs, EnvH.)nment, and Natural Resources The Plan also recognises that
municipalities and conse:rvation authorities must be included in any low water or drought
response In fact, in areas of the province where a conservation authority exists, the Plan
proposes that the local conservation authority take the lead in establishing a Water Response
Team (WRT) to deal with low water issues
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 075
The Plan identifies three levels of low water/drought conditions and identifies the general issues
and response the WRT process should deal with While the Plan outlines in detail the WRT
membership and its role, the process through the first two stages of response is predicated on
building consensus on response through a voluntary approach, through public education and
through existing municipal by-laws The third level which reflects the most senous low
water/drought condition ,s predominantly the level where provincial response and legislation may
be put into effect.
It will be the role of the Water Response Team to build consensus through the team approach on
actions which should be undertaken related to public education programs, press releases and
other voluntary activities by members of the team It is hoped that the voluntary reductions in
water taking's and water usage built through the consensus approach will be sufficient to deal with
the majority of minor drought conditions In those instances where a major drought condition
eXists, or consensus cannot be agreed upon in terms of voluntary reductions, the Water Response
Team may request that the Ministry of Environment take action under its legislation to restrict water
taking's
At present the key indicators being utilized to determine the level of low water/drought that exists
on a watershed basis are precipitation and flow conditions It has been recognised that the
ground water conditions need to be incorporated and following the development of the proposed
ground water monitoring network, the Plan will be updated to incorporate this component.
A copy of the Ontario Water Response Plan-2000 has been attached to this communication for
your Information
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
As directed within the Ontario Water Response Plan-2000, the Authority is proposing to develop
a Water Response Tear) for our watersheds It is proposed that a single response team be
developed for our area of jurisdiction and involve representatives from our municipalities, our
Watershed Task Forces or specialists, and include the other agencies and interest groups
identified within the Plan When operational, the WRT would then be in a position to deal with a
generic situation on all our watersheds or on an individual watershed basis as the need arose
For information contact: Donald Haley, extension 5226
Date June, 21, 2000
Attachments (1)
076 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
Attachment 1
ONTARIO WATER RESPONSE - 2000
DRAFT
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Ontario Ministry of Agricutlure, Food and Rural Affairs
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Conservation Ontario
May, 2000
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D77
PREFACE
During the spring and summer of 1999, southwestern and eastern Ontario
experienced an extended period of low rainfall and high temperatures These weather
conditions resulted in some of the lowest water levels and driest soils recorded for
several decades
While Ontario has experienced drought-like conditions before (1988 being the most
recent example), the potential impacts of global warming, coupled with escalating
demands for water, suggest these occurrences may be more common and perhaps
more broadly felt in the future
The provincial government has, therefore, decided to prepare, for the first time in its
history, a response plan to deal with low water conditions
May, 2000 i
078 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ontario Water Response - 2000 is intended to ensure provincial preparedness. to
assist in coordination and to support local response in the event of a drought this
year This plan is based on existing legislation and regulations and builds on existing
relationships between the province and local government bodies
Ontario has been experiencing lower than average precipitation and low water levels
for over a year, and in some cases longer Some Great Lake water levels (Erie,
Huron) are lower than they have been for many years, and tributary flow has
decreased Groundwater levels may also be decreasing Historically, periods of dry
weather and low water levels or drought are relatively uncommon in Ontario (about
every 10-15 years) However, recent studies on changing weather patterns indicate
that low water levels may become more common, perhaps compounded by the
province's steadily increasing demands for water
The Provincial Low Water Level Response Task Force was formed in May, 1999, to
coordinate an inter-ministry response to low water levels and make
recommendations for long term management of low water conditions The task force
report, September 1999, recommended that the government develop a provincial low
water level strategy by March 2000 The ministries involved set up a project team to
develop the drought response strategy
Ontario Water Response - 2000 has been produced to ensure that the province is
prepared for this summer, in case the low water conditions of 1999 in southwestern
and eastern Ontario continue
This plan recognizes the partnership between provincial and local authorities and that
natural resource and environmental management must be approached at both the
provincial and local levels The provincial level normally provides overall direction and
coordinates policies, science and information systems and emergency support. At the
local level, the emphasis is normally directed to collecting information, interpreting
policy, delivering programs and responding to emergencies
The report provides definitions of drought and low water and describes the means of
measuring and quantifying drought and the conditions leading up to it. Three
condition levels are described Levell (warning), Level II (conservation) and Level III
(restrictions) Precipitation and streamflow indicators, used to determine the level for
watersheds, are identified Thresholds for these indicators are provided with the
methodology for determining when an area of the province passes from one level to
another
May, 2000 ii
July 21.2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 079
The roles and responsibilities of the province and its agencies are described This
plan recommends the formation of an Ontario Water Directors' Committee, which
would go into action when any watershed enters a Level II condition This plan also
provides detail on the response process at the local level This includes the proposed
network of local Water Response Teams, their membership, roles and
responsibilities Also outlined are steps a local Water Response Team could take
May, 2000 iii
080 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 . 2000
ONTARIO WATER RESPONSE - 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE..................................................................................................... ...................................i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy...... ....................... .......................................................................11
1 CONTEXT ......................................................... .. .............. ..1
11 The Spectrum of Water Management 1
1.2 Provincial and Local Levels 1
13 Existing LegIslation and Information. 2
2. MONITORING AND REPORTING ON DROUGHT .......2
2.1 Definition - Drought/Low Water 2
2.2 Indicators 3
2.3 Monitoring and Reporting 7
3 PROVINCIAL RESPONSE............................ .............................................8
31 PrincIples 8
3.2 Agency Roles and ResponsibilitIes 8
33 Response Framework. 10
34 Ontario Water Directors' Committee (OWDC) 12
35 Pnority Water Uses 12
4 Local (Watershed) Response............ ..... ..... .................... 14
41 Generic Response Model. 14
4.2 Water Response Teams 14
4.3 Water Response Team Membership and Roles 15
5. Coordination and Administration......... ................ ................ 19
51 Response Action Plan. 19
5.2 Future Refinements 23
6. SUMMARY .................................. .............. ...................... ....24
Appendix 1 Existing Legislation......................... ......... ....... ..............25
Appendix 2 Additional Technical Information ... .30
Appendix 3. Project Team . ........................................ .37
May, 2000 iv
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 081
ONTARIO WATER RESPONSE - 2000
1. CONTEXT
Fresh water is a natural resource crucial to the economic and environmental well
being of Ontario Water supports human activity in almost all aspects, from health
to industrial development to recreation Because water is critical to so much of our
activity, it is managed from several perspectives and by many jurisdictions, groups
and individuals
1 1The Spectrum of Water Management
Ontario Water Response - 2000 is a strategy to deal with only one end of the
spectrum of water management issues, which range from flood through
normal to low-water conditions The best strategies for avoiding drought are
long-term approaches that manage both water supply and demand These
include public education, conservation, the development of appropriate land
use policies and efficient water management infrastructures such as
reservoirs and aquifer recharge facilities
1.2Provincial and Local Management
Ontario is large and geographically diverse One area can have high water
flows while another is dealing with lower than normal conditions In the
summer of 1999, for example, southwestern Ontario had near-record low water
flows while above average rainfall in some parts of northwestern Ontario meant
the river and lake levels there were recovering
Natural resource and environmental management must be approached at two
scales - provincial and local The province normally provides overall direction,
program policies, science and information systems, and emergency support.
At the local level, the emphasis is normally directed to interpreting policy,
delivering programs, collecting information and responding to emergencies
This water response plan reflects this historical partnership Much of Ontario,
with its municipal structures and conservation authorities, has the framework
for dealing with low water conditions
May, 2000 1
082 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
1.3 Existing Legislation and Information
Ontario Water Response - 2000 is based on existing legislation and
regulations The recommended structures and processes can be
implemented under established legal authorities (see Appendix 1) such as the
Municipal Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the Ontario Water
Resources Act As is the case with developing and implementing any plan,
especially one for unusual or emergency situations, this plan will improve over
time and through experience
This plan has been developed using existing science, data collection networks
and analysis processes
2. MONITORING AND REPORTING ON DROUGHT
This section provides a definition of drought and the means of measuring and
quantifying drought and the conditions leading to it. For additional technical
information, see Appendix 2
2.1 Definition - Drought/Low Water
Drought is a complex term that has various definitions, depending on individual
perceptions In this document, drought is defined as weather and low water
conditions characterized by one or more of the following
a) below normal precipitation for an extended period of time (2 months or more),
potentially combined with high rates of evaporation that result in lower lake
levels, streamflows or baseflow or reduced soil moisture or groundwater
storage
b) streamflows at the minimum required to sustain aquatic life while only meeting
high priority demands for water, water wells becoming dry, surface water in
storage allocated to maintain minimum streamflows
c) socio-economic effects occuring on individual properties and extending to
larger areas of a watershed or beyond
As larger areas are affected and as low water and precipitation conditions
worsen, the effects usually become more severe
May, 2000 2
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 083
Three levels of low Water Conditions
The Level I condition is the first indication of a potential water supply problem
Levell! indicates a potentially serious problem Level III indicates the failure of
the water supply to meet the demand, resulting in progressively more severe
and widespread socio-economic effects
Each level requires a water management response from the local authority or
the province, or both The authority learning of the change in level will alert the
other to the condition
2.2lndicators
Measuring drought is complex, requiring the collection of data for variables such
as rainfall, streamflow, soil moisture, and water in storage Indicators have been
chosen that integrate a number of factors and functions, are based on readily
available data, are useful over a range of time periods and allow water managers
to speak consistently about water
Starting in April, 2000, precipitation and streamflow (surface water flow)
measurements are the two primary indicators for managing low water levels and
drought.
Other indicators to measure baseflow, groundwater and aquifer levels are to be
developed
Precioitation Indicators
Precipitation is the most important and convenient indicator Reviewing the
precipitation data and comparing it to trends will warn of an impending water
shortage
Precioitation Indicator 1
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) will compare monthly data from each
precipitation station with the average expected monthly precipitation for that
station These calculations will be made for the previous 18 months (Iong-
term), for the previous 3 months (seasonal) and, under a Levell condition or
higher, for the previous month (short-term), with weekly updates
Precioitation Indicator 2
If a watershed is under a Levell or Levell! condition, MNR will add up the
number of consecutive readings that register no rain (less than 7 6mm)
May, 2000 3
084 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Streamflow Indicator
Gauges in streams measure streamflow These indicators 3how if there is
enough streamflow in the river to meet the basic needs of the ecosystem and if
water is available for other uses such as recreation, hydropower generation or
irrigation
MNR will compare the monthly flow for each streamgauge station with the
lowest expected average summer month flow for the station
TABLE 1. Summarv of Indicators
Precipitation Surface Flow
1 % of average = % of average = monthly flow/
monthly precipitation/ lowest average summer flow
average precipitation expected for that
month
2) Weeks with less than 7 6mm of rain
(number of consecutive readings)
Movino from one level to another
When the indicator for precipitation or streamflow crosses a threshold, a
watershed, or a portion of it, has changed to a Levell, Level II, or Level III
condition When a watershed condition changes, a water management
response is undertaken When a threshold is crossed, the determining
authority (local or provincial) will alert the other authority to the change The
values of thresholds have been set for precipitation and streamflow at selected
stations Indicators will be monitored and reviewed periodically to determine if
the thresholds are set at the correct levels
PreciDitation thresholds
A watershed enters Level I when its 3-month or 18-month total precipitation
drops below 80% of the average 3-month or 18-month precipitation for those
months
A watershed enters Level II when its 3-month or 18-month total precipitation
drops below 60% of the average 3-month or 18-month precipitation for those
months or when its 1-month total precipitation drops below 60% of the average
precipitation for that month and it is already in Level I Alternatively, the
watershed would enter Levell! if it is already in Levell and has had no rain
(less than 7 6mm) for 2 readings in succession (high demand areas) or for 3
readings in succession (moderate demand areas)
A watershed enters Level III when its 3-month or 18-month total precipitation
drops below 40% of the average 3-month or 18-month precipitation for those
May, 2000 4
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 085
months or when when its 1-month total precipitation drops below 40% of the
average precipitation for that month and it is already in Level I or Level II
TABLE 2: Precioitation Thresholds
Levell Level II Level III
18-month precipitation < 80% of 18 month precipitation < 60% of 18 month precipitation < 40% of
average expected precipitation average precipitation average precipitation
or or or
3 month precipitation < 80% of 3 month precipitation < 60% of 3 month precipitation < 40% of
average precipitation average precipitation average precipitation
or or
*1 month precipitation < 60% of **1 month precipitation < 40%
average precipitation of average precipitation
*Weeks with less than 7.6mm of
rain - more than 1 week for
high demand areas, more than
2 weeks for moderate demand
areas
* Existing Levell (can't get to Level II this way without first being in Levell)
** Existing Level II (can't get to Level III this way without first being in Level II)
Streamflow
In the spring, a watershed enters Levell when its monthly flow drops below the
lowest average summer month flow for that station For the rest of the year, the
watershed enters Level I when its monthly flow drops below 70% of the lowest
average summer month flow
In the spring, a watershed enters Level II when its monthly flow drops below
70% of the lowest average summer month flow In summer, fall and winter, the
watershed enters Level II if its monthly flow drops below 50% of the lowest
average summer month flow
In the spring, a watershed enters Level III when its monthly flow drops below
50% of the lowest average summer month flow In the other seasons, the
watershed enters Level III if its monthly flow drops below 30% of the lowest
average summer month flow
TABLE 3. Streamflow Thresholds
Levell Level II Level III
Spring - monthly flow < lowest Spring - monthly flow < 70% of Spring - monthly flow < 50% of
average summer month flow lowest average summer month lowest average summer month
Other times - monthly flow < flow flow
70% of lowest average summer Other times - monthly flow < Other times - monthly flow <
month flow 50% of lowest average summer 30% of lowest average summer
month flow month flow
May I 2000 5
086 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21, 2000
TABLE 4. LEVELS & INDICA TORS FOR APRIL 2000
Condition Indicator
Precioitation Streamflows
Levell 80% of average Spring - monthly flow < lowest average summer
month flow
Other times - monthly flow < 70% of lowest
averaoe summer month flow
Level II 60% of average Spring - monthly flow < 70% of lowest average
weeks with < 7.6mm summer month flow
Other times - monthly flow < 50% of lowest
averaae summer month flow
Level III 40% of average Spring - monthly flow < 50% of lowest average
summer month flow
Other times - monthly flow < 30% of lowest
averaae summer month flow
May, 2000 6
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 087
2.3Monitoring and Reporting
Chart 1 shows the participants, data sources, products and information flow for
drought monitoring Data is provided to MNR, which analyzes it and produces
and distributes conditions reports and maps Feedback is provided to MNR on
local conditions as well as when environmental management responses are
made
CHART 1. INFORMATION FLOW
Sources of data MNR Peterborough
Destinati
on of products
MNR - Precipitation, Intranet web site -
streamflow, climate data, has maps charts and
streamflow charts conditions reports,
available to Ontario
MOE - groundwater - collects & government agencies
levels, water well analyzes data only
records, permitted water - establishes
takings, baseflow sensitive areas
separation, aquifer - calculates indices
----.--
- generates maps
(precipitation & MNR - conditions
streamflow reports to senior
indicators, management, field,
sensitive areas) communications, DRT
EC - climate data - generates participation
conditions reports
1 1 MOE, OMAFRA,
MOT, MMAH -
CAs (& municipalities) - conditions reports
contacts for internal
PreCipitation, distribution, DRT
streamflow, climate data,
confirm Levell, II or III participation
I"""\r"rJi+i"," DRT - response,
local analysis, Stakeholders - conditions
feedback reports and maps and charts
Stakeholders - data (Conservation Ontario, CAs,
and conditions report major users etc.)
CAs - conservation authorities
CO - Conservation Ontario
WRT - Water Response Team
EC - Environment Canada
May, 2000 7
088 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
3. PROVINCIAL RESPONSE
3.1 Principles
Ontario Water Response - 2000 is based on three principles the response
process should be simple and straightforward, low water and drought
response is a partnership, and planning is crucial
a) Simple process
Experience from across the province suggests that good emergency
response happens when there is a straightforward system that sets out
clearly who is involved and what their responsibilities are This plan details
this system for low water conditions Section 2 sets out how low water
information is to be collected and used, Sections 33 and 3 4 detail
provincial level roles and responsibilities, and Section 4 covers local
response Section 5 provides an action plan
b) Low water and drought response partnership
The management of water must occur on at least two levels - provincial and
local For example, this plan indicates that the province is responsible for
collecting and analyzing information on water levels across the province,
while the local conservation authorities playa major role in providing the
information and, more importantly, in interpreting it in terms of their local
knowledge
c) Plan
Low water conditions do not occur in a few hours or even days, but build up
over a number of weeks or months This time factor allows advance
preparation, both at the provincial and municipal levels
3.2 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
The key provincial agencies in water management are the Ministries of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Economic Development and Trade, Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs, Environment; and Natural Resources They work in a
cooperative, integrated fashion to develop and implement provincial water
policy
These efforts are directed by the Land and Resources Committee of deputy
ministers and implemented by the Committee of Ontario Water Directors This
committee is co-chaired by the directors from the Ministries of Natural
Resources and Environment. Ontario Water Response - 2000 has been
prepared by a project team reporting to this committee
May, 2000 8
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 089
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) is responsible for
overseeing such legislation as the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the
Public Utilities Act The Planning Act provides for and supports land
development in the organized sections of the province The appropriate use of
this legislation helps ensure that areas critical to the long-term ecological
health of water systems are not degraded by changes in land use The
Municipal and Public Utilities Acts allow municipalities to construct and
maintain water supply infrastructures and pass bylaws to regulate water use
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) plays a leading role in
promoting and explaining the government's position and policies on water
management issues that cross provincial or national boundaries Recently,
MEDT has represented the province in discussions over bulk water transfers
and diversions from the Great Lakes
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has an important
role in the protection of water ecosystems across the rural landscape of
Ontario The ministry supports programs for the agricultural sector that assist
in maintaining potable water supplies, supports the use of appropriate
irrigation and drainage methods and helps protect surface and ground water
quality
Because of the extent of agriculture in southern and central Ontario and its
potential to affect the health of lakes and rivers, the cooperation of the
agricultural sector is critical to the long-term sustainability of water systems
and to the application of short-term water management strategies
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) administers legislation that applies directly
to water quality and quantity Under the Ontario Water Resources Act, MOE can
regulate large-scale water withdrawal activity and has developed
comprehensive permit systems for taking water and constructing wells This
Act also allows for the allocation of water among users Through legislation
such as the Environment Protection Act and the Pesticides Act, this ministry
has a major role in protecting the quality of water and has extensive standards
for waste water treatment.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has two primary focuses in water
management: managing surface water flows and levels and protecting fish and
wildlife habitat. In many areas MNR is directly responsible for operating water
control structures The major pieces of legislation this ministry oversees
include the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (regulates location, design and
operation of dams and other water structures), the Public Lands Act (allocation
of water power sites), some aspects of the federal Fisheries Act, the
Conservation Authorities Act (supporting legislation for the province's 38
May, 2000 9
090 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
watershed-based conservation authorities), the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. Under the Emergency Plans Act,
MNR is listed as the lead agency for large-scale flooding emergencies
Although MMAH, MEDT, OMAFRA, MaE and MNR are the five provincial
agencies with a clear leadership role in water management, other agencies
and organizations are also involved in water issues The Ministry of Northern
Development and Mines has a responsibility for setting policy regulating mine
waste control structures, and the Ministry of Transportation is involved with
water crossing standards In addition, the federal government has legislation,
such as the Fisheries Act and the Beds of Navigable Waters Act, that must be
considered in any approach to water management.
Municipalities and conservation authorities also have discrete water
management responsibilities and must be included in any low water and
drought response
3.3 Response Framework
One of the ways Ontario prepares for and manages emergency situations is
through the Emergency Plans Act This Act, regulated by the Office of the
Solicitor General, identifies lead agencies, which vary depending on the nature
of the emergency, and provides for the development of response strategies by
both ministries and municipalities This Act also authorizes mayors and reeves
to declare local emergencies and ministers to declare emergencies on a
broader scale
Drought, although it is not a sudden and unpredicted event, will be identified in
the policies and procedures under the Emergency Plans Act The Ministry of
Natural Resources will be listed as the lead agency This plan sets out a
model similar to those outlined in the Act.
This plan proposes that:
a) In the organized areas of the province where conservation authorities exist:
. the local conservation authority establish a water response
team (WRT) Efforts should be made to have these teams in
place for watersheds that reach Level I or above Other areas
may want to establish these teams as a precautionary
measure
. the municipalities review their Emergency Response Plans
and incorporate low water response strategies
b) In organized areas with no conservation authorities
May, 2000 10
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 091
. the district office of the Ministry of Natural Resources take the
lead to establish a WRT if Level I or above conditions are
reported
. the municipalities review their Emergency Response Plans
and consider incorporating low water response strategies
c) In unorganized areas the Ministry of Natural Resources maintain responsibility for
water management issues, dealing directly with local communities, First Nations
and dam owners and operators
d) An Ontario Water Directors' Committee (OWDC) be set up if any watershed
confirms Level II conditions The principal members of the committee will be the
appropriate field and water directors of the Ministries of Environment, Agriculture
and Food, and Natural Resources The Ontario Water Directors' Committee will be
responsible for coordinating the provincial response efforts
Levell - Voluntary Conservation
The chair of the watershed's water response team will determine that the
watershed has entered a Levell condition This condition will be managed
through existing programs of the key provincial agencies and municipalities
with leadership and direction provided by the WRT The WRT, using a variety of
communications tools, will emphasize the need for voluntary water
conservation with a target reduction of water use of 10 per cent. District or
regional level ministry staff will be part of the WRT
Level II - Conservation and Restrictions on Non-Essential Use
The chair of the watershed's water response team will determine that a
watershed has entered a Level II condition In this condition the WRT will
continue in a leadership role, communicating a strong conservation message
and implementing restrictions through the municipalities on non-essential use
The Ontario Water Directors' Committee will be activated and cross-ministry
program co-ordination emphasized The OWDC will inform Emergency
Measures Ontario
Level III - Conservation, Restriction, Regulation
The chair of the watershed's water response team, after consulting the OWDC
chair, will determine that a watershed has entered a Level III condition In this
condition, the appropriate mayor or reeves or their representatives will join the
WRT The Ontario Water Directors' Committee will work with and support the
WRT by helping in the decisions on water allocation priorities and in
May, 2000 11
092 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
implementing water use restrictions Provincial representatives on the WRT
and the OWDC will maintain regular contact.
Emergency Measures Ontario will be included in the discussions at both the
local and provincial levels and, depending on the situation, go into action
Sections 4 and 5 provide more detail on the response process
3.4 Ontario Water Directors' Committee (OWDC)
The Ontario Water Directors' Committee will be established if any watershed
moves into a confirmed Level II condition For 2000, the OWDC should be
composed of the appropriate field directors (depending on the location of the
affected watershed) from the Ministries of Natural Resources, Environment and
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Water policy directors from MOE, MNR,
OMAFRA and MMAH will also be part of this committee
This group will be directly linked to the water response team through provincial
representatives (see section 4.2)
The primary tasks of the provincial team will be to
. coordinate provincial response to WRT recommendations
. ensure that the province's responsibilities are fulfilled
. support the WRT in carrying out water use restrictions and allocation
decisions
3.5 Priority Water Uses
When Level III conditions develop, governments have to deal with the question
of priority use Various approaches to this difficult situation have been
proposed and used in Ontario and in other jurisdictions A synthesis of these
approaches suggests a basic model that can be applied This model divides
water uses into three classes essential, important and non-essential
Essential
Essential uses of water deal with human life and health a reasonable supply
of water for drinking and sanitation, water for health care, water for public
institutions and public protection (wastewater treatment, some fire protection,
schools), water for critical power generation and water necessary for basic
ecological functions
Imoortant
May, 2000 12
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 093
The second category deals with uses important for the social and economic
well being of a particular area This includes activities critical to industrial
processes, commercial facilities such as hotels and restaurants and key
agricultural crops This category poses the most difficulty, as it may be
necessary to rank priorities between activities and between groups within the
same activity, for example between farm irrigation and a local car
manufacturing plant or between tobacco and corn farming Another
complicating factor is that priorities will vary between watersheds
The local WRT should lead discussions with their local groups well in advance
of a drought. These discussions would help establish priorities and set up
mitigating strategies For example, depending on the nature of the business it
may be economically viable to truck in water
Non-Essential
Non-essential uses can be interrupted for the short term without significant
impact. These include private swimming pools, lawn watering, public and
private fountains and vehicle washing Many Ontario jurisdictions already have
bylaws and other controls to deal with this category
Restricting water use is only a short term solution Best planning practices and
good long term management of supply and demand must be our first effort.
While the above categories do not strongly reflect ecological health
considerations, long term economic health is intertwined with ecological
health, and if natural water systems are consistently starved of water major
catastrophe is not far off
-
May I 2000 13
D94 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 . 2000
4. LOCAL WATERSHED RESPONSE
4 1 Generic Response Model
Although supported by provincial legislation, allocation decisions involve
bargaining and negotiating with local managers and users Ultimately, the goal
is to balance efficient use, protection of the resource, and equity among users
For these reasons, decisions on low water and drought response and water
allocation are best made by a combination of provincial regulators and local
water managers and users
4.2 Water Response Teams
A network of watershed-based water response teams (WRT) is proposed to
coordinate local activities Teams will consist of local water users and local
and provincial water managers Water response teams will use a combination
of water data, provincial and local legislation, communication techniques and
local tools to advocate for conservation Success of any WRT depends on local
support and commitment to abide by the team's recommendations In cases of
extreme drought, the WRT will ensure that key local and provincial decision-
makers participate actively in the process to see that water allocation decisions
are understood, supported and enforced
Water response teams are focused on reacting to current low water conditions
Long term drought prevention efforts must be developed and are the
responsibility of existing water management agencies and users Drought
management will only be successful through this combination of long-term
preventive strategies and shorter-term crisis management actions
4.2.1 Institutional Arrangements
Several existing institutions, policies and statutes in Ontario address
water management, including drought. Examples are provincial
ministries (Environment and Natural Resources), conservation
authorities, the Ontario Water Resources Act and Environmental
Protection Act WRTs will not replace the functions of these
organizations, but permit coordination of response among these
institutions, non-government groups and users The WRT does not
possess any unique legislative authority but can help coordinate the use
of current regulations and tools
4.2.2.Scale
Water response teams will be based on watershed boundaries
Conservation authority boundaries will determine each team's
geographic jurisdiction Where no conservation authority exists, the
Ministry of Natural Resources will determine the appropriate watershed
May, 2000 14
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 095
units Watersheds may be combined into larger units for drought
response
4.3 Water Response Team Membership and Roles
The WRT will provide a coordinated response from provincial, conservation
authority, municipal, private and special interest water managers and users
Teams will work cooperatively, sharing all information and responsibility
WRTs will include provincial, municipal and conservation authority staff as well
as representatives for local interests and users Team membership will
represent the following sectors
- agriculture
- rural private industry and business
- recreation
- resource management interests
- First Nations
- municipal government
- provincial government
Their organizational mandates, legislative tools, communications abilities and
background data require certain organizations to be members of the WRT
These include
local municipalities
. may monitor and control public water supplies and can provide useful
data on watershed characterization
. may control water consumption through bylaws
. can promote strong water conservation messages
. maintain communication links with large local water consumers,
specifically commercial and industrial operations
. have specific responsibilities under the Emergency Plans Act
local conservation authorities
. maintain detailed water monitoring networks, which will enhance
provincial stations and better describe drought variations
. are watershed based and maintain data that can be used to characterize
the watershed's unique features
. maintain strong links with local community groups, media and
government and may facilitate coordination of water conservation
messages
. operate dams and reservoirs
. can verify MN R data and low water conditions in the field
May, 2000 15
096 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
. administer sections of the Federal Fisheries Act and have some
legislative authority for maintaining baseflows to protect aquatic life
. are responsible for some local stream health and water quality
monitoring
May, 2000 16
July 21, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D97
Ontano MInistry of Natural Resources
. assists in maintaining a provincial network to monitor low flow
conditions This data can be provided to WRTs MNR will also analyze
data to provide early warnings
. administers portions of the federal Fisheries Act and has some
legislative authority for maintaining baseflows to protect aquatic life
. operates dams and reservoirs
. maintains links with local outdoor recreation groups
. maintains a provincial link to ensure long term drought prevention
activities are coordinated across ministries and with WRTs
. administers the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
. assists in maintaining a provincial water monitoring network
. manages the Permit to Take Water Program (PTTW) under the Ontario
Water Resources Act This database of local users can be provided to
the WRT to help characterize local water demand conditions In cases of
extreme drought, MOE may control new water takings or limit water
takings by existing permit holders
. maintains communication links with permit holders
. administers the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental
Protection Act and has legislative authority for maintaining baseflows to
protect water quality and aquatic life
. maintains a provincial link to ensure long term drought prevention
activities are coordinated across ministries and with WRTs
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
. maintains communication links with agricultural water users and can
advise groups of potential local drought conditions and water
conservation recommendations
. can coordinate local agricultural representation on the WRT
. maintains a provincial link to ensure long term drought prevention
activities are coordinated across ministries and with WRTs
The participation of other local groups and users is also necessary for success
of the WRT Examples include First Nation communities, dominant local
industries (i e , pulp and paper, aggregates, hydro-electric power generators),
recreation users (Trent Severn Waterway, downhill ski facilities) or special
interest bodies (such as Niagara Escarpment Commission, Oak Ridges
Moraine)
There is no distinction in decision-making power or responsibility among
members of the WRT Each representative should have equal opportunity for
May, 2000 17
098 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
input and share in the responsibility It is therefore imperative that the
membership of the WRT accurately reflect the balance among the sectors
within the watershed
Responsibilities for team members include attending meetings,
communicating back to their sector, sharing relevant data, and using drought
management tools
In certain regions, conservation authorities or municipalities may not exist, and
the network of local users may vary significantly For these reasons WRT
membership is intended to be flexible
Confirming membership, electing a chair and appointing a secretary will be
done during initial meetings of the WRT Teams should not be too big to
function Where they exist, local conservation authorities will take the lead in
establishing the water response team
Several watersheds in Ontario already have multi-stakeholder committees that
address issues such as local water quality and natural heritage These
committees are encouraged to assume the responsibilities of a WRT if
appropriate They may need to add members
May, 2000 18
July 21 . 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 099
5 COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION
5.1 Response Action Plan
Water Response Team Start Up
The Ministries of Natural Resources and Environment are responsible for
monitoring low water conditions They will notify conservation authorities and
MNR district offices of potential low water conditions Conservation authorities
will verify this data with their own monitoring network. Consideration will also
be given to local water supply shortages and requests from local groups and
organizations Following this review, conservation authorities, or MNR if there is
none for the area, may choose to mobilize a WRT
Water Response Team Action Plan
1 Conservation authorities (MNR if there is none) will call and host the first
WRT meeting to review its goals and objectives These include
- organize WRT
- identify local water supply needs and concerns
- identify severity of low water crisis
- implement water conservation, preservation and allocation strategies
- evaluate effectiveness of local actions
- provide advice to local and provincial decision-makers
2 Conservation authorities (MNR if there is none) confirm or determine if the
watershed is in a Levell, II or III condition based on monitoring network data,
local water shortages, use allocation difficulties and stakeholder concerns
3 WRT will finalize its membership Members will represent agriculture, rural
private industry and business, recreation, resource management interests,
First Nations, municipal government and provincial government.
4 WRT will elect a chair and secretary from its membership
5 WRT will develop its terms of reference, detailing mandate, membership,
roles (chair, secretary), meeting frequency, quorum conditions and team and
external communications needs
6 WRT will develop a brief summary of existing information about the
watershed that generally describes supply and demand conditions The
summary will help the WRT to target their response and serve as a context for
May, 2000 19
0100 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
communications Minimal resources should be used in developing this
summary
The local water supply information should include
- MNR. MOE and conservation authority precipitation,
streamflow and groundwater level data summaries
- general status of municipal wells, rural dug and drilled
wells
- anecdotal information on local effects
The water demand information should include
- summary listing of water takers based on Permit to Take
Water Program and other databases
- general assessment of water taking sectors ie,
agriculture (irrigation areas, livestock demands), recreation
(golf courses), industry (aggregates)
6 WRT identifies the actions needed to manage the drought or low water conditions
and carries them out. The actions will maximize water supply, reduce demand, or
do both
The recommendations offered here are the minimum Teams should develop their
own solutions to address local problems
level I Response' Actions to Consider
Goal. Promote voluntary water conservation among all users to prevent
further water shortages
Target: 10% reduction in water use among all sectors
Action Detail
Communicate - each WRT member responsible for water conservation communications within
their sector
- include media releases, farm papers, newsletters, newspapers, radio, etc.
- messages focus on
- watershed characterizatron information
- statement of local conditions and near term prognosis
- strong encouragement for voluntary water conservation with 10%
reduction target
Impose - none
restrictions
Prepare for - develop a database of users based on Permit to Take Water database
Level II
May, 2000 20
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0101
Recommendations for water conservation will be sector specific Many examples are
already in place and are to be used by the WRT where available Residential
examples include
- installing toilet dams
- using rain barrels
- repairing leaky faucets
- encouraging minimal use of non-essential water (car washing, lawn
watering)
Other examples are in Green Tips, published by the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment.
For the agricultural sector, see OMAFRA fact sheets (1999) How to Prepare for
Irrigation During Water Shortages and Private Water Well Owners - Dealing with
Water Shortages
Levell! Response. Actions to Consider
Goals: Target water conservation messages more directly
Publicize water use restrictions
Ensure compliance with restrictions
Consider priorities for water allocation at Level III
Target: Further 10% water use reduction (20% total)
Action Detail
Communicate - strongly encourage voluntary reductions by contacting key users
- key users identified from database developed during Level I Response
- contact includes mailings, personal contact, advertising, provincial contact
with permit holders and meetings
- messages focus on
- specific water conservation examples using fact sheets where
available
- further 10% reduction target
Manage supply - modify flood prevention, flow augmentation and power generation reservoir
operations to minimize effects of drought
- increase monitoring of compliance with good water use practices
Impose - limit new permit approvals
restrictions - consider limits for existing permit holders
- impose municipal water restrictions through bylaws
- monitor water takings for compliance with permits and bylaws
Prepare for - assess impact of water allocation reduction scenarios on each sector
Level III (agriculture, recreation, municipal government, provincial government, resource
(Drought) management interests, private industry and business, First Nations)
- consider priorities for water allocation
- notify local and provincial decision-makers of actions already taken to prepare
them for their involvement at Level III
May, 2000 21
0102 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21, 2000
Level III Response (Drought) Actions to Consider
Goal. Develop and implement water allocation protocols
Target: Maximum possible reduction in water consumption in all sectors
Action Detail
Involve senior - involve senior local and provincial decision-makers directly in developing and
decision-makers implementing water allocation decisions, maintain regular contact with the
Ontario Water Directors' Committee
Develop and - use notes from Level II Response in assessing impact of water allocation
implement reduction scenarios on each sector
allocation - develop priorities for water allocation among sectors recognizing consensus
ariorities may be defined as a majority opinion rather than 100% support
-impose water allocations using existing tools such as local bylaws and
provincial legislation.
Water allocation rather than conservation becomes the focus during the severe
shortages experienced in a Level III condition Actions move from largely
voluntary compliance to regulatory control Because of this shift, senior local
and provincial decisions-makers should be included as part of the WRT if they
are not already members Strong local and provincial support will be necessary
to make and enforce allocation decisions Heads of local municipal councils
and conservation authorities as well as provincial district managers should
now be directly involved in the process Local team representatives of private
groups are also encouraged to involve their senior provincial representatives
Existing legislation such as the Ontario Water Resources Act and local
municipal bylaws may be used to implement water allocation decisions
8 Monitoring
During all three levels of response, MNR and MOE as well as conservation authorities
and municipalities should continue monitoring activities and communicate results to
the WRT regularly This allows the WRT to anticipate and respond to changes in an
effort to avoid further conflict.
9 Communications
The WRT will maintain communication links with the province, conservation
authorities, municipalities and private and special interests through its members
These communications are critical to generate awareness and support for local
needs and WRT decisions
May, 2000 22
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0103
10 Evaluation
WRTs will conduct annual self evaluations during the drought and at the conclusion of
the drought to assess equity, efficiency and effectiveness of communications,
information, actions and monitoring
5.2 Future Refinements
A comprehensive low water and drought management strategy for Ontario
requires a combination of long term preventive strategies and shorter term
crisis management actions These actions should protect existing water
supplies, modify the demand for water or do both Ontario Water Response -
2000 outlines specific crisis management actions While longer term
preventive strategies are also necessary, the need for a coordinated response
by May 2000 has been the priority of this plan
May, 2000 23
0104 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
6 SUMMARY
Level Indicator Infonnabon Decision Goal Target Communlca Supply Imposed
flow tions management restricllons
1- potential Precipitation' From' Env By province, Voluntary 10% WRT
water <80% long or Canada, In some conservatio reduction in members to
supply mid-term MNR, CAs, cases by n water use own groups
problems average MOE WRT chair Media
Streamflow' To: MNR for Confirmed releases,
<70% analYSIS by WRT newsletters,
summer Then: WRT chair etc.
average for visual Local
confinnation conditions
II - minor Precipitation: as above By province Conservabo Additional Direct Modify Limit new
problems, <60% long, or WRT nand 10% contact with reservoir pennits
potental mid-term or chair restrictions reduction major users operations Implement
major short-term Confirmed Sector- bylaws
supply average or by WRT specific info Monitor
problems more than 1 Setup on compliance
week no rain PrOVincial restrictions
Streamflow' Dought
<30% Coordinating
summer Committee
averaae
III - supply Preciptation: as above Uusally by Conservatlo Maximum Sector and Modify Reduce pennlt
fails to meet <40% long, WRT chair n, reduction user reservOir, levels
usual mid or short- with chair of restnctlons specific info water power Set and instiMe
demand, tenn average provinCial and on operations allocation
social and Streamflow' committee regulation restrictions, ConSider prionties
economic <30% regulations bulk water Enforcement
Impact summer transfers
average
May, 2000 24
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0105
Appendix 1 Existing Legislation
Summary of Water-related legislation - Water Quality, Water
Quantity, and Water-Related land Management (1992)
SUMMARY OF MAJOR LEGISLATION ON WATER QUALITY
Legislation by Administering Description of legislation Implementing
function agency agency
Provincial Leaislation
*Ontario Water MOE . allows for the regulation of water MOE
Resources Act supply
. allows surveillance and monitoring
of all surface and ground water in
Ontario
. regulates sewage disposal and
controls water pollution
. allows MOE to construct and
operate waste water facilities or
require it be done by an industry
or municipality
*Environmental MOE . forbids discharge of any MOE
.Protection Act contaminant to the environment in
amounts exceeding regulations
. prohibits discharge of any
substance likely to impair the
environment
. requires spills of pollutants be
reported and cleaned up promptly
and establishes a liability on the
party at fault
Environmental MOE . requires assessment of any major MOE
Assessment Act public or designated private
undertaking that may be altered or
cancelled if found to have
environmentally unacceptable
effects
Pesticides Act MOE . controls se of chemicals for the MOE
destruction of plant and animal
pest and investigates possible
harmful effects of pesticides on
the environment
Conservation MNR . establishes conservation Cas
Authorities Act authorities with the mandate to
operate dams for water quality
enhancement, undertake water
quality surveys and comment on
planninQ documents
Lakes and Rivers MNR . ensures proposed water works do MNR
Improvement Act not adversely affect water quality
or cause undue erosion and siltinQ
May, 2000 25
0106 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
Legislation by Administering Description of legislation Implementing
function agency agency
Planning Act MMAH . guides municipal planning Municipalities,
activities (eg requires local. MMAH
governments to assess the impact
of a proposed subdivision on
existinq water supplies)
Municipal Act MMAH 5 grants municipalities the power to Municipalities,
pass bylaws that prohibit the MMAH
injuring or fouling of drains and
sewer connections
Federal Lealslatlon
*Fisheries Act DFO . protects fish habitat by prohibiting DFO,MNR
habitat disturbance and
deposition of deleterious
substances in water frequented by
fish
Environmental Env Canada HWC . prevents dangerous contaminants Env Canada HWC
Contaminants Act from enterinq the environment
Canada Shipping Act Transport Canada . controls pollution from ships by Dept. of Transport
imposing penalties for dumping
pollutants or failinq to report a sQiIl
Canada Water Act Env Canada . authorizes agreements with Env Canada
provinces for designation of water
quality management areas and
other projects
Canadian Env Canada . controls manufacture, Env Canada
Environmental transportation, use, disposal of
Protection Act chemicals and wastes not
adequately regulated by other
leqislation
Pest Control Products Agnculture . regulates products used to control Agriculture
Act Canada pests via registration according to Canada
prescribed standards
MMAH - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
MNR - Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE - Ministry of Environment
DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Env Canada - Environment Canada
CA - conservation authority
HWC - Health and Welfare Canada
*Includes tools that can be used for drought management response within 24 hours
May, 2000 26
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0107
SUMMARY OF MAJOR LEGISLATION ON WATER QUANTITY
Legislation by Administering Description of legislation Implementing
function agency agency
Provincial Leaislation
Conservation MNR . authorizes conservation CAs
Authorities Act authorities to prohibit or regulate
fill, construction and watercourse
alteration
. allows for construction and
maintenance of flood and
erosion control structures
Lakes and River MNR . empowers MNR to regulate the MNR
Improvement Act construction and operation of
water works
. requires that new water works
be approved
Public Lands Act MNR . authorizes MNR to construct and MNR
operate dams and acquire land
for their purposes
. authorizes power generation
proiects on Crown land
Municipal Act MMAH . allows municipalities to enact municipalities,
bylaws for the construction, MMAH
repair and maintenance of
drains
. prohibits the injury or fouling of
drains in rivers
. empowers municipalities to pass
bylaws governing the
construction and maintenance
of dams and the straightening of
water courses for flood
protection
Public Utilities Act MMAH . empowers municipalities to municipalities,
acquire and operate water works MMAH
and divert a lake or river for their
purposes
Ontario Water MOE . requires a permit for water MOE
Resources Act withdrawals greater than 50,000
Iitres/day
. requires a well construction
permit for ground water
withdrawals
. allows MOE to allocate water
among competing users
. allows municipalities to establish
or replace water works with
ministerial approval
Federal Legislation
Fishenes Act DFO . protects fish habitat by DFO, MNR
prohibiting habitat disturbance
. ensures construction of a
May, 2000 27
D108 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Legislation by Administering Description of legislation Implementing
function agency agency
fishway around any obstruction
in a waterway
Navigable Waters Transport Canada . prohibits dumping of wastes that Dept. of
Protection Act may interfere with navigation Transport
. prohibits construction in
naviqable waters
Canada Water Act Env Canada . authorizes agreements with Env Canada
provinces for the delineation of
flood plains and hazardous
shorelines for flood and erosion
control
International Rivers External Affairs . prohibits damming or changing Env Canada
Improvement Act Env Canada the flow of a river flowing out of
Canada
MMAH - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
MNR - Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE - Ministry of Environment
DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Env Canada - Environment Canada
CA - conservation authority
HWC - Health and Welfare Canada
May, 2000 28
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0109
SUMMARY OF WA TER-RELA TED LAND MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION
Legislation by Administering Description of Implementing
function aQencv LeQislation aQencv
Provincial Leaislation
Drainage Act OMAFRA . facilitates construction, operation and OMAFRA,
maintenance of rural drainage works municipalities
. provides legal mechanism where
riparian landowners can drain their
lands and divide the costs among
themselves
Tile Drainage Act OMAFRA . provides for low interest loans to municipalities,
farmers from municipalities for tile MMAH
drainina their orooertv
Planning Act MMAH . provides for and governs land use municipalities,
planning MMAH
. deals with provincial administration in
land use planning and local planning
. provides for development of
statements of provincial interest to be
reoarded in the plannino process
Public Lands Act MNR . authorizes MNR to manage and MNR
control activities on Crown land
Mining Act MNDM . registers mining lands and lands MNDM,MNR
forfeited to the Crown
. exempts lands and mining rights from
taxes
Beds of Navigable MNR . declares the beds of navigable waters MNR
Waters Protection as the Crown's responsibility
Act
Public MTO . requires a permit for any work carried MTO
Transportation and out within the right-of-way of a
Highway provincial highway
Improvement Act
Conservation MNR . empowers conservation authorities to
Authorities Act manage, regulate or acquire
floodplains, hazardous shorelines and
conservation lands
Environmental MOE . requires environmental assessments MOE
Assessment Act for designated land use activities
Federal Legislation
Fisheries Act DFO . controls erosion and sedimentation for DFO,MNR
the purpose of fish habitat
preservation
MNR - Ministry of Natural Resources
MOE - Mmistry of Environment
DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
MTO - Ministry of Transportation
MNDM - Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
OMAFRA - Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
May, 2000 29
0110 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Appendix 2. Additional Technical Information
Distinguishing Between the Levels of Response
Thresholds for Level I must be senstive enough to give enough time for action
but not so sensitive as to activate when problems are not likely to occur Some
areas may reach the threshold for Levell several years in a row Indicators will
be monitored and reviewed periodically to determine if the thresholds are set at
the correct levels
Indicators
Research was done in 1999 to find out how precipitation and streamflow data
might be used to quantify low water and drought conditions Based on this
experience, the project team has used precipitation and streamflow as the two
primary indicators
Precipitation Indicator 1
For each station, MNR will compare the monthly precipitation with the average
expected monthly precipitation for that station, for that month For each month,
the comparison will use the total precipitation in the month divided by the
average expected precipitation for that month These calculations will then be
averaged over the previous 18 months (long term) and the previous three
months (seasonal)
When an area reaches a Levell or higher condition, the comparison for the
previous month for each station will also be used As well, a weekly
comparison will be made on the ih, 14th, and 21 st of each month comparing the
accumulated 1, 2 and 3-week precipitation to the average precipitation for the
current month
Precipitation Indicator 2
In a Levell condition or greater, the number of consecutive readin~s of less
than 7 6mm (no rain) will be determined at each reading (on the 7 ,14th, 21st
and at the end of the month)
In sensitive watersheds (very high water demand or very sandy soils), all
readings of less than 7 6mm will be noted In a less sensitive watershed,
(moderate water demand and sandy soils or high demand and silty soils), two
or more consecutive readings of less than 7 6mm will be noted These one or
two readings of less than 7 6mm will be used as thresholds
May, 2000 30
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0111
Streamflow
Surface flow indicators demonstrate if there is enough streamflow in the river to
meet the basic needs of the ecosystem and if there is additional water
available for needs such as navigation, recreation, hydropower generation,
irrigation, and other takings
Baseflow response contributes to surface flow and indicates the state of the
groundwater supply After a rainfall or snowmelt, there may be an immediate
surface runoff response in streamflow followed, sometimes after a delay, by a
baseflow response from groundwater In many cases, baseflow is relied upon
to provide the needs of the ecosystem and to maintain the surface water quality
at an acceptable level Baseflow response will indicate if there is enough water
to meet basic needs If baseflow is insufficient, water management authorities
will have to manage the structures to provide water for surface water takings
In the spring, a surplus of supply means surface flows will be much higher
than at other times of the year It is necessary to take this into account when
determining streamflow indicators As a result, thresholds were selected to
reflect seasonal variability It is also necessary to recognize that wide, flat
streams and headwater streams (streams at the top of the watershed) are
more sensitive to low flows Representative streamgauge stations need to be
selected to take account of varying stream channel conditions
Streamflow Indicator
Water level gauges that relate water level to water flow (streamflow) provide
data used for surface flow, or streamflow, indicators An indication of
streamflow approaching the minimum needed to maintain the ecosystem is
the statistical flow value, 7020 (The minimum 7-day, 1-in-20-year flow that is
calculated for individual gauges)
The historical average monthly flow, for each month for each station is available
from the Environment Canada streamflow historical archive HYDA T For each
station, the lowest average summer month flow will be the lowest average
monthly flow for July, August or September Comparing the value of the current
flow with the historic low value will determine when the streamflow is
approaching the 7020 All flow indicators will be expressed as a per cent of the
lowest average summer month flow On the 14thof each month, when a Levell
or greater condition has been attained, there will also be a calculation of the
flow for the first half of the month that will be compared to the lowest average
flow
May, 2000 31
0112 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
For the analysis at the provincial level, the criteria will be the same for all
streamflow gauges In April, May, and June flows are expected to be higher,
therefore, the indicator flows will be expected to be higher This will be factored
into the streamflow thresholds While a low flow in the springtime may not
indicate existing water supply problems, it indicates potential problems in the
summer
Local Streamflow Indicator
Streams in the head waters or those having high width-to-depth ratio are
expected to be more sensitive to low flows An indication of streamflow
approaching the minimum needed to maintain the ecosystem in these
streams is the statistical flow value, 7Q2 (The minimum 7-day 1-in-2-year flow,
which is also calculated for individual gauges) At the local level, where this
detail is known, the indicator flows can be higher than for the main channel
streams or streams that are narrow and deep The local WRT can factor this
into the streamflow thresholds
Aquifer Level Indicator
In the future, water table elevations will be used as groundwater indicators In
vulnerable areas, there is a need to identify consumption, including a need to
estimate well pumping rates From well logs and specific capacity data, MOE
can estimate the required water table elevations, assuming well screens and
pumps are in the best locations to optimize the aquifer's use This exercise
leads to a"first cut" threshold for water table elevations for the users The
thresholds would be refined through tests on specific wells before drought
conditions or through data collected during a drought.
Precioitation Thresholds
Level I Condition
A watershed enters Levell when its 3-month or 18-month precipitation drops
below 80% of the average 3-month or 18-month precipitation for those months
Level II Condition
The threshold for Level II condition is 60% of the 1-month, 3-month or 18-month
average expected precipitation A watershed enters Level II when its 3-month or
18-month total precipitation drops below 60% of the average 3-month or 18-
month precipitation for those months or its 1-month total precipitation drops
below 60% of the average precipitation and it is already in a Levell condition
The weekly update to the monthly per cent of average (calculated on the ih,
14 th, and 21 st) indicates improving or degrading conditions but is not used to
determine a Levell! condition This measurement is only taken during an
existing Level I or Level II condition
May, 2000 32
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 D113
OR
The threshold for Level II condition may also be more 2 or more consecutive
readings of less than 7 6mm precipitation (no rain) A watershed enters Level II
when there is an existing Levell condition and, in high-demand areas, a
reading of cumulative precipitation less than 7 6mm and, in moderate-demand
areas, 2 or 3 readings in succession when the cumulative precipitation is less
than 76mm At the local level, when precipitation is monitored daily, a
watershed enters Level II if it has 7 to 14 days of less than 7 6mm in a sensitive
area and, in a less sensitive area, 14 to 21 days of less than 76 mm
The watershed reenters Levell when both indicators have risen above the
Level II thresholds
level III Condition
The threshold for the Level III condition is 40% of the 1-month, 3-month or 18-
month average expected precipitation A watershed enters Level III when the 3-
month or 18 month total precipitation drops below 40% of the average 3-month
or 18-month precipitation for those months or its 1-month total precipitation
drops below 40% of the average precipitation and there is an existing Level II
condition
The weekly update to the monthly per cent of average (calculated on the ih,
14 th, and 21st) indicates improving or degrading conditions but is not used to
determine a Level III condition This measurement is only taken during an
existing Levell or Level II condition
The watershed reenters Level II when both indicators have risen above the
Level III thresholds
Streamflow
For Level II and Level III conditions, streamgauges known to represent more
sensitive streams (streams in headwaters or wide and shallow streams) may
have the comparison levels raised by 10% For example, more sensitive
streams may enter Level II in the spring when the flow drops below 80% of the
lowest average summer month flow The WRT should address this level of
detail at the local level
Groundwater Baseflow Protection
Baseflow indicators have not been identified for implementation by April 2000
In the future, baseflow will be measured and comparisons made with observed
conditions At present, it is believed that a Level I threshold would occur when
baseflow approaches demands + minimum for natural function Level II and
Level III thresholds would be set a number of days ahead of the dates the
thresholds are reached to deal with wells that cause induced recharge There
is a need to identify wells that significantly influence baseflow
May, 2000 33
D114 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
Groundwater Aquifer levels
Aquifer level indicators have not been identified for implementation by April
2000 Well logs and capacity data can be used to estimate representative
groundwater elevations A network for measuring the water table should be
developed Measurements taken in 2000 will be used to determine when water
tables drop near to or below demand levels Threshold water table levels will
be developed Water table levels near demand level would generate a Level I
condition Exceeding the demand level would generate a Level II condition A
Level III condition would occur when water levels drop below the level needed
for high-priority demand Critical water table heights for baseflow protection
need to be determined
Monitoring and Reporting
Data Acquisition
Precipitation and streamflow data is obtained through the MNR Water
Resources Information System (WRIS) computer located in Toronto and
maintained through the MNR Sault Ste Marie office Climate data is obtained
from Environment Canada through satellite connection and decoded by WRIS
This data is obtained through a cost sharing agreement between Environment
Canada and MNR (including the conservation authorities) and MOE
To get the data in real time for the purpose of flood management, the
streamgauges are equipped with telemetry devices that are funded outside the
cost share agreement by the conservation authorities and MNR. Streamflow
data and precipitation data located at streamflow sites is collected by
telephone modem and decoded by WRIS
Spreadsheets identify Environment Canada Synoptic stations and functioning
streamflow gauging sites Precipitation and streamflow data is obtained
manually from WRIS and entered into the spreadsheets, which are sent by e-
mail to MNR Peterborough
In Peterborough the historic streamflow and climate records are used to
determine monthly average historical values for each station These values are
compared to the current data sent to Peterborough and the indices are
calculated and linked to a Geographic Information System (GIS) database
Indices are plotted on base maps showing the watershed boundaries These
maps are analyzed, the data checked when unexpected numbers occur and
new maps generated From these maps a Conditions Report is prepared
May, 2000 34
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0115
Conservation authorities will be contacted and advised of the data
requirements and will be asked to confirm their willingness to participate and
ensure the availability of streamflow and precipitation data When the data
cannot be obtained through the WRIS computer, a system will be established
for the conservation authority to provide the data to MNR Peterborough bye-
mail
Addressing Gaps
The major improvements for 2000 over 1999 are to increase the geographic
coverage of the data, especially precipitation, choose a variety of stream types,
and obtain data manually from streamflow gauging sites that transmit
unreliably MOE will collect groundwater and provide it to MNR Peterborough for
calculation of indicators and presentation in GIS format. Accurate base
mapping is needed to evaluate water supply by watershed
MNR will work with conservation authorities, Environment Canada and
OMAFRA to fill in the gaps in the precipitation network and to refine the
streamgauge network. An additional 25 precipitation stations with real-time
data will be added Data for reliable precipitation stations, available on the
OMAFRA web site, will be polled Arrangements will be made with conservation
authorities to refine the streamgauge network, to obtain additional precipitation
data and to obtain bye-mail data unavailable through WRIS Arrangements will
be made with conservation authorities to ensure that streamgauge stations are
maintained and provide consistently reliable data
Baseflow was analyzed against precipitation because current groundwater
data were not available These analyses were conducted at selected stations
in representative sensitive areas as an indicator of groundwater impact. This
approach served as an indicator of groundwater conditions
One of the most significant annual inputs in the water cycle is snowmelt. We
need a means of determining how much water is available for melting from the
snow pack and whether it is replenishing the supply or evaporating In 2000,
SSM/I (Special Sensor Microwave Imager) data from satellite imagery will be
used to determine the snow water content of the snowpack (25km resolution)
across Ontario Starting with the snow survey reading for February 1, 2000,
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until the snow is gone or until May 30,
2000, the amount of water equivalent in the snowpack and the depth of snow
on the ground will be measured and the snow pack density determined The
data is compared to and corrected using the snow survey data available from
MNR in Sault Ste Marie
May, 2000 35
0116 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
Assessment Process and Communicating
Summary precipitation data and data from streamgauges will be obtained
manually from WRIS Additional precipitation and streamgauge information
unavailable through WRIS will be obtained bye-mail Other data from 25
additional climate stations from Environment Canada and other sources of
precipitation data will be obtained manually, bye-mail or from Internet sites
All this data will be entered onto spreadsheets that will go to MNR
Peterborough where they will be linked to spreadsheets containing
precipitation monthly averages and the lowest average summer flows The per
cent of average will be determined electronically and presented on base
mapping showing the watershed boundaries Contour maps will be generated
and plotted and used to determine the indicators and thresholds
Adobe versions of these maps will be posted to an Intranet web site and
distributed electronically to Conservation Ontario along with the conditions
report and analysis MOE has still to determine the data collection methods
and how communication of the data to MNR for evaluation and inclusion in
maps will be achieved Baseflow and groundwater elevation data will be
obtained and provided to MNR Peterborough in spreadsheet or database
format.
May, 2000 36
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0117
Appendix 3 Project Team
Ron Running - Ministry of Natural Resources
Ian Cameron - Ministry of Natural Resources
Ian Wilcox - Conservation Ontario
Maxine Kingston - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs
Jim Myslik - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs
Mel PI ewes - Ministry of the Environment
Jim Richardson - Ministry of the Environment"
Gary Cousins - Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Support provided by' Margaret Mack, Ministry of Natural Resources
Pam Jeff, Ministry of Natural Resources
May, 2000 37
0118 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
RES.#D35/00 - TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000-2004
PHASE
Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland and Bonar Wetland, City of Toronto
Continuation of site development at the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland and
initiation of site development at the Bonar Wetland, City of Toronto
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be direi.:ted to proceed with the
2000 waterfront development activities at the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland and the Bonar
Wetland, City of Torontt.l, under the "Toronto Waterfront Development Project 2000-2004
Phase" at a total cost ot $130,000 CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland
At its Meeting #4/97, held May 30, 1997, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 106/97
"THA T staff be directed to proceed with the implementation of the Mimico Creek
Estuary Wetland Restoration Project under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at a total cost of $170,000 "
The two wetland areas are currently under development the Upper Wetland and Coastal Wetlands
(see attached map) They are located on the north west and south east sides, respectively, of the
new waterfront trail pedestrian bridge that was opened at the mouth of the creek in 1998
Further work at these locations has been discussed with the public at a meeting hosted by the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force on June 5, 2000 The Task Force further
discussed the wetland restoration project at a Community Action Site Workshop held during
Meeting #6/00 of the Task Force Comments from both these public forums will be included in the
project final design
Bonar Wetland
The Authority officially endorsed acquisition of the lands containing the BonarWetland site, located
on the west side of Mimico Creek, south of the CNR Tracks, at Meeting #4/00, held on April 28,
2000, by Resolution No. A93/00
'THAT the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force support the efforts of
Concerned Citizens for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront in the creation of the "Bonar
Wetland" and the regeneration of Bonar Creek, a tributary of Mimico Creek,
THAT the parcel of land owned by the CIty of Toronto located on the west side of Mimico
Creek, between Lakeshore Boulevard and the Canadian National Railway tracks, as shown
on the attached map, be retamed in public ownership for enVIronmental conservation
purposes,
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0119
AND FURTHER THA T the Authority be requested to investigate opportunities for the transfer
of this parcel of IF' r:i from the City of Toronto to the Conservation Authority "
Design plans for the Bonar Wetland were also discussed with the public and the Etoblcoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force at the above-noted meetings
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development component for 2000 is to complete the design for all three wetland areas
and to implement the project as it pertains to the Upper Wetland at the Mimico Creek Estuary
Work on the Upper Wetland includes regrading and berm construction, planting of emergent and
submergent plant species, and enhancing fish habitat. Work in 2000 will substantially complete
the project.
Design details for the Coastal Wetland (Mimico Creek Estuary) includes excavation of earth to
continue berm construction in this area, regrading, planting of emergent and submergent plant
species, and fish habitat enhancement.
Design details for the Bonar Wetland, north of Lake Shore Boulevard, will involve soil testing,
regrading to establish a hemi-marsh, planting of wetland species, trees and shrubs, development
of a trail, and constructll.'r of a pedestrian/cycle bridge under the CNR tracks
Staff are currently In di3 ;ussion with the City regarding potential acquisition and restoration
initiatives in this location
Staff will work with the City to establish an integrated concept plan of this section of the watershed
to ensure a coordinated approach as the private and public initiatives are implemented
Staff will proceed to obtain all necessary approvals for the wetland projects Community groups
will be an integral part of the planting and wetland regeneration Staff will also ensure coordination
with the Toronto RAP and Toronto Waterfront Naturalization initiatives
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for 2000 is $130,000 under Account Number 205-14
The work will be carried out under the "Toronto Waterfront Development Project 2000-2004
Phase"
Report prepared by Beth Williston, extension 5263
For information contat:t. Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date. July 11, 2000
Attachments (1)
Mimico Creek Wetland Complex 0
~
f\)
0
~
P
-l
rn
JJ
(fJ
I
rn
0
$:
p
z
P
Gl
rn
$:
rn
z
-l
P
0
~
(fJ
0
JJ
-<
m
0
p
JJ
0
'4:
-l'>
0-
0
L
S.
f\)
, f\)
0
0
0
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0121
RES.#D36/00 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Ivli,'utes of Meeting #4/00, June 15, 2000 The minutes of Meeting #4/00
heid on June 15, 2000 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is
provided for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #4/00 held June 15, 2000 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 5238
Date. July 7, 2000
RES.#D37/00 - DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES
Minutes of Meeting #1/00, June 28, 2000 The minutes of Dufflns and
Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meeting#1/00 held on June 28,
2000, are provided for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meeting #1/00, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Draft membership selection, work plan, reporting procedures and Terms of Reference for the
Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces, dated October 1899, and adopted by the
Authority at meeting # i /99 held on November 26, 1999 by Resolution 4A298/99, includes the
following provision
0122 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
"Section 4.5 Reportinq 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 "
For information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date. July 6, 2000
RES.#D38/00 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #5/00 and #6/00 The minutes of Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting#5/00 held on May 25,2000
and meeting#6/00 held on June 22, 2000, are provided for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting #5/00 and #6/00, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Strategy, dated June,
1999, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #6/99 held on June 25, 1999 by Resolution
#A 166/99, includes the following provision
"Section 6.1 &l Mandate
The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quartellY basis, to the
TRCA, through tile Authority's Watershed Management Advisory Board"
For information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date. July 6, 2000
RES.#D39/00 - ROUGE NORTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Provide comments and recommend endorsement of the Rouge North
Management Plan, dated May 2000
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
July 21, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0123
THE BOARD RECOMI\t,r NDS TO THE AUTHORITY THATthe Rouge lllurth Management Plan
be endorsed,
THAT the Authority supports the Rouge Alliance's initiatives in obtaining Provincial
endorsement of the Rouge North Management Plan and the recognition of the Rouge Park
within a Provincial Policy Statement;
THAT the Rouge Alliance prepare and adopt an Implementation Program and Acquisition
Strategy to ensure the intent of the Plan is achieved. As part of this program municipalities
of Richmond Hill, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Markham and the Region of York will need to
consider amendments to the Official Plan as one of the implementation strategies;
THAT the Authority recommends that municipalities within the Rouge Watershed consider
undertaking, with the technical assistance from the TRCA, subwatershed plans prior to
considering urban expansion,
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be sent to the Rouge Park Alliance, the Province
of Ontario, the Towns of Markham, Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Region
of York CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The objective of creating <i park system within the Rouge River watershed was first recognized by
the Province in 1 990 Th: initiative led to the approval of the Rouge Park Management Plan in
1994 This 1994 Plan stated a goal, principles and objectives which are applicable throughout the
Park, however detailed policies and management objectives were provided only for the area south
of Steeles Avenue. The Plan also directed that a management plan be prepared for the lands
north of Steeles to the Oak Ridges Moraine which would implement the intent of the 1994 Plan
over the entire Rouge Park.
The Draft Rouge North Management Plan was released for formal review and comment in
September of 1997 Following the release of the Draft Plan, the Town of Richmond Hill,
Whitchurch-Stouffville, Markham and the Region of York endorsed the intent of the Plan and
provided comments to be considered in the Final Draft. Authority staff provided input into the Draft
Plan and have continued to work with staff to update the final draft which was circulated for
comment and endorsement in May of 2000
The Management Plan is designed as a blueprint to guide the implementation of the Rouge Park
North The intent is to create a continuous park along the corridors of the Rouge River from Lake
Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Management Plan is envisaged to protect the ecological
integrity of the Park through the creation of linear corridors north of Steeles Avenue While the
Plan implements the ovel all intent of the goal, principles and objectives of the 1994 Plan there are
fundamental difference::, II the context, configuration and land ownership patterns within the
northern area of the Park Accordingly, the Rouge North Plan sets out a process for defining the
boundaries, patterns ot ,~ irk zoning and use, as well as a long-term scenario for implementation
and management distincI trom its counterpart to the south In summary the Management Plan
0124 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21 , 2000
. establishes management zones which reflect the sensitivities of the diverse areas within the
Park and designates existing public lands Future Rouge Park lands would be designated
based on this overall framework as they become part of the Rouge Park,
. establishes an ecologically based criteria to incorporate new areas by defining astudy area
boundary within which the park boundaries will be determined based on further study,
. describes various implementation opportunities and roles and responsibilities of the
partners in achieving the goal of the Park which is primarily based on the planning process
but may also include other mechanisms such as acquisition and land stewardship, and
. establishes two programs for preserving and enhancing the natural resources The Natural
Heritage Program which sets out general principles and targets to be implemented for
terrestrial, aquatic, groundwater and stream morphology reso.J1 ces, and a Monitoring
Program to measure success and establish new priorities for the natural heritage program.
The executive summary irom the Rouge North Management Plan is attached for information as
well as a map indicating the Rouge Park North - Initial Plan and the Rouge Park North Study Area-
Long Term Composite
RATIONALE
Authority staff have worked with both the Consultant and the Rouge Alliance in order to assist in
the development of an ecologically based Park Plan ensuring that the resources essential to
maintain the health and integrity of the park's ecosystem will be protected, enhanced and restored
The purpose of this report is to recommend the endorsement of the Plan, recommend
implementation strategies and assess the implications on the TRCA policies and programs for
further review
Staff recommend the endorsement of the Rouge North Management Plan The Plan provides an
overall framework to achieve a long term vision for the protection, enhancement and restoration
of the Rouge Park Authority staff have reviewed the Plan in detail and will be providing editorial
comments on the Plan's iermlnology and targets
The achievement of th~ goal, principles and objectives of this Plan 8r, largely dependent on
implementation through m~ planning process While the Plan represents a ;:;ignificant step forward
in providing a scientific' ationale for the protection of the linear corridors, implementation through
the planning process wl'L.lu be significantly enhanced with a Provincial endorsement of the Plan
and a recognition of its importance in a Provincial Policy Statement. Both of these requests have
been made to the Province by the Rouge Alliance and staff recommend that we support the
Alliance in requesting Provincial support. A Provincial recognition of the importance of the Rouge
Park greatly enhances the ability to require the implementation of this Plan through the planning
process
In addition, to Provincial recognition, staff recommend that each of the municipalities within the
Rouge Park (Town of Richmond Hill, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Markham and the Region of York)
conSider implementing the intent of the Plan including the process to delineate the Park boundary
within their Official Plans so that future urban growth will be considered in context of these
objectives These amendments to the Official Plan should provide a variety of mechanisms such
as bonusing opportunities, transfer of development rights and appropriate setbacks and
dedications
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0125
While the Plan provld8~ 8:ological criteria for the justification of the ~cJrk boundary, in some
instances this boundarv is determined by the future condition of the site rather than its existing
characteristics Staff s~,:Jports this approach in determining a park boundary as essential In
ensuring long term healtn However, implementation based on a future condition does create
significant challenges for achievement through the planning process To complement the planning
approach, Staff recommend that the Rouge Alliance undertake an acquisition strategy and
implementation program, particularly to ensure that the areas required to enhance the park
become part of the Rouge Park North The implementation program would also define the various
responsibilities of the Rouge Alliance partners Implementation through Official Plan Amendments
could then be considered in this light.
Specific to the TRCA, the following further steps should be undertaken to complement the Plan
through the planning process and to provide a higher level of technical support:
Rouge Watershed Plan - The Rouge North Management Plan is a plan for the establishment of
a Rouge Park along linear corridors which provides for the long term sustainability of the
ecological resources However, the Plan is not a watershed strategy and therefore does not
specifically provide direction on the entire watershed and its contribution to the overall health It
has long been recognized that the health of the river system is dependent on the activities on the
tableland The benefit of a Watershed strategy is that it would
- provide an integrated, customized management framework to assess, plan for and manage
the resources withl1 'heir natural watershed context throughout the watershed
- better understand ti);:: complex ecological processes that occur within the natural system
- update the overall modelling for hydrology and hydraulics within the watershed
- provide an opportunity to evaluate large scale impacts such as climate change on a
comprehensive watershed basis
- provide a context for a watershed report card to measure the progress within the Rouge
- provide an increased opportunity for environmental awareness and stewardship through
education about the impacts of various land uses and human activities
- allow for the identification of protection measures within the entire watershed including the
urban and urbanizing areas
Authority staff are reviewing the implications of the preparation of a Watershed Plan or the update
of the Rouge River Comprehensive Basin Strategy, and will be reporting shortly to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board
Subwatershed Planning - The preparation of subwatershed plans by municipalities, in
consultation with the TRCA and the Alliance, prior to considering urban growth would provide an
overall environmental context to then consider specific development applications This level of
effort early in the process would provide the technical basis to define the park as well as ensure
that development on th2 tableland is consistent with the overall wate~ .3hed objectives The
development of these rllans would also ensure that the technical studies are undertaken on the
natural boundaries of all ;uea rather than on the ownership boundaries
D126 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Extension of Authority Regulations - Many of the upper reaches of the Rouge River are not
currently regulated by the TRCA Fill Regulation When originally updated in early 1990's, the
regulation lines delineated all watercourses with a drainage area of greater than 1300 hectares.
The Fill Extension Program which began in the early 1990's was intended to provide regulation on
all watercourses, however, with the Provincial review of the Conservation Authorities Act the
adoption of the program was put on hold. At this time the Province has approved the new Act with
a requirement that a generic regulation for the entire Province be approved TRCA is awaiting the
adoption of this generic regulation and will, on the basis of the new standards, revise and update
the previous extension program to ensure that all watercourses are regulated This regulation,
while specifically related to hazard management, does raise the level of protection on all
watercourses throughouc the watershed.
Implications on Authol.tity Programs and Policies
The ecological criteria defined in the Management Plan provides a scientific rationale for defining
important ecological features. In particular, the inclusion of a Vegetation Community Maintenance
Setback adopts an ecosystem approach to riparian zones and other significant features which
adds another dimension to defining boundary limits, long term sustainability and ecological
integrity These adjacent vegetation communities serve a number of important function integral
to the long term sustainability of riparian zones and other features Staff will be reviewing the
inclusion of this factor, as well as other rationale presented in the Plan in our on-going review of
the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Staff have been undertaking an update
of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program for some time. Several discussions with
various stakeholders have taken place, however, given this Plan as well as the on-going work on
the Natural Heritage Strategy, the finalization of the update will not be available until next year at
the earliest. In the interim, staff will implement the intent of the current Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Program throughout the jurisdiction and in recognition of the significance of the
Rouge Park, work with the various partners to achieve it's goal, objectives and principles
In addition, the Rouge North Management Plan recommends that TRCA undertake a review of the
existing policies and legislation to ensure that adequate protection of watercourses and tributaries
throughout the Rouge ',/vatershed is achieved. To a great extent the in.r. lementation of the new
Regulation and an updated Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program will assist with this
endeavour However i: the interim, through the planning process TRCA staff will also be
discussing the definition e.nd protection of all watercourses with municipal staff
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will undertake the following
- provide detailed comments, which are predominately editorial in nature, directly to the Rouge
Park Alliance staff;
- report further on the implications of the preparation of a Rouge Watershed Strategy;
- work to complete the generic regulation with Conservation Ontario and MNR as well as
prepare the new TRCA regulation,
- review Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program in light of the ecological criteria set
out in the Rouge North Management Plan as well as the on-going work on the Natural
Heritage Program,
..,
.0
. l .~
~~~ .' .' ~..i!l
'" 0''' "" :~ '0 '" .. ." OO,\&,,~ '0. t:. #0'$
~O-. 000 c~; OIl Il Q,.. 0 '!. 0 ~o ~:~o 0 ~~ .'~o ~ 0 ~ o "<eoO)" '. 0"
''''.l' i: . . g ~ '
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0127
- review existing policies and regulation for watercourses to ensure long term protection,
enhancement and restoration of all watercourses.
For information contact: Jane Clohecy
Date July 17, 2000
Attachments (1)
0128 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
Attachment 1
Executive Summary -.
The Rouge North Management Plan is envisioned as a blueprint to guide the implementation of Rouge Park
North, an extension to Rouge Park south of Steeles Avenue. This will result in the creation of a continuous
park along the corridors of the Rouge River progressing from Lake Ontario in the south to the Oak Ridges
Moraine in the north. The plan is the product of a process focussed on meaningful public consultation with
residents of watershed comrnunitie;, representative; of stakeholder groups, plivate landowners and representatives
of the agencie; that would be partially responsible for its implementation.
A comprehensive review of existing background information forms the foundation of the Management Plan.
This information was catalogued and verified through consultations with the community and relevant agencie;
.. in the early stage; of the planning process. Supplementary work was subsequently undertaken where discrepancies
. were Identified or additional information was required. Field investigations or further background re;earch
t were perfonned to assist in the identification of issue; to be addre;sed and opportunitie; which could be capitalized
t upon in the process of generating the Management Plan.
. At the same time, a comprehensive public consultation process was being undertaken. This process included
. the following events:
t A start up event at Toogood Pond in Unionville;
. A display at the Markham Fair;
. Stakeholder consultation meetings;
A weekend long Park Planning Workshop;
. A display at Markville Shopping Centre;
. A public meeting to review the Preliminary Management Planj
. Additional stakeholder consultation meetings;
. The Public Advisory Committee process;
Technical Advisory Committee review meetings;
. Consultations with the Ontario Realty Corporation; and
. A public meeting to review the Draft Final Management Plan.
. Endorsement of the Draft Final Management Plan from the Council of the Town of Markham,
. Richmond Hill, Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Region of York.
. The consultation process formed the basis for a multi-dimensional management plan de;igned to direct the
. implementation of Rouge Park North over the span of a number of decades. The Rouge North Management
. Plan takes context, patterns of land ownership, as well as status of natural and cultural resources into
consideration to remain relevant throughout the evolution of the Rouge Park North.
.
The core goal, principles and objectives of the plan are adapted from those defined in the Rouge Park
t
Management Plan (1994) However, fundamental differences in context, configuration and land ownership
. patterns exist between the Rouge Park and the study area for Rouge Park North. Therefore, the Rouge North
t Management Plan sets out a process for defining boundarie;, patterns of park zoning and use, as well as a
t long-term scenario for implementation and management distinct from its counterpart to the south.
. The study area for Rouge Park North was defined in the Rouge Park Management Plan. Subsequently, as the
. product of background and field inve;tigations, three tributaries were added to the study area. Exhibition
t Creek, Robinson Creek and East Beaver Creek Each presented unique opportunities to achieve objectives r~
t related to the pre;ervation of natural and cultural re;ource;, recreation or restoration.
t Rouge North
t Management plall
t xi
July 21,2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0129
Executive Summary -~-_._'~-"-~- --
The Management Plan uses a number of definitions and strategies aimed at realizing Rouge Park North over
time. These were developed in response to the input received through the consultation process, the nature of
the resources of the study area, the patterns of land ownership as well as the timeline for implementation, and
include the following:
Rouge Park North - Publicly owned lands situated along or proximate to the river corridors, which
will be re-designated as 'Rouge Park'
Rouge Park Partnership Program - A program aimed at achieving park objectives on lands held in
public, semi-publIc or corporate ownership, situated along or proximate to the river corridors, which
possess the potential to support recreational, ecological and public access initiatives to the benefit of ,
the park Participation in this designation is at the discretion of the landowner.
Rouge Park Stewardship Program - A program aimed at achieving park objectives on lands held in ,
private ownership along the river corridors and throughout the watershed. If managed appropriately .
these lands could provide significant benefits to the health of the Rouge River ecosystem and to the ,
achievement of other park objectives. Participation in this designation is at the discretion of the t
landowner. .
Rouge Park Study Areas - The Rouge Park Study Area designation is a tool to facilitate the delineation .
of the park in the future. The Study Area designation encompasses privately owned lands along the ,
river corridors and sets out an area defining the actual boundary of the park The catalyst for the ,
activation of the Study Area designation is the application for development of lands that fall within
the limits of the Study Area. The Study Area process mimics the typical development approval process ,
employed by municipalities in the study area ,
The resources of individual corridors are unique, as are the specific objectives related to each corridor. ,
Consequently, three distinct Study Areas are defined, each with specific criteria for detennining the ,
final park boundary within its limits. The three Sudy Areas are: .
The Little Rouge Creek Study Area, ,
- The Middle Reaches Study Area; and .
- The Headwaters Study Area. t
The Management Plan also defines a number of programs and recommendations to guide the long-term .
implementation of Rouge Park North. These include' .
The Trails and Public Access Program, which describes a methodology for achieving recreational .
trail -objectives -on lands held in public as well as private ownership; .
The Natural and Cultural Heritage Program, which provides a blueprint to guide the restoration of .
degraded natural resources and systems in Rouge Park North, .
The Monitoring Program, which defines a methodology for gauging the health of the resources of the .
park, .
A strategy for managing heritage resources within the park; .
A recommended program for community based management of Rouge Park North, and .
A mechanism to facilitate the cyclical review and updating of the Rouge North Management Plan .
Rattge NOlth ,
Maruzgemerl/ Pian t
0130 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21, 2000
'.
,
Ex~qu~i1!e. SU1!lmary ..----- -- -- --... -- ---- -
The successful implementation of Rouge Park North will only be realized with the full support of the residents
of the watershed communities. The Rouge North Management Plan, as a product of extensive consultation,
provides a long-term strategy to facilitate the establishment and evolution of Rouge Park North in partnership
with the community.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
,
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
July 21 , 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0131
~ i
~
..
~@ ..
~ ri~
~ ~~ ~ .. f ~ j-
8 B l:
~ ~~ ~ lJ. ]1" i ~J I
.. {IH Ula~ hi
t 1Zl~ p::
gz I ~ l ij Il~
0 oS . mil ~ 1wnil
!lI:
Z ~ J
~ ~1~li J ~i~lil~
.. __ D<<<~~ ::~
t:l ~
~ ~~~-~~~.~--~---~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0132 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 July 21,2000
. ~ I.....
~ II
~ ~ I '......
~d · J' ~..
<.to! i" i!i ~
~ '<l' i3 c:5 B l
~ ~ 0 ~i ~)f Ii I I ~
o es ~~ ~ i"5l
~ g ~ U j JHiJd !
5 .. ~ I D<~~~~ :;~
~
~_~______&___..__._.....~..................l
July 21, 2000 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/00 0133
-
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meetiny terminated at 1040 a.m., on July 21, 2000
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary Treasurer
/ks
ITEM 1
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/00
October 20, 2000
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/00, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 20,2000 The Chair Lorna
Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10:09 a.m.
PRESENT
Milton Berger Member
Lorna Bissell Chair
lIa Bossons Member
Cliff Gyles Vice Chair
Irene Jones Member
Jim McMaster Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon Member
Pam McConnell Member
Bill Saundercook Member
Mike Tzekas Member
RES #D40/00 - MINUTES
Moved by Jim McMaster
Seconded by Irene Jones
THAT Minutes of Meeting #4/00, held on July 21,2000, be approved.
CARRIED
134
PRESENTATIONS
(a) Presentation by Craig Mather, CAO, TRCA on the Oak Ridges Moraine Alliance
RES.#D41/00 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by lIa Bossons
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
135
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D42/00 - FUTURE OF THE PORT OF TORONTO
Transport Canada To report on the September 21,2000 public meeting
held by Transport Canada on the "Future of the Port of Toronto"
Moved by Jim McMaster
Seconded by Dick O'Bnen
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the preliminary comments by
staff in a letter dated October 3, 2000 to staff of Transport Canada be endorsed,
THAT the Authority indicate its opposition to Option 3 - Relocation to the Outer Harbour
and its three schemes as presented at the September 21, 2000 public meeting;
THAT the Authority as a major land owner in the Outer Harbour area advise Transport
Canada of its interest in being kept fully apprised of any further public meetings and
agency discussions on this matter;
AND FURTHER THAT Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and
the City of Toronto be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
RES # A86/00
"THA T the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto be
commended for cooperatmg to launch this critical initiative and that they be encouraged to
pursue implementation as quickly as possible,
THAT the members of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force be congratulated for
producing an exciting, compelling and challenging vision in a timely manner;
THAT the Task Force Members be particularly congratulated for understanding and
articulating the vital connection between the quality of the waterfront and the health of the
adjacent watersheds and the urgent need to accelerate watershed restoration efforts
concurrent with waterfront specific initiatives,
THA T the three levels of government be advised that the Authority would be pleased to
assIst in developing the detailed "Master Plan" and to implement, WIth its partners, various
elements of the report. The Authority has a thirty year history of implementing similar
waterfront projects and many of these features are acknowledged in the Report as
contributing in a very positive way to the current waterfront;
THA T the Authority also commends the recommendatIons concerning a revitalization of the
mouth of the Don including resolution of the flood risk issue which would provide a safer
framework for redevelopment of the West Don Lands and the Port Lands,
136
THA T the three levels of government be advised that the Authority would be pleased to
assist in dIscussions concerning the governance and implementation framework for the plan
particularly with respect to the areas outside of the Central Waterfront where many Authority
community driven initiatives, as outlined in the Task Force Report, are well advanced and
could easily be accelerated with financial support,
THAT the efforts of the Regional and Area Municipalities surrounding the CIty of Toronto to
protect and restore habitats, improve water quality and maintain base flows be
acknowledged and encouraged as major contributions to the health of the Toronto
Waterfront and that the efforts and responsibilities of those municipalities be represented by
the Authority in the continuing discussions towards implementatIon of the Task Force
Report,
THAT the City of Toronto be encouraged to integrate the work of the Environmental Task
Force and the new Sustalnability Roundtable into all aspects of implementatIon of the Task
Force Report;
THA T the three levels of government be requested to consider, as part of the discussions on
governance and implementation, the utilization of the watershed based Task Forces and
AllIances, supported by the Authority, which currently exist for the Etobicoke/Mimlco,
Humber, Don, Highland and Rouge as well as a similar, proposed Waterfront Alliance to
coordinate environmental regeneration from Etobicoke Creek to Carruthers Creek,
-
THA T the three levels of government be advised that the Authority sees implementation of
the Task Force Report as a major impetus towards achieving the Remedial Action Plan goal
of "delisting" the Toronto Waterfront as an "Area of Concern" wIthin the Great Lakes Basin,
AND FURTHER THAT an environmental restoration of thIS scale IS of internatIonal
significance, represents outstanding business opportunities and constitutes a global
Imperative"
A few days prior to September 21,2000, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
staff were advised by a Transport Canada public notice of a public meeting on the Future of the
Port of Toronto
At this first public meeting, Transport Canada gave a presentation on the Future of the Port.
The three basic options presented Included
Option 1 - Close the Port outright and dissolve Toronto Port Authority
Option 2 - Combine operations with other ports in region
Option 3 - Move operations to another site within perimeter of Port of Toronto
Option 3 included three schemes of moving the port to the Outer Harbour (Schemes 1, 2 and 3
attached)
137
Due to the major impact on the Authority's currently owned 247 ha Tommy Thompson Park
lands and the committed Rdditional Provincial lands of 223 ha. and the limited timeframe to
respond, staff took the Initiative to provide preliminary comments to Transport Canada via the
attached letter dated October 3, 2000
RATIONALE
Option 3 and its three schemes for which Transport Canada presented the most detailed study
and concept design has major Implications to this key sector of the Toronto Waterfront
. contravenes the previous port function decisions for the Outer Harbour,
. Impacts and compromises the significant public urban wilderness - Tommy Thompson Park
and its Master Plan as approved under the Environmental Assessment Act,
. contrary to the extensive City Waterfront Plan, the Mayor's Waterfront Vision and Fung
Report and community planning initiatives,
. impacts and in most instances, eliminates public use of the protected waters of the Outer
Harbour for recreational uses and public access to the shoreline.
We are requesting that the Authority endorse the preliminary comments in the letter of October
3, 2000 and outlined In this report, The comments should be forwarded to Transport Canada,
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the City of Toronto
WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will report back to the Authority on any future actions and decisions by Transport Canada.
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date October 11 , 2000
Attachments 2
138
Attachment 1
October 3, 2000
Mr Randall Koops
Senior Policy Advisor
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Project
Transport Canada
25th Floor, Area 'A'
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, 0 N K1 A ON5
Dear Mr Koops,
Re Transport Canada - Future of the Port of Toronto
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority attended the public meeting on September 21,
2000, called by Transport Canada on the Future of the Port of Toronto
The Authority currently owns 247 hectares of Tommy Thompson Park, (formerly called The
Outer Harbour Headland, Aquatic Park and Leslie Street Spit) with a commitment for the
Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources to transfer an additional 223 hectares, currently under
lease to the Port Authority, to complete the filling operation We note that the TRCA's lands
were shown as 'Provincial' on the presentation material
In the early 1970's, The Toronto Harbour Commission (now Port Authority) had determined that
the Outer Harbour Headland, under construction since 1959, was not required for "port related
facilities" In August of 1973, the Provincial Cabinet gave the Authority "the responsibility of
being the Province's agent with regard to the proposed Aquatic Park (now Tommy Thompson
Park) and the preparation of a master plan" In 1977, the Authority's mandate was expanded
to include, not only the preparation of a master plan, but also it's development and interim
management.
The Authority, in 1992, received approval for a master plan under the Provincial Environmental
Assessment Act, which had included extensive public consultation with 300 to 400 interested
public, attending many public meetings Tommy Thompson Park is recognized as a
Significant urban wilderness which has been incorporated into the waterfront plans of the City
of Toronto and highlighted in the Fung Report, We enclose a copy of 'Tommy Thompson
Park, Public Urban Wilderness - Habitat Creation and Enhancement Projects 1995 - 2000' for
your review Part of the funding for these Initiatives has been provided by Great Lakes 2000
Clean-Up Fund (Environment Canada), Canadian Wildlife Service and the Toronto Port
Authority
We find Option 3 and ItS' three schemes, for which Transport Canada carried out the most
detailed study, in contravention of previous port function decisions It Will have a major Impact
on the abutting public asset - Tommy Thompson Park - and compromise the Master Plan, the
natural hentage of the waterfront and the public use, both land and water, of this significant40
km section of our waterfront. We also find this option to be contrary to the extensive city
waterfront plan, the Mayor's waterfront viSion and, more recently, the Fung report on Toronto's
waterfront.
139
Due to the limited time frame on this proposal, we provide this letter as staff's preliminary
comments and will be taking a report to our Authority members in the near future
Please notify us on any decision of Transport Canada on this matter The undersigned can be
reached at (416) 661- 6600 ext 5243
Yours very truly,
original signed by"
Larry Field, MCIP, RPP
Waterfront Specialist
Watershed Management Division
cc J Craig Mather, CAO TRCA
Dick O'Brien, ChaIr TRCA
Bnan Denney - Director, Watershed Management TRCA
Pam McConnell, Councillor Ward 25 and TRCA member
140
.
Attachment 2
. Option 2: Combine operations
· Users moved to other ports in region
· Port authonty for GT A possibly created
wIth Toronto operations focused on
recreational, ferry and tounsm uses
9
Option 3: Move within Port
perimeter
· Marine and other commercIal and
recreatlonal users moved to new sites
nearby
· Port's current users and functions preserved
· Economic benefit of port retained while
Portlands vacated for other uses
10
141
5
Option 3 (can't)
Outer Harbour could
accommodate port activity
· PWGSC found that recreational and
commercIal users could be accommodated
· Provides room for expansion, buffered from
potential resIdential areas
· Cost. $350-550m (marine facIlities, sIte
facilIties, cleanup)
11
Option 3 (can't)
Moving to the Outer Harbour
· ReqUIres construction of new port facilItIes
· 3 general schemes, each with variations
1 Lowest cost, least intrusIve
2. IntermedIate cost, optimal performance
3 HIghest cost, most intruSIve
12
.
142
6
J
OptIon 3 (con't)
Scheme 1
· 8-11 new vessel berths
,
· 67-81 Ha of usable land area
· TP A Manna could remain In place
13
143 7
I
OptIon 3 (can't)
Scheme 2
. 10-11 new vessel berths
. 62-81 Ha of usable land area
. TP A Manna must partIally relocate
15
144 8
OptIOn 3 (con't)
Scheme 3
. 9 new vessel berths
. 38 Ha of usable land area
. TP A Manna remaIns In place
. Operatlons on Sand E sIdes of new access
. Most expensIve of all options
. Creates an under-servIced Island
17
145 9
RES #D43/00- CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE PROECT
Guild Inn Shoreline Stabilization Project, Scarborough Sector To
undertake the design and obtain all necessary approvals for the final
shoreline design and stabilization along the Guild Inn shoreline, City of
Toronto
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff, in consultation with the
City of Toronto and Community representatives, be directed to carry out the design and
obtain all necessary approvals to implement final shoreline design and stabilization
measures along the Guild Inn shoreline, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Toronto, under the"
2000 Toronto Valley & Shoreline Project" at a total estimated cost of $50,000 in 2000
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
To address the urgent need to implement erosion control measures along South Marine Drive
commencing in the early 1980's, it was necessary to construct an access road along the base
of the Scarborough Bluffs along the Guild Inn shoreline. This access road was lined with
broken concrete rubble to provide interim erosion protection from the impacts of wave action
and high lake level conditions Authority staff monitors the shoreline annually and undertakes
repairs as required to ensure the protection of the access road During non-construction
periods, the access road has become a popular walking/jogging and cycling trail for the public
With the completion of the South Marine Drive erosion control project in 1989, the access road
was again used to construct erosion control measures further to the west along the Sylvan
Avenue shoreline With the scheduled completion of the Sylvan project in 2001, it is necessary
to develop a design for the final shoreline treatments along the base of the Guild Inn property
and to obtain all necessary approvals and funding to commence implementation in 2001
In 1996, the Authority completed the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan from Tommy
Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay, which included several key management
recommendations For the Guild Inn shoreline, these include,
. link the public use of the Guild Inn lands with the public uses of the shoreline below;
. in addition to headland development at Guildwood Ravine, develop spawning beds and
pebble/cobble/sand heach habitat; and
. develop primary wat-:rfront trail loop between Gates Gully and Guildwood ravine
In addition, these shoreline initiatives will complement the Guild Inn (36 ha site) proposal
outlined in the Fung Report for a multi-purpose arts and culture centre
146
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The design will involve a public consultation process, including the potential for a Community
Working Group, to assist in developing the final shoreline treatments with the objectives of
providing the necessary protection from coastal hazards, providing opportunities to enhance
aquatic and terrestrial habitat, improving water's edge accessibility and incorporating the future
waterfront trail The design will follow the Conservation Authorities Class Environmental
Assessment process for remedial flood and erosion control projects
Consultants will be retained to assist in undertaking the necessary coastal analysis, prepare
final design drawings and cost estimates for the project. This work will be co-ordinated with
key City staff and public initiatives for this section of the shoreline
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds to complete the final design are budgeted in Account No 161-01
The work will be carried out under the "2000 Toronto & Valley Shoreline Project"
For Information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 5244
Date. October 12, 2000
Attachments: 1
147
>-
~
~
~ 8
" ~gj
5~
ClCll
z
~
I-
fd
..,
0
c::
c.
:z I
0 J
~ 0 I
i.
::i 0 I
D5 ..
~ ~
en
/LU
/ Z
::i I
LU
c::
0
:I: I
en w t;
z
Z :J w
Z W -:I
- a:: 0
9 0 a::
:c c.
5 Ul u.
:z
CJ :z 0
- ~
C
-l ~
5
C!J :J
..,/
,.. .
'../ "
, ....
/
""
".
"- /
,/
,
.....
,
RES.#D44/00 - CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
Algonquin/Snake Islands Erosion Control Project. Toronto Islands To
undertake the design and implementation of shoreline stabilization work
along sections of Algonquin and Snake Islands, Toronto Islands
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff, in consultation with the
City of Toronto and Community representatives, be directed to carry out the design and
implementation of shoreline stabilization measures at Algonquin and Snake Islands,
Toronto Islands, City of Toronto, under the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total estimated cost of $105,000 in 2000
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The westerly shoreline of Algonquin Island and inner harbour shoreline of Snake Island are
experiencing continuous shoreline erosion Due to the sandy soil conditions on both islands,
the impacts of fluctuating lake levels, and wave action from boating and wind result in the
shifting of the near shore sand profile. This subsequently results in the continuous and gradual
loss of parkland and mature trees
In 1994, the Authority completed a design for shoreline stabilization for the west end of
Algonquin Island but due to funding and other constraints, only a small component of the
proposed remedial works was implemented
Both Snake Island and the west end of Algonquin Island were identified as Environmentally
Significant Areas by the Authority based on a 1994 inventory Final designs will need to protect
the sensitivity of both sites and where possible, enhance both the terrestrial and aquatic
features
The Snake Island shoreline is experiencing the most visible erosion in terms of loss of mature
trees and parkland A shoreline design is required to protect and enhance this section of
shoreline
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
A preliminary design for shoreline stabilization on Algonquin Island was completed as part of
the 1994-95 Toronto Islands erosion control project and this will be reviewed and modified as
required based on input from City of Toronto staff and the community Staff will retain the
services of consultants to assist in developing options and completing a final design for
remedial measures for approximately 100 to 150 metres of shoreline on Algonquin Island and
up to approximately 300 metres of shoreline on Snake Island Implementation of the work
along Algonquin Island is scheduled to commence this year
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Preliminary cost estimates are $75,000 for work on Algonquin Island and $200,000 to $300,000
for work on Snake Island but may change subject to the final design
149
The total budget for 2000 is $105,000 to complete the designs and implement remedial
measures for the Algonquin Island shoreline. Funds are available in Account No 151 - 01
The work will be carried out under the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration
Project 1997-2001"
For Information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 5245
Date. October 11, 2000
Attachments: 1
150
-
l>
I>>
(')
::r
3
ft)
::I
Toronto Bay ....
....
LIMITS OF "...~~~
STUDY
f
...L
(J1
...L
~'O-{\o.
\S
:(\\~e
Ce
TORONTO ISLANDS EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Algonquin and Snake Islands
RES.#D45/00 - NATURAL HERITAGE LANDS PROTECTION AND ACQUISITION
PROJECT 2001-2005
CFN31104 Approval of the five year Natural Heritage Lands Protection
and Acquisition Project 2001-2005
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Natural Heritage Lands
Protection and Acquisition Project 2001-2005 be approved,
THAT the Minister of Natural Resources be requested to approve the project as required
by Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act;
THAT staff be directed to approach the funding sources outlining in the project for
funding of the project;
THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take the necessary action to
implement the project, including obtaining needed approvals and the execution of any
documents;
AND FURTHER THAT this project form the basis for discussion with the Regions of Peel,
York and Durham and the other Conservation Authorities within the GTA with respect to
any joint acquisition projects which may be developed.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The current Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996-2000 expires at the end of
2000 To continue to meet the Authority's land acquisition objectives, a further five year project
is proposed generally on the same basis as the current project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of the five year project is $20,000,000, to be budged at $4,000,000, per year for
five years It is proposed that staff approach the following sources to fund this project
. Municipal Funding Partners i e. City of Toronto, Regional Municipalities of York, Peel and
Durham and the Townships of Adjala-Tosoronto and Mono,
. Provincial Government,
. Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto i e donations,
. Local Municipalities,
. Land Sale Revenue,
. Federal Government.
The availability of funding from these sources will determine the actual annual expenditure on
land acquisition
Report Prepared by' Mike Fenning, extension 5223
For information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245 or Mike Fenning, extension 5223
Date. October 06, 2000
152
RES.#D46/00 - SANDHILL AGGREGATE LIMITED
TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE
REGION OF DURHAM
Ontario Municipal Board Referrals Authorization for party status before
the Ontario Municipal Board on referrals related to amendments to the
Region of Durham and the Township of Uxbridge Official Plans and
zoning by-law amendments by Sandhill Aggregate Limited
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT party status before the Ontario
Municipal Board on referrals made by Sandhill Aggregates Limited related to Official
Plan Amendments and zoning by-law amendments, in the Township of Uxbridge, Region
of Durham, be authorized,
THAT staff continue to work closely with our municipal partners by providing technical
assistance in order to ensure that the natural resource features and functions associated
with the designated Major Open Space area and the Oak Ridges Moraine are protected
for the long term.
THAT staff report back to the Authority on the status of the discussions and seek further
direction following additional prehearing conferences when the parties to the hearing
and related issues have been identified and better understood and whether party status
needs to be maintained as well as how/if legal representation is required.
AND FURTHER THAT the Region of Durham and the Township of Uxbridge be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Planning
Sandhill Aggregates Limited(Sandhill) owns 185 hectares of land, legally described as Part of
Lots 16,17 and 18, Concession 4, Township of Uxbridge, located south west of Highway 47
and Brock Road, near the hamlet of Coppin's Corners An active aggregate extraction
operation, the Coppin's Pit, is currently being undertaken on 145 of the 185 hectares, where a
large open pit has been created over the years An additional 40 hectares is identified as
forming part of the amendment area which is currently owned by other landowners See
attached map
The proposal by Sandhill, is to wind down the aggregate extraction operation and develop an
18 hole golf course facility and driving range, 750 unit residential component with some
convenience commercial uses to be serviced by communal water and sewer systems An
additional 250 units may be proposed for the additional 40 hectares of land currently owned by
others
The site is currently designated in the Durham Official Plan as "Major Open Space - Oak
Ridges Moraine and Resource Extraction" The site is zoned "Industrial, Rural and Extractive
Industrial", permitting a limited range of uses The Township of Uxbridge 's Official Plan
generally relies on the Regional Official Plan to establish land use designations and policies for
lands outside urban areas
153
Site Environment
The subject site is partially located within the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and
partially located within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (surface) Watershed
jurisdiction and is entirely located on the Oak Ridges Moraine From a hydrogeological
perspective, the proponents have identified the site as an area of highly permeable soils that
represent a groundwater recharge area to the Upper and Intermediate Aquifer Systems of the
Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer Complex. The site is 90% internally drained, (therefore no natural
surface watercourse outlet), where the groundwater contribution provides baseflow to the
Duffins Creek. Staff regard the site as performing an important recharge function within the
Duffins Creek watershed that must be protected for the long term. Therefore, although
groundwater beneath the site has been identified to flow in a southerly direction, there may be,
water resource and/or terrestrial linkages to the Pefferlaw Brook Watershed located within the
LSRCA jurisdiction that also must be considered
Further, the site contains a large tableland forest block that is of sufficient size and form to
provide a significant habitat function The forest block contains forest breeding bird species
that are regionally rare and are of conservation concern The subject site is located within the
"Pefferlaw Infiltration Area Environmentally Sensitive Area" within the LSRCA area of jurisdiction
In addition, the site is not regulated in accordance with Ontario Regulation 158 The TRCA is a
major landowner of naturally forested lands with the Township of Uxbridge in close proximity to
the location of this application Staff are presently undertaking the "Glen Major Complex
Management Plan" in order to determine appropriate management of the natural resources
contained within our ownership and as it relates to adjacent lands
The Appeal
On December 1, 1999, Region of Durham Council adopted Amendment No 60 to the Official
Plan which provides for limited use of communal servicing systems in order to resolve existing
health related or faulty septic or sewage management systems OPA 60 did not allow for
communal servicing systems as options for new site specific development applications outside
of settled communities
On that basis, Sandhill and two additional landowners appealed OPA 60 to the Ontario
Municipal Board given the amendment would not permit site specific application of communal
systems to facilitate new development. The other two landowners are Cherry Downs, a
golfcourse and residential proposal in Pickering and Cougs Investments, a residential proposal
adjacent to an existing golfcourse in Ajax.
In addition, Sandhill made application to amend the Region of Durham and Township of
Uxbridge Official Plans and the Uxbridge zoning by-law in May, 1999 in order to allow for an 18
hole golf course and a residential community of some 750 units to be serviced by communal
systems
In addition to that component of OPA 60 appealed, Sandhill appealed their private Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board in February 2000 given the
Region had not considered their amendment within the required timeframe
154
On February 14, 2000, The Township of Uxbridge passed a resolution which did does not
support the current application to amend the Durham Official Plan and refused the application
to amend the Township's Zoning By-law
On May 3, 2000, Durham Regional Council also refused the Official Plan Amendment based on
the staff report that the Sandhill application at the scale and size proposed, was contrary to
policies governing growth and settlement with regard to hamlet expansion, was contrary to
Council adopted requirements for limiting the use of communal systems in rural areas, and
could have significant environmental impacts without the completion of a peer review of the
technical reports
The Ontario Municipal Board held a prehearing conference on August 29, 2000 to consider the
appeals made by Sandhill However, motions were made by the Region of Durham and
another party requesting the consolidation of Sandhill and its related appeals with the Gan
Eden appeal presently being considered by the Ontario Municipal Board, in the Township of
Uxbridge. The hearing date for the Gan Eden appeal has not yet been finalized, however
motions for consolidation were made because the two applications entailed similar planning
matters, were in close proximity to one another, and the evidence and witnesses to be
provided were all similar
The Board reserved decision on jurisdiction and motions for consolidations of appeals A
Board decision is expected at the end of October and matters resulting from that decision are
to be presented at another prehearing conference scheduled for November 1, 2000, for 2 days
Issues Lists and requests for status before the Board will also be heard at that time.
Rationale
Authority staff recognize the importance of the Moraine functions and the necessity to maintain
and protect existing groundwater resource functions as it relates to the supply of baseflow to
the surface watercourse features and as a source of water for maintaining the existing
characteristics and functions of the natural heritage features
Through the Region of Durham, Authority staff were circulated technical reports prepared by
consultants for the proponents Staff have undertaken a review with regard to the maintenance
of natural heritage features and functions
The proposal by the proponents is to capture stormwater runoff in stormwater management
facilities, direct that water to the communal servicing system where treated water would then be
used to irrigate the golf course and recharge the groundwater aquifer system resulting in the
maintenance of baseflow and supply to terrestrial features Through Durham Official Plan
policies, a peer review is to be undertaken in accordance with an approved terms of reference,
at the expense of the proponents We have been notified by the Region of Durham that the
proponents are not complying with this requirement. Staff were relying on supplementing our
internal review of the natural heritage features and functions with the water related issues being
addressed through the peer review The water resource related review has not been
completed to date We advise, however, that Authority staff have hired a hydrogeological
consultant to provide a peer review to assist authority staff review and address existing
hydrogeological conditions and the maintenance of the related functions
155
Staff find the reports provided are preliminary in nature and defer details to later stages of the
planning process Staff identify that the feasibility of the proposed development must be based
on comprehensive growth and settlement planning and comprehensive consideration of
environmental impacts on major open spaces and the Oak Ridges Moraine
At this time, Authority staff cannot confirm whether existing environmental conditions can be
maintained as a result of this proposed development, outside a settled community, as they
relate to surface and ground water quality and quantity within the appropriate watershed
divide(s), long term maintenance of the natural heritage features and functions, long term
cumulative impacts associated with downstream flooding and erosion
Therefore staff are recommending that we support the Region and the Township in providing
technical expertise to our municipal partners As well, until we can fully appreciate whether
natural resource features and functions can be maintained, we are recommending party status
be requested before the Ontario Municipal Board in order that we maintain our full participation
in the planning process until further details are finalized and/or all of our issues can be
addressed
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Details as to the length of this hearing and whether or not it is to be consolidated with the Gan
Eden hearing are not available. We have estimated, on a preliminary basis, that this Hearing
will be in order of $200,000 We are requesting through the budgeting process that Durham
support funding of our participation in the hearing In addition the Authority has made a
specific request to the City of Toronto for funding to support costs of this hearing
Report prepared by' Janet Foster, extension 5282
Date. September 13, 2000
Attachments: 1
156
Attachment 1
I .......,'...\,.1
Attachment: 1
LOCATION SKETCH
File: OPA 99-007
Municipality: TOWNSHIP OF
J.mml UXBRIDGE
,. VEGETATION
lIB HAMLer
AREA SUBJECT TO OPA '99&-002
UCENSED PITS
~ ~
.5>> - ~
\1' ~ ...
- ... ... ....fb - -
~ \~ .~ ...
~tk- - . I\: I/'~ . ... ...-
,. .~,. , .' -
RES.#D47/00 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #3/00 held on July 18, 2000 The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting#3/00, held on July 18, 2000, are provided
for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meeting #3/00, held on July 18,2000, 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 5211
Date September 11, 2000
RES.#D48/00 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #7/00 The minutes of Etobicoke and Mimico Creek
Watersheds Task Force meeting#7/00 held on July 27, 2000, are
provided for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting #7/00, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Strategy, dated
June, 1999, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #6/99 held on June 25, 1999 by
Resolution #A 166/99, includes the following provision
158
Section 6.1 (cl 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: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date September 11, 2000
RES.#D49/00 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #6/00, August 22, 2000 The minutes of Meeting
#6/00 held on August 22, 2000 of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council is provided for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #6/00 held August 22,2000 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 5238
Date. October 12, 2000
RES.#D50/00 - DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES
Minutes of Meeting #2/00 The minutes of Duffins and Carruthers Creek
Watershed Task Forces meeting#2/00 held on September 20, 2000, are
provided for information
Moved by Cliff Gyles
Seconded by Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meeting #2/00, as appended, be received
CARRIED
159
BACKGROUND
The Draft membership selection, work plan, reporting procedures and Terms of Reference for
the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces, dated October 1999, and adopted
by the Authority at meeting #11/99 held on November 26, 1999 by Resolution #A298/99,
includes the following provision
Section 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
Report prepared by' Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
For information contact. Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date October 06, 2000
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 06 a., , on October 20,2000
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
160
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/00
December 15, 2000
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #6/00, was held in the Humber
Room, Head Office, on Friday, December 15, 2000 The Chair Lorna Bissell, called the
meeting to order at 10040 a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon Member
Milton Berger Member
Lorna Bissell Chair
IIa Bossons Member
Irene Jones Member
Jim McMaster Member
Pam McConnell Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Bill Saundercook Member
REGRETS
Cliff Gyles Member
Mike Tzekas Member
RES.#D51/00 - MINUTES
Moved by Dick O'Brien
Seconded by Irene Jones
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/00, held on October 20,2000 be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) A delegation by Madeline McDowell, Humber Heritage Committee, speaking in regards
to the Humber Heritage Day
161
RES.#D52/00 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by Dick O'Brien
Seconded by Irene Jones
THAT above-noted delegation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist, TRCA, on a Decade of
Regeneration, Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
RES.#D53/00 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by Dick O'Brien
Seconded by Bill Saundercook
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received,
AND FURTHER THAT the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be thanked for their recognition
of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and its work on the Waterfront.
CARRIED
.
162
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D54/00 - REVISION TO CLAIREVILLE DAM OPERATIONS
Revising the operational procedures of the Claireville reservoir to allow
for the development of enhanced ecological conditions within the
reservoir
Moved by Irene Jones
Seconded by' Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the operational procedures for
the Claireville Dam and Reservoir be revised by maintaining the water levels at their
summer levels on an annual basis,
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back on the progress of the restoration
work and the level of environmental benefits related to the wetland creation.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Claireville Dam and Reservoir was constructed in 1962/63 as part of the Authority's" 959
Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation" The reservoir was originally designed to
provide both flood protection along the West Humber River and provide recreational
opportunities within the Claireville Conservation Area. The dam was designed with five main
control gates, with four of the gates having their bottom or sill located at an elevation of
163 07m (535 feet above sea level) and one gate, the centre one having its sill designed at
164.29m (539 feet) above sea level
The difference in gate sill elevations was to allow for two reservoir levels in the operational
rules The lower level was designated as its winter holding level and the upper level
designated as the summer level The difference in levels allowed for additional storage for
spring time runoff events and a separate operational procedure exists for this condition The
upper level basically allowed for a higher summer time level to promote recreational
opportunities A second set of operational procedures was developed to deal with the types of
floods experienced during the late spring, summer and early fall periods when this level was in
effect.
The operational rules for .he Claireville Dam and Reservoir also looked at Hurricane Hazel
conditions in defining the operational procedures This condition is reflected within the rainfall
operational rules, which are set using the higher summer levels
Over the last few decades, diminishing water quality within the West Humber River has led to
discontinuing the direct water related recreational activities within the reservoir, which have
been replaced to some degree by the Water Theme Park. While the quality of the reservoir
waters may have restricted human contact, the ecological system has continued to survive and
in fact flourish to some degree. The reservoir still provides an important fishery within the area,
and wetlands have developed along the fringes of the reservoir providing habitats for birds,
amphibians and fish
163
The current operational procedures employed at the reservoir call for the water levels to be
lowered late each fall to the winter holding level and raised in late spring to the summer level
It is anticipated that this lowering and raising of water levels has limited the potential for the
wetland ecosystem features and fish populations within the area to reach their potential
In order to determine the impact that a change in operational procedure may have upon flood
control operations, the firm of Aquafor Beech Ltd was hired to review the impacts of such a
change on the reservoir and downstream reach This firm had recently undertaken a similar
exercise on the reservoir as part of the West Humber Sub-watershed study work. The
consultant undertook a review of the operational impacts of the removal of approximately
1.22m of flood storage to define the impacts within the reservoir and downstream at the first
flood site at Albion Road The results of this analysis were that some moderate changes in
terms of elevated water levels within the reservoir occurred, none which would create any
significant operational impacts to the dam or surrounding properties such as the Water Theme
Park Downstream of the reservoir at the flood site at Albion Road, the analysis indicated that
the loss of the flood storage had some minor impact on flood levels within the West Humber
River at the Albion Road flood site. The maximum projected impact is in the range of 6-8 em,
which takes place at return frequency flows below the level at which flooding at the
downstream flood vulnerable site begins These impacts are within the limits of error of the
hydraulic models used to determine flood levels and result in no measurable change in the
frequency or flooding depths at these structures This projected minor change in flood levels
are restricted to operations which occur over the winter/spring period Reservoir operations at
all other times are undertaken with the summer level in effect. No impact will occur related to
the Regulatory flood used to define the floodplain
RATIONALE
Given the conservative nature of the analysis related to hydraulic impacts to the nearest flood
vulnerable sites and the -;rnalllevel of potential increase in flood risk versus the potential
environmental benefits within the reservoir, it would appear that the benefits to the Humber
River watershed as a whole would outweigh any minor flooding impacts As such a change in
winter operations through maintaining a higher water level would be in the best interests of
promoting a healthy Humber watershed
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Monitor the reservoir to determine the response of the wetland habitat and fish populations
following the stabilization of the reservoir water levels
For Information contact: Donald Haley, extension 5226
Date November 30, 2000
RES.#D55/00 - CANADIAN MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Historic Humber River Project Update on the implementation of the
Historic Humber River Project - a project financially supported by the
Canada Millennium Partnership Program
164
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Historic
Humber River Millennium Project be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On October 25,1999, the Humber Watershed Alliance received confirmation of $400,800 in
funding from the Canada Millennium Partnership Program for the implementation of the Historic
Humber River Project. Specific project locations are summarized below'
City of Toronto Lower Humber Subwatershed - Etienne Brule Park
City of Vaughan William Granger Greenway
City of Brampton Claireville Conservation Area
T own of Caledon Palgrave and Bolton Community Action Sites
Town of Richmond HiP Lake Wilcox Community Action Site
The five activities planned for the sites include
1 Environmental enhancements such as wetland creation and reforestation
2. Instream barrier modification to facilitate fish migration
3 Pedestrian trail construction
4 Interpretive plaques and trailway finding discs
5 Community celebrations to raise awareness about watershed management.
Work that has been completed to date at each of the project locations is as follows
Lower Humber Subwatershed
Celebration of the Canadian Heritage River Designation In Toronto at Etienne Brule Park, on
September 24, 1999, the Humber River was officially designated a Canadian Heritage River
Approximately 550 people attended this event.
Discovery Walks. Discovery Walks are self guided tours which link parks, ravines, gardens,
beaches, and neighbourhoods On September 24, 2000, the first Humber Discovery Walk was
officially launched 40 people attended the ceremony and went on the inaugural walk which
follows a diverse route from Bloor Street to the Queensway and back. Humber Watershed
Alliance members compl",.ted the research and prepared the text and maps Toronto prepared
the final signs and brochures The Alliance has initiated the preparation of a second Discovery
Walk from Bloor Street to Dundas Street.
May 7, 2000 Humber Heritage Day/Paddle the Humber / Celebrating the permanent installation
of the CHRS plaque at Etienne Brule Park: In celebration of the historical significance of the
,Humber River, over 200 people witnessed the unveiling of the Historic Humber River
Monument.
165
Humber Fall Fair and Triathlon Hustle up the Humber! On October 14th, 2000, 14 teams of 6
people participated in paddling, peddling, and running eight kilometres along the Humber
River to raise awareness about the recreational, and natural and human heritage values of the
Humber River Three Humber Heritage Murals were also unveiled which depict the heritage
and recreational values t lat exist within the Humber River watershed
William Granger Greenway
3 9 km of interregional trail with trailhead signs and two pedestrian bridges has been
constructed between the Canadian McMichael Art Gallery and Rutherford Road On October
21 st, 2000, an interpretive hike took place with 40 members of the local community
Claireville Conservation Area
1 4 hectares of small interconnected pocket wetlands were constructed and planted with native
emergent aquatic vegetation, such as soft stem bulrush, arrowhead, and hard stem bulrush,
and native riparian trees and shrubs Two boardwalks were constructed by students at the
Albion Hills Field Centre to facilitate access to the wetlands Forest plantings have been
undertaken with local community groups and the public in the Spring and Fall of 2000
Approximately 150 people participated A primitive hiking trail has been established and
trailhead signs installed
On October 15, 2000, the historic Wileys Bridge was rededicated on the anniversary of
Hurricane Hazel
Displays, demonstrations, hikes and wagon rides were offered to the 100 people who
attended Greetings V'v,:='P' provided by federal and municipal representatives and members of
local community groups
Palgrave Community Action Site
Actions completed to date include deepening of the mill pond, design and partial construction
of the fishway, construction of 1 8 km of trails, and the installation of the human heritage
monument/plaque. The fishway will be completed by the end of December, 2000
A community ceremony was held at the site on October 28th, hosted by the Authority and the
Palgrave Community Action Site Committee A heritage plaque commemorating the historical
mill that was originally on the site was unveiled and the project declared open Approximately
80 people attended, and helped to release Atlantic Salmon and brown trout into the river
Federal, provincial and municipal representatives provided remarks as did members of the
local community
Bolton Community Action Site
The modification of the McFall Dam to allow for fish passage has been completed The official
ceremony was held on October 1 , 2000 The site was opened by releasing brown trout into the
river Displays, demonstrations and tree planting occurred followed by greetings from special
guests including representatives from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments and
the Bolton Community J.~l. tlon Site Steering Committee About 200 people attended from the
local community
166
Lake Wilcox Community Action Site
Celebrations Two Lake Wilcox Fun Day events have been held at Sunset Beach Park to
celebrate Lake Wilcox and raise awareness about the local environment. Each year
approximately 300 people attended the events
Displays were provided by a number of groups Demonstrations were provided by TRCA water
monitoring and archaeological staff People built bird nesting boxes Nature hikes were led by
staff for interested visitors Greetings were provided by federal, provincial and municipal
elected representatives
Shoreline Naturalization at Jessie Vanek Park, Lake WilcoX' Shoreline naturalization in the form
of planting trees and shrubs along the shore of Lake Wilcox was initiated at the Lake Wilcox
Fun Day 2000 event. Members of the community planted 20 native shrubs, consisting of' 5
grey dogwood, 5 silky dogwood, 5 sand cherry, and 5 nanny berry
Other Project Components.
Other components of the project that were included in the original project proposal, dated
October 1998, and were completed before the June 1, 1999 start date are the retrofits of the
Old Mill, Eglinton Avenue, and Fundale Park fish barriers to allow for the passage of migratory
fish
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Claireville Wetland Phase /I Construction of a berm and installation of the water level
control structure. These will be completed by December, 2000
. Palgrave. Complete the fishway
. Discovery Walk #2 Work to be done includes the submission of the draft trail guide to the
City of Toronto for production, and the construction and installation of the trail signs The
launch of Discovery Walk #2 will take place by March 31 st, 2001
. Art Show' Preparations for the first Humber Watershed Art Exhibition are well on their way
Work completed to date includes determining the location of the art show and inviting
artists to submit their work for consideration by a panel of jurors The art show is
scheduled to open in May, 2001 at the McNair Gallery at Black Creek Pioneer Village
Artists have been invited to submit pieces of work in the categories of photography,
paintings, sculptures, drawings and mixed media.
. Millennium Partnersh,p Program Prepare a final report to the Federal Millennium
Partnership Program detailing the accomplishments, expenditures and other partners
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Canada Millennium Partnership Program has generously contributed $400,800 to the
Historic Humber River Project. This federal contribution is for the period of June 1, 1999 to
March 31,2001, and is being matched from organizations such as York Region, City of
Vaughan, Town of Caledon, Ontario Trillium Foundation, Peel Region, Ministry of Natural
Resources, City of Toronto, Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation, the
Palgrave Rotary Club, Ontario 2000 and many other private contributors
Report prepared by Kriston Geater, extension 5315
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date November 30, 2000
167
RES.#D56/00 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance 2001-2003.
Approval of the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance
2001-2003
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference for the
Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December, 2000, as appended, be approved;
THAT the local and regional municipalities in the Humber watershed be requested to
appoint one municipal council member to the Humber Watershed Alliance,
THAT the West, North, and Southwest Community Councils be requested to appoint
representatives to the Humber Watershed Alliance,
THAT the municipalities be requested to appoint staff liaisons from appropriate
departments,
THAT applications be requested from the Humber watershed residents by February 15,
2001,
THAT other agencies and groups, as identified in the Terms of Refl2rence, be requested
to appoint members and alternates by February 15, 2001,
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership,
including the Authority member, for formal approval,
AND FURTHER THAT all the members of the first Humber Watershed Alliance be thanked
for their substantial contributions over the past three years.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1997, the Authority approved "Legacy' A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" and
':4 Call to Action - Implementing Legacy' A Strategy for a Healthy Humber"
Objective 25 of Legacy states
"Create a Humber Watershed Alliance to facilitate implementation of the Humber
Watershed Strategy
Model the Alliance after the Humber Watershed Task Force, with representation from
residents, interest groups, agencies and elected officials"
In December, 1997, the hlthority adopted resolution #A98/97 establishing the goals,
membership, organizati01"l and terms of reference for the first Humber Watershed Alliance.
During the first term of the Alliance, significant accomplishments were made including
168
. the designation of the Humber as a Canadian Heritage River;
. the development of the first Report Card which examines the health of the Humber River;
. the construction of fishways to restore migratory fish populations,
. the construction of pedestrian trails and bridges,
. habitat restoration including reforestation and wetland creation,
. community events to provide education and recreation opportunities,
. planning for an art exhibition to celebrate the values of the Humber River;
. nature and heritage hikes,
. submissions to the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes Water Quality with
the Don Council,
. contribution to submissions to other planning efforts including the City of Toronto's Official
Plan process,
. application for and receipt of funds from a number of sponsors
RATIONALE
The development of the Terms of Reference for the second Humber Watershed Alliance
contains a number of changes that.
. reflect new program directions of the TRCA,
. reflect the recent launch of the Living City Campaign by the Conservation Foundation of the
Greater Toronto Area,
. address practical process considerations recognizing the need to allow the Humber
Watershed Alliance membership flexibility to develop work plans and subcommittees that
will provide the most effective use of volunteer and agency time while addressing the
identified goals and objectives,
. are consistent with the Terms of Reference of the Don Watershed Council to the extent
feasible, recognizing the unique character and issues of each watershed,
. provide for the addition of representatives from the business and academic communities to
strengthen these community links, and
. strengthen the inter-watershed linkages both for community members and agency and
technical staff
These changes are made to assist the Humber Watershed Alliance and the TRCA by
increasing the capacity of the Alliance to address watershed issues
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Advertisements will be placed in local newspapers identifying the application process for
prospective members One information meeting will be held at the end of January to provide
an overview of the goals of the Humber Watershed Alliance and to answer questions of
persons interested in applying Notice will also be enclosed in the forthcoming "Humber
Advocate" newsletter
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The Humber Watershed Alliance will benefit the TRCA by assisting with the following actions
. maintaining and enhancing contacts within the community regarding watershed
management issues,
. building capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management products
and services,
169
. advocating the values of the Humber River watershed,
. providing a frameworK for meaningful community involvement in watershed management;
. acting as a united vOice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial and
federal governments
. providing leadership In watershed management,
. contributing a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities,
. supporting the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of the Living
City Campaign
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The development and implementation support of watershed strategies is a core deliverable of
the TRCA. Funding support is available, in part, from the Conservation Foundation through the
Living City Campaign Staff and the Alliance members will seek additional funds from external
sources to support the work of the Humber Watershed Alliance.
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date. December 05, 2000
Attachments. 1
170
Attachment 1
THE HUMBER WA TERSHED ALLIANCE
2001 - 2003
Terms of Reference
Goals, Membership and Organization
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
December, 2000
171
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
~OALS, MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
The Authority, at its meeting #4/97, held on May 30, 1997, approved the following resolution
RES. #A98/97- HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Adoption of the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed
Alliance (WMAB Res #D39/97)
"THAT the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997,
as in WMAB Res #D39/97, be adopted,
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take all actions necessary to establish the
Humber Watershed Alliance in time for the first meeting to occur in October, 1997"
2.0 GOALS
The goals of the Humber Watershed Alliance are to protect, restore and celebrate the
Humber watershed a, ~, more specifically, to assist the Authority, the Conservation
Foundation of Greater r0ronto, other agencies, and the public
I) with the implementation of the Humber Watershed Task Force's report, "Legacy.
A Strategy for a Healthy Humber"
ii) in the implementation of the recommendations of the Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices
Recommendations for Action" as they pertain to the Humber watershed, and,
Hi) in the implementation of the actions required to address the targets identified in
the document, "A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River"
3.0 HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP
3 1 The Humber Watershed Alliance shall consist of approximately 60 members including
TRCA
. the Chair of the Authority or other Authority member;
Reoional and L09Cl.l Municipalities
. one Council n .ember from each of the regional and local municipalities in the
Humber watershed,
172
Regional Municipality of York
Regional Municipality of Peel
Town of Richmond Hill
City of Vaughan
Township of King
Town of Aurora
City of Mississauga
City of Brampton
T own of Caledon
Township of Mono
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Community Councils
. one councillor representing three of the City of Toronto's Community Councils
which have the Humber watershed within its boundaries
We.c:t Community Council
North Community Council
Southwest Community Council
Residents
. Twenty five watershed residents
Community Groups
. one representative and alternate from each of the following community groups
which have a specific interest in the Humber watershed
Action to Restore a Clean Humber;
Humber Heritage Committee,
Save the Oak Ridges Moraine,
Ontario Streams,
Black Creek Project;
Two others to be confirmed
Other Public Agencies
. one represer1-1i.ive and alternate from each of the following groups which have a
specific interest in the Humber watershed
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Humber Watershed Businesses/Business Orqanizations
. three persons representing businesses and/or business organizations Interested in
corporate environmental stewardship and the economic vitality of the region
173
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
. one person representing the Humber River Partner initiative as designated under the
Living City Campaign
Academic Institutions
. three persons drawn from the university, college, public/catholic/private school
systems interested in watershed management, restoration, research, and in
integrating sustainability issues into watershed applications and/or curriculum.
3.2 Appointment of Municipal Representatives
32.1 Local and Regional Municipality Representatives
The local and regional municipalities will be requested by the Authority to
confirm the participation of a council member to the Humber Watershed
Alliance. A municipality may appoint a current Authority member The
appointed members should represent an electoral ward within the
Humber watershed
3.2.2 City of Toronto Community Council Representatives
Within the City of Toronto, the individual community councils will be
requested to appoint members of Council
33 Appointment of Watershed Residents, Business Members and Academic
Institution :ispresentatives
Applications from watershed residents, businesses and academic institutions
will be solicited through announcements in the Humber Advocate newsletter,
local newspapers, and through press releases. A committee of three persons,
comprised of one member of the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory
Board, a TRCA member of senior staff and the Humber Watershed Specialist
will recommend appointments to the Humber Watershed Alliance. This
selection will take into consideration the following
. demonstrated interest in the watershed/community,
. willingness of the applicant to meet the potential time and work
commitments,
. geographical representation of the watershed,
. professional expertise, and/or knowledge of the watershed in any
area which would assist in the implementation of assigned tasks
34 Appointment of Community Group Representatives
Selected community groups will be requested by the Authority to appoint a
represent[' -ive and an alternate to the Humber Watershed Alliance. Alternate
members Will have voting privileges on all matters of business
174
3.5 Appointment of Other Public Aqency Representatives
Selected federal and provincial agencies will be requested by the Authority to
appoint a senior employee and an alternate to the Humber Watershed Alliance.
Alternate members will have voting privileges on all matters of business
36 Term of Appointment
Municipalities and other public agencies will be requested to appoint their
representatives for the three-year period coincident with the three-year term of
municipal councillors All other members will be appointed for a two-year period
with the provision for a one-year renewal without reapplication Membership will
be reviewed on an annual basis Members unable to fulfill their commitments
will be replaced normally at that time by the TRCA based on the nominees
recommended by Authority members, other Humber Watershed Alliance
members and TRCA senior staff
Resignations may be filled by the Authority, as required, on the recommendation
of the selection committee as described in Item 3 1 3 above.
37 Attendance and Effort of Humber Watershed Alliance Members at Meetings
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis all Watershed Alliance
meetings
Members will contribute actively to the work of the Alliance, prepare effectively
for and participate in at least one working committee
Municipal councillors will be requested to assist in developing an effective
communication strategy to ensure their involvement in the Alliance while
recognizing their time commitment within their own municipalities
It is anticipated that evening meetings will be held once per month Additional
working groups may be required to deal with specific issues from time to time
Additional 'neeting time will be required in these cases Members unable to
fulfill this commitment will be replaced after missing three consecutive meetings
to ensure broad and effective representation on watershed issues
38 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed Alliance
The Chair and Vice-Chair will be elected by the Watershed Alliance from
amongst its members The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such
time that an election can take place. The Chair and Vice-Chair will also be
ex-officio members of all working committees
175
39 Reporting rlelationship
The HUrnb:'r Watershed Alliance is considered a subcommittee of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board The Watershed Alliance Chair will
report, at least, on a semi-annual basis on projects and progress Annual work
plans will be developed and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of
each year
The Humber Watershed Alliance is not a formal commenting body, Authority
staff will advise the Watershed Alliance of Authority projects being planned or
undertaken within the Humber watershed and of major planning initiatives or
projects of others where the Authority may be a commenting or permitting body
The Humber Watershed Alliance may provide comments or other information for
the consideration of staff and the Authority On a project or application specific
basis the Authority or Authority staff may request comment by the Watershed
Alliance. These comments will be provided or sought within the time frame
necessary to maintain the Authority's service delivery standards
4.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
4 1 Authority Support
The Autho, ity will provide staff support for the Humber Watershed Alliance,
including technical project support and community outreach, based on available
funding, and on a work plan developed by the Humber Watershed Alliance and
approved by the Authority
Subject to available funding, the staff secretariat will include
Humber Watershed Specialist
Humber Watershed Projects Coordinator
Humber Watershed Resource Technician
Technical Support Staff
Secretary (part time)
The Humber Watershed Alliance, and its working committees, will otherwise
strive to be self-sufficient in achieving their goals
From time to time, the assistance of additional TRCA staff may be required on a
project specific basis Provision of such assistance will be determined when a
project plar is completed by either the Humber Watershed Alliance or a working
committee, and approved by the TRCA's Director of Watershed Management.
The project plan will clearly identify membership requirements, including TRCA
staff, Humber Alliance members and associate members The project plan will
also identify expectations of the members' responsibilities, time commitment
and project funding availability and allotment.
176
42 Aqency Staff Liaison
Each municipality within the Humber watershed will be requested to designate a
staff liaison to the Humber Watershed Alliance from an appropriate department.
Within the new City of Toronto, staff liaisons will be requested from the
departments that have direct responsibilities for open space, environmental
planning and operations These staff will be invited to all meetings and may
wish to join specific working committees Annually, a separate meeting/forum
will be held to share information on Humber Watershed plans underway,
regeneration activities carried out directly by municipalities and to ensure
on-going 1i3ison with appropriate departments
43 Working Committees
The Humber Watershed Alliance will undertake its work through the active
involvement of its members on at least one committee.
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete.
New committees will be struck to deal with specific implementation items as
determined by the Humber Watershed Alliance This information will be
communicated to the Authority at least twice annually
Smaller committees can be added for specific projects but the Watershed
Alliance will generally be limited to 5 active/standing committees at anyone
time. This will ensure the necessary focus and effort required, while serving to
limit, to a reasonable level, the demands on the Watershed Alliance members
and staff of the Authority and other agencies
431 Committee Membership and Associate Watershed Alliance Members
The Humber Watershed Alliance committee members will enlist the
assistance of others interested in actively giving ot their time and talents
to the protection, restoration and celebration of the watershed
Ad Jrtional committee members will also be recruited from federal,
provincial, regional and local agencies These persons will be appointed
as "associate" Humber Watershed Alliance members by the Watershed
Alliance upon recommendation of the working committees Associate
members are not required to be residents of the watershed Associate
members are welcome and encouraged to attend all Watershed Alliance
meetings and participate at the discretion of the Watershed Alliance
Chair during committee reports and at other times, as appropriate.
4 3.2 Committee Chair
The Chair of each committee will be a Watershed Alliance member The
Chairs will be responsible for addressing and implementing the Terms of
Reference and reporting to the Watershed Alliance on a regular basis
177
433 Terms of Reference for Working Committees
Terms of Reference will be developed and approved by the Watershed
Alliance for each committee established Authority staff will work with the
mE:.,Tlbers of the Humber Watershed Alliance to establish the Terms of
Reference for each working committee
434 Work Plans
The committees will develop annual work plans These work plans will
contain resource plans required to support the proposed activities based
on the Terms of Reference.
44 Other Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities of working committees
based on approved work plans and available Authority funding Working
committee members are encouraged to secure other resources and
partnerships for Watershed Alliance projects and activities, whenever possible.
In-kind or other support for projects and activities will be welcome from
businesses, industries, other government agencies, private foundations,
educational institutions and others in accordance with TRCA policies All in-kind
or other support will be coordinated with or through the ~onservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto
5.0 COMPENSATION OF WATERSHED ALLIANCE MEMBERS
At regular Humber Watershed Alliance meetings, as well as working committee meetings,
members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority policy Associate
members of working committees are also eligible for travel expenses, where these are not
covered by their agency
6.0 RULES OF CONDUCT
The Humber Watershed Alliance will adhere to the TRCA's Rules of Conduct, Policies and
Procedures, as adopted by Resolution #3 of Authority meeting #2/86, or as may be
amended A quorum will consist of a majority of the members of the Humber Watershed
Alliance.
7.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
The Humber Watershed Alliance shall undertake the following responsibilities
. initiate and recomr.lend to the Authority and other partners, projects and activities in
consultation with the local and regional municipalities, Toronto and Region Remedial
Action Plan, and otllF.:r watershed stakeholders that will lead to the realization of the
vision for the Humber and implement Legacy' A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and
targets established in "A Report Card on the Health of the Humber River"
178
. adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management that recognizes the
interrelationship between culture, heritage, physical characteristics, biological conditions
and economic needs, and the integration of conservation, restoration and economic
activities necessary for the health of the watershed,
. act as the Humber watershed advocate in large projects that cross municipal boundaries
and support major projects advocated by others which will protect, restore, and celebrate
the Humber;
. maintain and enhance contacts within the community regarding watershed management
issues,
. build capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management products
and services,
. provide a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed management,
. act as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial and
federal governmet,ts,
. provide leadership In watershed management,
. contribute a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities,
. inform watershed communities about watershed management activities through public
meetings, publications, displays, and special events,
. in conjunction with the TRCA and others, host technical forums leading to improvements
in planning and practice, throughout the watershed,
. work collaboratively with TRCA staff, and other watershed/waterfront advisory
committees on issues of common concern,
. continue to promote the Humber Pledge to municipal councils, agencies, businesses,
community organizations and others throughout the watershed,
. develop the second Humber Watershed Report Card scheduled for publication in 2003,
. assist in gaining financial and in-kind resources, and
. support the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of the Living
City Campaign
179
RES.#D57 /00 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIl.
Extension of 2nd Don Watershed Regeneration Council Terms of
FiE €:rence for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council 2001-2003
Approval of the Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council 2001-2003, and the short-term extension of the 2nd Don
Watershed Regeneration Council until the appointment of the 3rd Don
Watershed Council is formed for 2001
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the term of the second Don
Watershed Regeneration Council be extended until March 31, 2001 or until such time as
the new Don Council is appointed,
THAT the Terms of Reference including the membership for the Don Council as set out in
the report dated December 15, 2000, as attached, be approved,
THAT the local municipalities of Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, and the Regional
Municipality of York be requested to appoint one municipal council member to the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council,
THAT the North, MidtcwrI, Downtown and East Community Councils be requested to
appoint representatives to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council,
THAT the municipalities be requested to appoint staff liaisons from appropriate
departments,
THAT applications be requested from the Don watershed community by February 15,
2001,
THAT other agencies and groups, as identified in the Terms of Reference, be requested
to appoint members and alternates by February 15, 2001,
THAT a report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership,
including the Authority member, for formal approval,
AND FURTHER THAT all the members of the second Don Watershed Regeneration
Council be thanked for their substantial contributions over the past three years.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 27, 1994, at Meet,'lg #4/94, the Authority approved in part
Res. #A111/94
"THAT the Don Watershed Task Force report entitled "Forty Steps to a New Don" be received
and endorsed,
180
THA T the staff be directed provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for a Don
Regeneration Council for the Authority's consideration ."
On October 28, 1994, at Meeting #9/94, the Authority approved in part.
Res. #A224/94
"THAT the Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated October 1994, be approved;"
On October 31, 1997, at Meeting #9/97, the Authority approved in part.
Res. #A241/97
"THAT the Terms of Reference including the membership for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council as set out in the report dated October 14, 1997 be approved;"
Since that time, much has been accomplished within the Don watershed Members of the
Don Council have developed the 2nd Don Watershed Report Card, have contributed to
content and upgrade of the quality of the "On the Don" newsletter; have been active advocates
for the protection of the natural areas including the Baker Sugar Bush, have supported and
been actively involved in the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan, have sought improved
environmental education and awareness programs, have made submissions to the
International Joint Commission on Great Lakes Water quality with the Humber Alliance, have
co-ordinated submissions to other planning efforts including the City of Toronto's Official Plan
process, have received financial aid from a number of funds, have supported initial
development of a volunteer monitoring program and numerous other activities The members
truly provide a vital linkage for the TRCA to the local communities
RATIONALE
The term for the second Don Watershed Regeneration Council forma"v expired in November
2000 At this time, there are a number of ongoing initiatives including the development of a
further submission for the City of Toronto Official Plan, involvement in the Wet Weather Flow
Management Plan, the ~.Ia.nning for the Langstaff Ecopark opening in the spring of 2001, and
the Ontario Municipal Board Hearings in Richmond Hill on issues related to future
development on the Oak Ridges Moraine It is recommended that the second Don Council
term be extended until such time as a new Council is formed and confirmed by the TRCA.
The development of the Terms of Reference for the third Don Council contains a number of
changes that.
- reflect new program directions of the TRCA,
- reflect the recent launch of the Living City Campaign by the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto,
- address practical process considerations recognizing the need to allow the Don
Council membership flexibility to develop work plans and establish committees
that will provide the most effective use of volunteer and agency time while
addressing the identified goals and objectives,
181
- are consistent with the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance
to the eX~E nt feasible recognizing the unique character and issues of each
watershed,
- provide for the addition of representatives from the business and academic
communities to strengthen these community links, and,
- strengthen the inter-watershed linkages both for community members and
agency and technical staff
These changes are made to assist the Don Watershed Council and the TRCA by increasing
the capacity of the Council to address watershed issues
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Advertisements will be placed in local newspapers identifying the application process for
prospective members One information meeting will be held at the end of January to provide
an overview of the goals of the Don Council and to answer questions of persons interested in
applying Notice will also be enclosed in the forthcoming "On the Don" newsletter
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The Don Watershed Council will benefit the TRCA by assisting with the following actions
. maintaining and enhancing contacts within the community regarding watershed
management issues
. building capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management
products and services,
. advocating the values for the Don River watershed,
. providing a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed management;
. acting as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial and
federal governments,
. providing leadership in watershed management,
. contributing a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities,
. supporting the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of the Living
City Campaign
182
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The development and implementation support of watershed strategies is a core deliverable of
the TRCA. Funding support is available in part, from the Conservation Foundation through
the Living City Campaign and in particular, the partnership over the next three years with
Unilever Canada. Staff and the Council members will seek additional funds from external
sources to support the work of the Don Watershed Council
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date. December 07, 2000
Attachments. 1
183
Attachment 1
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
2001-2003
TERMS OF REFERENCE
GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, AND ORGANIZATION
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
DECEMBER 2000
-0
theDon
------=--~
--=---=---
184
DON WATERSHED COUNCIL
TERMS OF REFERENCE, GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, AND ORGANIZATION
1.0 AUTHORITY DIRECTION
On May 27, 1994, at M'3eting #4/94, the Authority approved in part.
Res. #A111/94
'THAT the Don Watershed Task Force report entitled "Forty Steps to a New Don" be
received and endorsed,
THA T the staff be directed to provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for
a Don Regeneration Council for the Authority's consideration "
On October 28, 1994, at Meeting #9/94, the Authority approved in part
Res. #A224/94
'THAT the Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, as set out in the report, dated October 1994, be
approved, "
On October 31, 1997, the Authority approved the following resolutior l establishing the goals,
membership, organization and Terms of Reference for the 2nd Don Watershed Regeneration
Council 1998-2000
Res. #A241/97
'THAT the Terms of Reference including the membership for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council as set out in the report dated October 14, 1997 be approved,"
2.0 GOALS
The goals of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are to protect, regenerate and
celebrate the Don watershed and, more specifically, to assist the TRCA, the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto, other agencies, and the public
i) with the implementation of the Don Watershed Task Force's report, "Forty Steps
to a New Don",
185
ii) in the im;) a.nentation of the recommendations of the Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices
Recommendations for Action" as they pertain to the Don watershed, and,
iii) in the implementation of the actions required to address the targets identified in
the Don Watershed Report Cards "Turning the Corner" and "A Time for Bold
Steps"
3.0 DON WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
3 1 The Don Watershed Council shall consist of approximately 45 members
including
TRCA
. the Chair of the Authority or other designated Authority member;
Regional and Local Municipalities
. one Council member from each of the regional and local muriicipalities within the
Region of York
Regional Municipality of York
Town of Richmond Hill
City of Vaughan
T own of Markham
Community Councils
. one Councillor representing four of the City of Toronto's Community Councils which
have the Don watershed within its boundaries
North Community Council
Midtown Community Council
Downtown Community Council
Scarborough Community Council
Residents
. twenty watershed residents,
Community Groups
. one represe'ltative and alternate from each of the following community groups
which have a ::.pecific interest in the Don watershed
The Task Force to Bring Back the Don, City of Toronto
Friends of the Don East York
Richmond Hill Field Naturalists
Others may be added throughout the term of the Council
186
Other Public Aqencies
. one representative and alternate from each of the following groups which have a
specific interest in the Don watershed
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Don Watershed Businesses/Business Orqanization
. three persons representing businesses and/or business organizations interested in
corporate environmental stewardship and the economic vitality of the region
Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
. one person representing the Don River Partner as designated under the Living City
Campaign
Academic Institutions
. three persons drawn from the university, college, public/catholic/private school
systems interested in watershed management, restoration, research, and in
integrating sustainability issues into watershed applications and/or curriculum
3.2 Appointment of Municipal Representatives
321 Local and Regional Municipality Representatives
The local and regional municipalities will be requested by the Authority to
confirm the participation of a council member to the Don Watershed
Council A municipality may appoint a current Authority member The
appointed members should represent an electoral ward within the Don
wa.tershed
3.2.2 Ci~y of Toronto Community Council Representatives
Within the City of Toronto, the individual Community Councils will be
requested to appoint members of Council
3.3 Appointment of Watershed Residents, Business Members and Academic
Institutions
Applications from watershed residents, businesses and academic institutions
will be solicited through announcements in the "On the Don" newsletter, local
newspapers, and through press releases A committee of three persons,
comprised of one member of the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory
Board, a TRCA member of senior staff and the Don Watershed Specialist will
recommend appointments to the Don Watershed Council This selection will
take into consideration the following
- demonstrated interest in the watershed/community,
187
- v\'H1ingness of the applicant to meet the potenti-=-.1 time and work
<.;ommitments,
geographical representation of the watershed,
- professional expertise, and/or knowledge of the watershed in any area
which would assist in the implementation of assigned tasks
3.4 Appointment of Community Group Representatives
Selected community groups will be requested by the Authority to appoint a
representative and an alternate to the Don Watershed Council Alternate
members will have voting privileges on all matters of business
3.5 Appointment of Other Public Aqency Representatives
Selected federal and provincial agencies will be requested by the Authority to
appoint a senior employee and an alternate to the Don Watershed Council
Alternate members will have voting privileges on all matters of business
36 Term of Appointment
Municipalities and other public agencies will be requested to appoint their
representatives for the three-year period coincident with the three-year term of
municipal councillors All other members will be appointed for a two-year
period -11th the provision for a one-year renewal without reapplication
Membership will be reviewed on an annual basis Members unable to fulfill
their commitments will be replace normally at that time by the TRCA based on
the nominees recommended by Authority members, other Don Watershed
Council members and TRCA senior staff
Resignations may be filled by the Authority, as required, on the
recommendation of the selection committee as described in Item 3 1 3 above
37 Attendance and Effort of Don Watershed Council Members at Meetings
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis all Watershed Council
meetings
Members will contribute actively to the work of the Council, prepare effectively
for and participate in at least one working committee.
Municipal councillors will be requested to assist in developing an effective
communication strategy to ensure their involvement in (he Council while
recognizing their time commitments within their own municipalities
It is anticipated that evening meetings will be held once per month Additional
working groups may be required to deal with specific issues from time to time
Additional meeting time will be required in these cases Members unable to
fulfill this commitment will be replace after missing three consecutive meetings
to ensure broad and effective representation on watershed issues
188
38 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed Council
The Chair and Vice-Chair will be elected by the Watershed Council from
amongst its members The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such
time that an election can take place. The Chair and Vice-Chair will also be
ex-officio members of all working committees
39 Reporting Relationship
The Don Watershed Council is considered a subcommittee of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board The Watershed Council Chair will report, at
least, on a semi-annual basis on projects and progress Annual work plans
will be dclveloped and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each
year
The Don Watershed Council is not a formal commenting body, Authority staff
will advise the Watershed Council of Authority projects being planned or
undertaken within the Don watershed and of major planning initiatives or
projects of others where the Authority may be a commenting or permitting
body
The Don Watershed Council may provide comments or other information for
the consideration of staff and the Authority On a project or application
specific basis, the Authority or Authority staff may request comment by the
Watershed Council These comments will be provided or sought within the
time frame necessary to maintain the Authority's service delivery standards
4.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE DON WATERSHED COUNCIL
4 1 Authority Support
The Authority will provide staff support for the Watershed Council, including
technical I reject support and community outreach, based on available funding
and on a work plan developed by the Watershed Council and approved by the
Authority
Subject to available funding, the staff secretariat will include
Don Watershed Specialist
Don Technical Support Staff
Don Watershed Administrative Assistance
The Don Watershed Council, and its working committees, will otherwise strive to
be self-sufficient in achieving their goals
From time to time, the assistance of additional TRCA staff may be required on a
project specific basis Provision of such assistance will be determined when a
project plan is completed by either the Don Councilor a working committee,
and approved by the TRCA's Director of Watershed Management.
189
The proiect plan will clearly identify membership requirements, including TRCA
staff, Dorl '::>uncil members and associate members The project plan will also
identify expectations of the member's responsibilities, time commitment and
project funding availability and allotment.
42 Agency Staff Liaison
Each municipality within the Region of York will be requested to designate a staff
liaison for the Don Council from an appropriate department. Within the City of
Toronto, staff liaisons will be requested from the departments that have direct
responsibilities for open space, environmental planning and operations These
staff will be invited to all meetings and may wish to join specific working
committees Annually, a separate meeting/forum will be held to share
information on Don watershed plans underway, regeneration activities carried
out directly by municipalities and to ensure on-going liaison with appropriate
departments
43 Working Committees
The Don Watershed Council will undertake its work throuyh the active
involvement of its members on at least one committee.
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete
New committees will be struck to deal with specific implementation items as
determined by the Don Watershed Council This information will be
communicated to the Authority at least twice annually
Smaller committees can be added for specific projects but the Watershed
Council will generally be limited to 5 active/standing committees at anyone time.
This will ensure the necessary focus and effort required, while serving to limit, to
a reasonable level, the demands on the Watershed Council members and staff
of the Authority and other agencies
431 Committee Membership and Associate Watershed Council Members
The Don Watershed Council committee members will enlist the
assistance of others interested in actively giving of their time and talents
to lne protection, regeneration and celebration of the watershed
Additional committee members will also be recruited from federal,
provincial, regional and local agencies These pj:)rsons will be appointed
as "associate" Don Watershed Council members by the Don Watershed
Council upon recommendation of the working committees Associate
members are not required to be residents of the watershed Associate
members are welcome and encouraged to attend all Don Watershed
Council meetings and participate at the discretion of the Don Watershed
Council Chair during committee reports and at other times as
appropriate
190
432 Committee Chair
The Chair of each committee will be a Don Watershed Council member
The Chairs will be responsible for addressing and implementing the
Terms of Reference and reporting to the Watershed Council on a regular
basis
43.3 Terms of Reference for Working Committees
Terms of Reference will be developed and approved by the Watershed
Council for each committee established Authority staff will work with the
1T'~:rT'bers of the Don Watershed Council to establish Terms of Reference
for each working committee.
434 Work Plans
The committees will develop annual work plans These work plans will
contain resource plans required to support the proposed activities based
on the Terms of Reference
44 Other Resources
Funding may be available for projects and activities of working committees
based on approved work plans and available Authority funding Working
committee members are encouraged to secure other resources and
partnerships for Watershed Council projects and activities, whenever possible.
In-kind or other support for projects and activities will be welcome from
business, industries, other government agencies and private foundations,
educational institutions and others in accordance with TRCA policies All in-kind
or other Sl..lpport will be coordinated with and through the Conservation
Foundation of Greater Toronto
5.0 COMPENSATION OF WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERS
At regular Don Watershed Council meetings, as well as working committee meetings,
members will be eligible for travel expenses according to Authority policy Associate
members of working committees are also eligible for travel expenses, where these are
not covered by their agency
6.0 RULES OF CONDUCT
The Don Watershed Council will adhere to the TRCA's Rules of Conduct, Policies and
Procedures, as adopted by Resolution #3 of Authority meeting #2/86, or as may be
amended A quorum will consist of a majority of the members of the Don Watershed
Council
191
7.0 RESPONSIBILnleS OF THE DON WATERSHED COUNCIL
The Don Waters'~ =d Council shall undertake the following responsibilities
. initiate and recommend to the Authority and other partners, projects and activities
in consultation with the local and regional municipalities, Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan and other watershed stakeholders that will lead to the
realization of the vision for the Don and implement "The Forty Steps to a New Don"
and targets established in '~ Time for Bold Steps" and "Turning the Corner" - The
Don Watershed Report Cards,
. adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management that recognizes
the interrelationship between culture, heritage, physical characteristics, biological
conditions and economic needs, and the integration of conservation, restoration
and economic activities necessary for the health of the watershed,
. act as the Don watershed advocate in large projects that cross municipal
boundaries and support major projects advocated by others which will protect,
regenerate and celebrate the Don,
. maintain and enhance contacts within the community regarding watershed
management issues,
. build capacity within the general community to deliver watershed management
products and services,
. provide a framework for meaningful community involvement in watershed
managemert I
. act as a united voice for addressing issues relevant to the municipal, provincial and
federal governments,
. provide leadership in watershed management
. contribute a level of service that addresses regional needs and opportunities
. inform watershed communities about watershed management activities through
public meetings, publications, displays, and special events,
. in conjunction with the TRCA and others, host technical forums leading to
improvements in planning and practice, throughout the watershed
. work collaboratively with TRCA staff, and other watershed/waterfront advisory
committees on issues of common concern,
. continue to promote the Don Accord (Step 31) to municipal councils, agencies,
businesses, community organizations and others throughout the watershed,
. develop the third Don Watershed Report Card scheduled for publication in 2003,
. assist in gaining financial and in-kind resources, and
. support the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto and the delivery of the
Living City Campaign
192
RES.#D58/00 - TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE REPORT
and City of Toronto report (July 2000) - OUR TORONTO
WATERFRONT BUILDING MOMENTUM
To provide a status report on the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task
Force and the City of Toronto report - Our Toronto Waterfront Building
Momentum.
Moved by Pam McConnell
Seconded by IIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Task Force and the City of Toronto report "Our Toronto
Waterfront: Building Momentum" be received,
THAT Authority staff work with the City of Toronto on the key waterfront/watershed
initiatives outlined in the City of Toronto report - "Our Toronto Waterfront: Building
Momentum" including but not limited to. 1 the Central Waterfront Official Plan and
Zoning By-law; 2. the further detailed studies on the parks and open space, 3. re-Iocation
of the mouth of the Don River; 4 resolution of the flood risk issue for the West Don
Lands and Port Lands,S. water quality; and, 6. the preparation of the detailed "Master
Plan" as the implementing framework for the new waterfront governing body;
THAT the Authority reiterate the position of the vital connection between the quality of
the waterfront and the health of the adjacent watersheds and the urgent need to
accelerate watershed restoration efforts concurrent with waterfront specific initiatives,
THAT the Authority indicate its willingness to continue as the implementation agent for
the eastern and western waterfronts including Tommy Thompson Park;
THAT the Authority indicate the importance of proceeding concurrently with the
watershed regeneration initiatives in partnership with the City to ensure a healthy
waterfront;
THAT the Authority support the western and eastern waterfront initiatives proceeding in
their own timeframes abng with a commitment of funding from the overall waterfront
governing body in the same timeframes,
THAT the Authority endorse the principles set out in the Building Momentum report
including the additional principles added by Council for the proposed waterfront
governing body;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the
Rouge Park Alliance, the Humber Watershed Alliance, and the Etobicoke and Mimico
Creeks Watershed Task Force be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #3/00, held on April 28, 2000, the following resolution on The Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Task Force entitled Our Toronto Waterfront was approved
193
# A86/00-
"THA T the Governme; t of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto be
commended for cooperating to launch this critical initiative and that they be encouraged to
pursue implementation as quickly as possible,
THAT the members of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force be congratulated for
producing an exciting, compelling and challenging vision in a timely manner;
THAT the Task Force Members be particularly congratulated for understanding and
articulating the vital connection between the quality of the waterfront and the health of the
adjacent watersheds and the urgent need to accelerate watershed restoration efforts
concurrent with waterfront specific initiatives,
THA T the three levels of government be advised that the Authority would be pleased to
assist in developing the detailed "Master Plan" and to implement, with its partners, various
elements of the report. The Authority has a thirty year history of implementing similar
waterfront projects and many of these features are acknowledged in the Report as
contributing in a very positive way to the current waterfront;
THA T the Authority also commends the recommendations concerning a revitalization of the
mouth of the Don in~'!uding resolution of the flood risk issue which would provide a safer
framework for redevelopment of the West Don Lands and the Port Lands,
THA T the three levels of government be advised that the Authority would be pleased to
assist in discussions concerning the governance and implementation framework for the plan
particularly with respect to the areas outside of the Central Waterfront where many Authority
community driven initiatives, as outlined in the Task Force Report, are well advanced and
could easily be accelerated with financial support;
THA T the efforts of the Regional and Area Municipalities surrounding the City of Toronto to
protect and restore habitats, improve water quality and maintain base flows be
acknowledged and encouraged as major contributions to the health of the Toronto
Waterfront and that the efforts and responsibilities of those municipalities be represented by
the Authority in the continuing discussions towards implementation of the Task Force
Report;
THAT the City of Toro'7to be encouraged to integrate the work of the Environmental Task
Force and the new Sustainability Roundtable into all aspects of implementation of the Task
Force Report;
THA T the three level,; of government be requested to consider, as part of the discussions on
governance and imp.', mentation, the utilization of the watershed based Task Forces and
Alliances, supported by the Authority, which currently exist for the Etobicoke/Mimico,
Humber, Don, Highland and Rouge as well as a similar, proposed Waterfront Alliance to
coordinate environmental regeneration from Etobicoke Creek to Carruthers Creek,
194
THA T the three levels of government be advised that the Authority sees implementation of
the Task Force Report as a major impetus towards achieving the Remedial Action Plan goal
of "delisting" the Toronto Waterfront as an ':Area of Concern" within the Great Lakes Basin,
AND FURTHER THAT an environmental restoration of this scale is of international
significance, represents outstanding business opportunities and constitutes a global
imperative. "
The City of Toronto initiated five staff working groups to analyze and mRke recommendations
on the waterfront regeneration proposals outlined in the Waterfront Revitalization Task Force
report released on March 27, 2000
At its August 1, 2 and 3, 2000 meeting, Council adopted Clause 1 of Report No 10 of The
Policy and Finance Committee, headed "Our Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum, A
Report to Council on the Proposal of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force"
"1 City Council endorse, in principle, the concepts put forward in the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Task Force proposal
2. City Council request senior staff to develop, in consultation with the appropriate
city agencies, a new Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Central Waterfront
that is consistent with the development concept put forward in the Task Force
proposal
3 More detailed studies of some aspects of the Task Force proposal -
infrastructure, economic impacts, environmental impacts, business attraction
strategies, potential revenue sources, implementation phasing and other studies
needed to develop the Official Plan and Zoning By-law - be undertaken
immediately, with a report back to Council in early 2001
a. Specifically, City Council authorize detailed studies of the proposed road
sYE.'(pm reconfiguration and of local and regional transit networks as part
of the development of the Central Waterfront master plan These studies
should investigate in detail design modifications to address road and
transit issues, road and transit operations, and refinements to
construction timing and staging to co-ordinate all servicing
b A detailed servicing study should be undertaken for Water and
Wastewater Services, including an assessment of the impact on the trunk
infrastructure, pumping stations and plants.
c City Council authorize the development of a transit strategy that will
address necessary improvements at Union Station, transit improvements
to Union Subway Station and the protection of future transit rights-of-way
4 The following principles be adopted to guide the development of a waterfront
governing body'
- the waterfront governing body must be accountable to government
195
- the financial terms for the governing body must ensure financial
protection for the City
- a mechanism for providing public input must be developed
- the structure and process of the governing body must enable private
investment
- the governing body must have the ability to implement decisions quickly
5 The federal and provincial governments commit to providing, on a priority basis,
the proposed $2 billion in bridge financing as recommended by the Task Force.
6 The City continue to implement a 46-kilometre vision for the Toronto waterfront
with the immediate focus of change on the Central Waterfront.
7 Alternate roads be completed, and significant GO Transit and Union Subway
Station improvements occur, before the elevated section of the Gardiner
Expressway is replaced.
8 The federal and provincial governments be requested to enter into discussions
with the CUy to identify strategies to deliver affordable rental housing as part of
the waterfront developmenf'
Council amended the Clause by.
(1) amending Appendix 1 to the report dated July 17, 2000, from the Chief Administrative
Officer, by.
(i) deleting from Recommendation No (2) embodied therein, the words
"that is consistent with" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "taking into
consideration", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows
"(2) City Council request senior staff to develop, in consultation with
the appropriate City agencies, a new Official Plan and Zoning
By-law for the Central Waterfront, taking into consideration the
development concept put forward in the Task Force proposal;",
(ii) adding to Recommendation No (4)(a) embodied therein, the words "and
residents of the City of Toronto", so that such recommendation shall now
read as follows
"(a) the waterfront governing body must be accountable to
governments and residents of the City of Toronto;", and
(iii) adding the following new principles to Recommendation No (4)
embodied therein
"(f) the City of Toronto be assured of an independent and central role
in the governing body, and
196
(g) the governing body shall be subject to the relevant Official Plan
and Zoning policies;", and
(2) adding thereto the following
"It is further recommended that
(1) the Mayor be requested to facilitate discussions and the development of effective
dialogue with the Toronto Port Authority and Members of Council, through the
City's representative on the Toronto Port Authority, Mr Murray Chusid,
(2) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to re-visit the issue of housing on
public lands west of Bathurst Street, east of Jameson Avenue, and submit a
report thereon through the Planning and Transportation Committee,
(3) the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the appropriate City officials,
in the preparation of further reports on "Our Toronto Waterfront" and the new City
of Toronto Official Plan, be requested to ensure that the following objectives are
addressed for the waterfront in the Scarborough Community Council area.
(a) public access to the waterfront from adjacent communities is maximized,
(b) continuous pedestrian connections along the shoreline, including
opportunities for walking trails and a boardwalk, are explored
(c) economic development opportunities to further enhance recreational and
tourism potential are investigated, and
(d) the environmental restoration and preservation of the east waterfront and
Rl.'uge River watershed are continued, and
(4) the following motion be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer for
consideration
Moved by Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski
"It is recommended that the portion of the waterfront in the Western
Beaches, west of Bathurst Street to the Humber River, continue to be a
recreational area, without housing development, and further, that
improved access in the Western Beaches, from the residential community
to the beaches, be investigated III
In summary, the key areas of interest to TRCA are as follows and are elaborated on Appendix I
- Summary of "Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum" Report - City of Toronto,
July/2000
197
I PARKS AND OP~!,,1 SPACE
The Task Force proposal includes the majority of new parkland within the Central Waterfront
where over 170 hectares (400 acres) are proposed Almost half of this new parkland would be
achieved in the south Port Lands through water's edge parks and promenades and
approximately 50 hectares 125 acres) of lake fill Approximately nine hectares (22 acres) of
existing parkland in Coronation Park and Marilyn Bell Park would be converted to new
residential development. Overall, there appears to be a substantial net gain of open space.
For the areas east and west of the Central Waterfront, the focus is on enhancing what already
exists
The City's recommended approach provides opportunities to address the following
. developing the public realm first and then allocating development parcels within that
framework
. siting new development with minimal impact upon adjacent parks and open spaces,
particularly environmentally sensitive and natural areas
. providing neighbourhood and regional parks and providing opportunities for active and
passive recreation
. enhancing larger waterfront parks to meet present and future needs of the City
. incorporating lost natural heritage elements, such as the original Lake Ontario shoreline,
Garrison Creek and Taddle Creek, into the parks and open space system
. identifying more specific opportunities to enhance the remainder of the central, east, and
west waterfronts
The New Waterfront
In the West Waterfront is identified four key initiatives
. restoration of Mimico Creek
. restoration of Etobicoke Creek
. Mimico Waterfront Trail extension
. enhancements to Colonel Samuel Smith Park
The City's report indicates the western waterfront initiatives should proceed in their own
timeframe and need not be linked to the larger issues of the Central Waterfront. A
community-based process for implementation should be established Currently, the
community-based efforts are already underway through the City and TRCA projects (i e.,
Mimico Apartment Strip and the Etobicoke-Mimico Watershed Task Force)
The Central Waterfront
Jameson Avenue to Yonge Street
198
The City's report indicates the following areas to be reviewed in more detail as well a possible
modifications for the Task Force proposal
. the distribution and level of development proposed for Exhibition Place and Ontario Place
to a maintain a balance of open space and buildings, enhance heritage resources and
protect the use of these facilities for major public events
. the retention of the current alignment of Strachan Avenue to the east of the Princes' Gates
to maintain the street grid and views to the water
. the elimination of new private development in Marilyn Bell Park or Coronation Park to
preserve these regional open spaces and preserve important views to the water
. the dual role of Fort York Boulevard/Bremner Boulevard as an arterial road and a
neighbourhood street
. the alignment of the new Waterfront Drive through Coronation Park and the Bathurst Quay
neighbourhood to ensure that it maintains the existing character of these areas
. the preservation of the character and historical importance of Clarence Square if Front
Street West and Wellington Street West become one-way arterial roads
. the proposed 21 metre-wide boardwalk along the water's edge and possible variances of
the boardwalk along different parts of its length
Yonge Street to Leslie Street
In order to realize the potential of the Task Force proposal, the following must be addressed
. a decision by the fed :'T:l1 government about the future of the port and its possible relocation
. an industrial relocation strategy to relocate to other city or Port Land locations, those
industries that are incompatible with emerging economic sectors
. recognition of important City operations like the Commissioners Street Waste Transfer
Station, Public Works Yard, Wheel Trans and Toronto Hydro
. accommodation of community-based sailing clubs
. review of the width, location and character of the Don Wildlife Corridor
. review of the routing of the Queens Quay extension across the quays and its relationship to
the water's edge
. rationalization of rail service within the Port Lands depending on decisions regarding the
port and the successful relocation of exiting businesses
199
West Don Lands
Current studies and initiatives underway in the West Don Lands reinforce many of the ideas in
the Task Force proposal and will help advance them by
. providing a framework for how the West Don Lands can be redeveloped
. advancing the concept of a media village in the West Don Lands as part of the 2008
Olympic Bid
. providing flood protection for adjacent lands and reintroducing and naturalizing the mouth
of the Don River
In refining plans for the West Don Lands, the proposal to replace the central portion of the
Gardiner Expressway, increase arterial road capacity, and add a bridge over Eastern Avenue,
will need to be reconciled with the streets and blocks plan being prepared by the City of the
West Don Lands
The East Waterfront
Development of the eastern waterfront should
. occur in the context of a broader "visionary" plan for the city's waterfront
. recognize the generally passive nature of this portion of the waterfront
. contain provisions to protect and enhance natural features such as the Scarborough Bluffs
. promote linkages and facilitate strategic improvements of waterfront amenities as
highlighted in the report
The eastern waterfront initiatives should proceed in their own timeframe and need not be linked
to the larger issues in the Central Waterfront.
SUMMARY
In order to move forward and build on the momentum created by the Olvmpic Bid and the
proposals of the WaterfrOI!t Task Force, work should begin on a new Official Plan and Zoning
By-law for the Central Waterfront which encompasses and refines the ideas set out in this bold
new vision
The Central Waterfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law would be approved by Council The
plan-making would follow all of the usual City processes and procedures and could build on
the comments received during the June, 2000 public forums The new Toronto waterfront
development governing body would become the vehicle through which the Official Plan would
be implemented
The City is committed to a timely approval of a new Official Plan and Zoning By-law Other
processes are within the purview of other levels of government, including federal and provincial
environmental assessments and Canadian Transportation Agency approvals
200
II INFRASTRUCTURE
Appendix I provides a summary of the City's analysis of the sewer and water system initiatives
This includes
. Trunk Infrastructure and Plant initiatives including the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan
. March of the Don River re-configuration and West Don Lands flood protection
. Environmental Issues - RAP and water quality improvements
. Soils and Groundwater Remediation in the Port Lands - $480 million
III IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSAL
The Task Force recommended an implementing structure which includes
. the creation of a single-purpose governing body enabled with the powers necessary to
catalyze private investment
. the incorporation of this body as a tri-Ievel, non-share capital corporation in a joint
enterprise by all three levels of government. This enterprise would have control of the
development of all publicly-owned waterfront lands, implementing a previously
agreed-upon overall plan
. the granting of certait Tools to the governing body, including powers to acquire, mortgage,
hold and dispose of property, raise financing and be a party to transactions and legal
proceedings in its own name, as well as all other tools normally assigned to corporations
. the ability of the governing body to take advantage of a fast-tracked regulatory process for
development approvals
The City has recommended that the following 'five' principles guide a "made in Toronto" model
The waterfront governing body must be accountable to government.
The financial terms must provide sufficient protection for the City
There must be a mechanism for public input.
The structure and process of the governing body must enable private investment.
It must have the ability to implement decisions quickly
201
IV NEXT STEPS
To maintain the momentum, the City outlined the following key initiatives
. Prepare a new Central Waterfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law for adoption in early
2001
. Undertake more detailed studies on several aspects of the Task Force Report.
. Commence discussions with the federal and provincial levels of government to establish a
waterfront governing body
RATIONALE
The Task Force report as further refined by the City's - Building Momentum report and Council
resolutions moves towards addressing the key TRCA points outlined in our April 28, 2000,
Resolution #A86/00
The Authority should reiterate the position of the vital connection between the quality of the
waterfront and the health of the adjacent watersheds and the urgent need to accelerate
watershed restoration efforts concurrent with waterfront specific initiatives
The Authority should indicate its willingness to continue as the implementing agent for the
eastern and western waterfronts including Tommy Thompson Park. The Authority was
recognized in the Task Force report as contributing significantly to the waterfront with its 30
year implementation history
WORK TO BE DONE
. Authority staff are currently proceeding on environmental approvals and designs in conjunction
with the City and community group key projects in the East and Western waterfronts These
include. 1) the Port Union Waterfront; 2) the Guild Inn shoreline and, 3) various Scarborough
shoreline projects incorporating public safety, public use (waterfront trail) and natural heritage
(terrestrial/aquatic) regeneration
Authority staff have been participating with City staff on the Central Wateriront Official Plan and
fine-tuning the Waterfront Task Force concepts, the relocation of the mouth of the Don River
and the lower Don floOd 'ontrol measures, the parks and open space vision and the key
environmental initiatives (i e., Tommy Thompson Park) including guidance on the lakefilling
proposals in the Task Force report.
FINANCIAL
The Prime Minister, the Premier and the Mayor recently announced a three-way partnership
totalling $1 5 billion for the waterfront revitalization
The City's report indicates that the western and eastern waterfront initiatives should proceed in
their own timeframe and not be linked to the larger issues of the Central Waterfront.
For example, TRCA along with the Port Union Working Committee has proceeded on its own
timetable with Environmental Assessment approval expected in the near future We would
expect that the additional Federal/Provincial part of the funding would flow from the $1 5 billion
202
The City of Toronto has already committed $2 0 million towards the project It is anticipated
that funding through the new waterfront governing body for these projects could proceed on
their own timeframe without being tied to the Central Waterfront issues, Master Plan and
funding schedule.
Current funding of the Citl of Toronto Waterfront Regeneration Project (TRCA) and the various
waterfront initiatives, would be greatly enhanced through the waterfront redevelopment funding
to achieve the waterfront vision fn an accelerated timeframe
For Information contact: Larry Field, extension 5243
Date. December 05, 2000
Attachments 1
203
Attachment 1
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF
"OUR TORONTO WATERFRONT: BUILDING MOMENTUM"
City of Toronto
July 2000
204
The following pages are a summary of the key sections of the City report on the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Task Force proposals as they relate to the TRCA's areas of interest.
1 Executive Summary
2. Planning Options
i Parks and Open Space
ii The New Waterfront
iii Summary
3 Infrastructure
i. Sewer and Water System
4 Implementing the Proposal
5 Next Steps
6. Conclusions
205
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
This report contains the analysis and recommendations of five staff working groups
formed under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer in May 2000. Led by
the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the groups were assembled to
investigate the recommendations of the report of the Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Task Force.
The Task Force proposal comes at a critical point in the building of the new city.
Around the world, waterfronts have been the focus of urban renewal for some time.
Great cities such as London, Amsterdam, New York and Cape Town are undertaking
major waterfront enterprises.
With a decisive commitment to the Task Force proposal Toronto would be poised
to join the leagues of these great hlternational cities.
The most critical success factor is in place. The Task Force proposal has the clear
and full support of all three levels of government. As recently as June 2000, the
Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario exchanged letters of support for the
proposal.
The Task Force proposal has clear and multiple benefits. It has the potential to
create far-reaching impacts for quality of life at home and to elevate the city's image
globally. There are risks, but with prudent planning these risks are manageable.
The intent of the staff review was to look at how best to implement the Task Force
proposal. Where issues arise, strategies and solutions are recommended. In some
areas the staff reviews are more detailed than in others, thanks largely to recent
researcll. Additional detailed analysis, where required, has been recommended.
Some public policy issues have been identified, requirhlg political decisions. In all
respects, staff have attempted to exercise due diligence in constructing a response
to the ambitious and exciting proposals contained in the Task Force report.
The proposal is achievable with some phasing and project modifications. These
modifications support both the Task Force vision and the infrastructure, business
and operational needs of the entire dty.
The working groups assessed five core areas - Planning Options, Infrastructure,
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum B
206
Executive Summary
Financial Impacts, Economic Impacts and Implementation.
The Task Force infrastructure proposals are a positive and important first step in
revitalizing the transportation network serving the waterfront.
The Task Force proposals have important implications for the economic future of
the Toronto waterfront and the City. A large increase in employment (a projected
165,000 person years for Ontario during construction alone), revitalized businesses
and an estimated increase of 2,000,000 tourists per year are but some potential
benefits. Phasing in transit and road improvements first, creating a balance of
employment and residential use; and securing consistent long-term funding for
local and regional transit services can help to address potential economic
disruptions.
The basic financial proposal presented by the Task Force appears sound and
achievable. Infrastructure costs may vary, but these costs could be managed if
sufficient bridge financing is made available ($2 billion)
It is staff's conclusion that the Task Force proposal is imaginative, achievable and
aligned with emerging planning policies and other City initiatives. Refinements to the
proposal outlined in the Task Force report would be made when the City prepares
a new Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the Central Waterfront The new Official
Plan and Zoning By-law will provide a statutory blueprint for the new waterfront. U
the new plan's implementation is to meet Olympic Bid deadlines, an expedited
planning process is essential.
To effectively engage the commitment of the federal, provincial and municipal
governments, several questions and issues are scoped. These can form a basis for
discussion with senior levels of government on the mandate and structure of a
waterfront development governing body.
The Toronto waterfront development governing body must be fully accountable to
all governments and the public, strong enough to avoid pitfalls and flexible enough
to accommodate change over 20 years of development activity.
In summary, the Task Force proposal is an historic one. The planning,
infrastructure, implementation, financial and economic aspects are visionary.
TIus report is the next step in building momentum.
9 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
207
Planning Options
· proposes replacing the Gardiner Expressway to help eliminate the barrier
between the central dty and the waterfront
· advocates for a greater emphasis on public transit to accommodate more trips
to the centre of the city
· recognizes the need for an improved physical environment that would help
attract businesses in the new, lmowledge-based economy
· proposes a wide variety of recreational and cultural facilities for residents and
tourists
· counters urban sprawl by creating a large supply of new living and working space
in the core of the Toronto region
Figure No.2
Areas of the Central Waterfront
~ 1
) < l
I j f I I ! J I _~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
~ EASTERNBEACHES~
. I
Parks and Open Space
The Task Force Proposal
One of the major goals identified by the Task Force is to reclaim a large portion of
the waterfront for public use. To that end, the Task Force has proposed significant
13 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
208
Planning Options
new open spaces in the form of parkland, plazas, urban squares, walkways, water's
edge promenades and natural areas.
The majority of the new parkland is within the Central Waterfront where over 170
hectares (400 acres) are proposed. Almost half of this new parkland would be
acWeved in the south Port Lands through water's edge parks and promenades and
approximately 50 hectares (125 acres) of lake fill. Approximately nine hectares
(22 acres) of existing parkland in Coronation Park and Marilyn Bell Park would
be converted to new residential development. Overall, there appears to be a
substantial net gain of open space. For the areas east and west of the Central
Waterfront, the focus is on enhancing what already exists.
As recommended by the Task Force, the parks and open space concept fits well with
several ongoing culture, parks and recreation planning initiatives. The Task Force
proposal would significantly enhance the waterfront by-
· creating a substantial amount of new parkland across the whole waterfront and
enhancing existing parkland and facilities
· improving public access to tlle water's edge
· providing a diversity of open spaces to meet the varied needs of both existing and
proposed communities
· creating an integrated trail system for good access to and cOlmections between
parks and open spaces
· celebrating the water's edge, promoting cultural tourism and integrating public
cultural buildings and public art
Recommended Approach
As the proposal is refined, there are opportunities to address the following:
· developing the public realm first and then allocating development parcels within
that framework
· siting new development with minimal impact upon adjacent parks and open
spaces, particularly environmentally sensitive and natural areas
· providing neighbourhood and regional parks and providing opportunities for
active and passive recreation
· enhancing larger waterfront parks to meet present and future needs of the City
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 14
209
Planning Options
· incorporating lost natural heritage elements, such as the original Lake Ontario
shoreline, Garrison Creek and Taddle Creek, into the parks and open space
system
· ldentifying more specific opportunities to enhance the remainder of the central,
east, and west waterfronts
210
The New Waterfront
Community by Community
111e Task Force proposal makes suggestions about the development character of,
various communitIes across the city's waterfront with the focus of change in the
Central Waterfront Following is a review of the proposals along the 46 kilo metres
of waterfront.
23 Our Toronto Waterfront Buddmg Momentum
21 1
Planning Options
The West Waterfront
The Task Force identifies four West District initiatives:
· restoration of Mimico Creek
· restoration of Etobicoke Creek
· Mimico Waterfront Trail extension
· enhancements to Colonel Samuel Smith Park
While these initiatives are based on longstanding former City of Etobicoke objectives,
implementation of the Task Force proposal provides an opportunity to make them
a reality.
The western waterfront initiatives should proceed in their own timeframe and need
not be linked to the larger issues of the Central Waterfront. A community-based
process for implementation should be established.
The Central Waterfront
]amesonAvBnue to Yonge Street
In this area, the Task Force recommends the introduction of about 320,000 square
metres of new commercial development and approximately 7,500 new residential
units in and around Exhibition Place and Ontario Place. Some changes to the road
patterns and a new continuous boardwalk/promenade extending along the water's
edge and into the Lake, are proposed.
Intensification of use and new open space linkages would greatly benefit tlle area.
Listed below are areas to be reviewed in more detail as well as possible
modifications to the Task Force proposal:
. the distribution and level of development proposed for Exhibition Place and
Ontario Place to maintain a balance of open space and buildings, enhance
heritage resources and protect the use of these facilities for major public events
. the retention of the current alignment of Strachan Avenue to the east of the
Princes' Gates to maintain the street grid and views to the water
. the elimination of new private development in Marilyn Bell Park or Coronation
Park to preserve these regional open spaces and preserve important views to
tlle water
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 24
212
Planning Options
. the dual role of Fort York BoulevardlBremner Boulevard as an arterial road and
a nelghbourhood street
. the alignment of the new Waterfront Drive through Coronation Park and the
Bathurst Quay neighbourhood to ensure that it maintains the existing character
of these areas
. the preservation of the character and historical importance of Clarence Square
if Front Street West and Wellington Street West become one-way arterial roads
. the proposed 21 metre-wide boardwalk along the water's edge and possible
variances of the boardwalk along different parts of its length
Yonge Street to Leslie Street
A centrepiece of the Task Force proposal is the revitalization of the Central Bayfront,
East Bayfront and Port Lands. The report incorporates and advances many of the
city-building concepts put forward in the "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" report
adopted by City Council in July 1999
The Waterfront Revitalization Task Force's Proposal represents a rare opportunity
to achieve a comprehensive, diverse, quality development in these areas and to
finally connect them properly with the rest of the city. To this end, the proposal
advocates the following:
. encouraging a balance of uses - opportunities to live, work and play
. improving access to the Port Lands and improving connections to the central
city and adjacent neighbourhoods
. increasing substantially the amount of parldand in the area
. creating a diverse and linked system of parks and natural areas
. enhancing the amenity and environmental quality of the area
. creating clearly identifiable places and destinations in the area
. providing opportunities to enhance the natural qualities of the area
. improving public access to the waters edge
In order to realize the potential of the Task Force proposal, the following must be
addressed:
. a decision by the federal government about the future of the port and its possible
relocation
25 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
213
Planning Options
. an industrial relocation strategy to relocate to other city or Port Land locations,
those industries that are incompatible widl emerging economic sectors
. recognition of important City operations like the Commissioners Street Waste
Transfer Station, Public Works Yard, Wheel Trans and Toronto Hydro
. accommodation of community-based sailing clubs
. review of the width, ~ocation and character of the Don Wildlife Corridor
. review of the routing of the Queens Quay extension across the quays and its
relationship to the water's edge
. rationalization of rail service within the Port Lands depending on decisions
regarding the port and the successful relocation of existing businesses
West Don Lands
Current studies and initiatives underway in the West Don Lands reinforce many of
the ideas in the Task Force proposal and will help advance them by'
. providing a framework for how the West Don Lands can be redeveloped
. advancing the concept of a media village in the West Don Lands as part of the
2008 Olympic Bid
. providing flood protection for adjacent lands and reintroducing and naturalizing
the mouth of the Don River
In refining plans for the West Don Lands, the proposal to replace the central portion
of the Gardiner Expressway, increase arterial road capacity, and add a bridge over
Eastern Avenue, will need to be reconciled with the streets and blocks plan being
prepared by dle City for dle West Don Lands.
The total amount of retail space envisioned for the West Don Lands will need to be
revisited, since this is not an appropriate location for a new destination retail node.
The East Waterfront
The Task Force report recognizes the opportunities and constraints in the eastern
waterfront area, and specifically addresses the need to promote linkages across the
waterfront and to retain the largely passive function of the waterfront in dlls area of
dle city. Development of the eastern waterfront should:
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 26
214
Planning Options
· occur in the context of a broader "visionary" plan for the CIty'S waterfront
. recogl11ze the generally passive nature of tllis portJon of tlle waterfront
. contaln provisions to protect and enhance natural features such as the
Scarborough Bluffs
· promote linkages and facilitate strategic improvements of waterfront ameJlities
as hIghlighted in the report
The eastern waterfront initiatIves should proceed in tlleir own timeframe and need
not be lInked to tlle larger issues 111 the Central Waterfront.
2008 Olympic Bid
Part of tlle malldate of tlle Task Force was to incorporate tlle 2008 Olympic Bid
proposals into its recommendatIons. The Task Force proposal enhallCeS the City's
bId by incorporat1l1g the new stadIum and aquatic facilitIes, as well as major
ll1frastructure improvements needed to serve the Games. The Task Force housing
analysis is consistent with concepts put forward for tlle Olympic Villages, wllich are
Identified as a key catalyst for waterfront redevelopment and for providing
affordable housing.
Olympic facilities, such as the aquatic centre, Velodrome alld the Olympic Stadium,
Call be sited and designed to fit into longer-term commwuty building strategies alld
to serve the recreational needs of the city by integrating tllem into development
parcels alld locating tllem adjacent to parks alld open spaces wherever appropriate
Summary
In order to move forward and bUIld on tlle momentum created by the Olympic Bid
and tlle proposals of the Waterfront Task Force, the City should begin work on a new
Official Plall and ZOlling By-law for tlle Central Waterfront wllich encompasses and
refines the ideas set out 111 this bold new VIsion.
The Central Waterfront Official Plall and Zomng By-law would be approved by
Council The plan-makmg would follow all of the usual CIty processes and
procedures alld could build on tlle comments received dunng tlle]une, 2000 publIc
forums The new Toronto waterfront development goverl111lg body would become
- the veluc1e tllrough wluch the OffiCIal Plan would be implemented
27 Our Toron1o Waterfront BUilding Momentum
215
Planning Options
The City can commit to a timely approval of a new Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
Other processes are within the purview of other levels of government, including
federal and provincial environmental assessments and Canadian Transportation
Agency approvals. City Council should request the provincial and federal levels of
government to consider ways in which they can help to move this initiative forward
quickly.
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 28
216
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
The renewed wateifront should be easy to get to and easy to get around.2
The Task Force Proposal
The Task Force proposal involves significant infrastructure commitments. These
commitments are important to the renewal of the waterfront and to the city's quality
of life.
The City's Strategic Plan Phase 1 also stresses that infrastructure renewal is vital for
a successful city.
The goal is clear' Toronto needs social and physical infrastructure to ensure
community and individual well-being throughout the city, and to attract investment
and succeed in the world economy.
The Task Force proposal presents a significant opportunity to renew infrastructure
for the long-term and keep the city an international success story.
217
Infrastructure
Sewer and Water Systems
The Task Force Proposal
The Task Force proposal calls for local sewer and water servicing throughout the
proposed redevelopment lands including the East Bayfront, Port Lands, West Don
Lands as well as any new roads across the Central Bayfront, Harbourfront and the
east end of Exhibition Place. The local servicing would be carried out in conjunction
with the construction of local roadways. It would be consistent with the City's design
and construction standards for new development.
Much of the existing sewer and water local infrastructure would be affected due to
the extensive redevelopment proposals envisioned. The exception is the Central
Harbour area where elements of the Queens Quay roadway system and local sewer
and water infrastructure will remain.
The majority of the redevelopment requiring new sewer and water infrastructure
would occur within the Port Lands, East Bayfront and West Don Lands areas, where
approximately 32,000 new housing units would be added. The Task Force proposal
allows for the construction of sewage lift stations where development is proposed
on the south side of the ship channel and in locations whicll are remote from direct
connections to the trunk water and wastewater infrastructure,
One of the themes consistent throughout the Task Force Report is the need to
enhance the quality of near shore waters, In this regard, the Task Force Report
addresses the impact of stonnwater run-off from the West Donlands' East Bayfront
and Port Lands area through the provision of two wetland systems to provide a
degree of stormwater quality improvement prior to run-off discharging to the Don
River and near shore waters,
Recommended Approach
Trunk Infrastructure and Plants
The majority of the residential development activity would occur in the Port Lands area,
close to the City sewer and water trwlk facilities. The City has available a 42" diameter
trunk watermain along Queen Street to provide potable and fire fighting water to the
local water distribution system throughout the West Donlands, Port Lands and East
Bayfront development sites, Further, the 48" diameter trunk watermain discharge from
tlle John St. pump station will provide adequate capacity for redevelopment sites
throughout the central and west development areas including the Exhibition Lands.
43 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
218
Infrastructure
With regard to trunk sanitary servicing, the City system includes a Low Level
Interceptor sewer which extends along King St. and Eastern Ave, Although it has
adequate capacity during dry weather conditions, it is anticipated that a detailed
review will be required of the operating characteristics of the Low Level Interceptor
during wet weather conditions to ensure adequate capacity is available for the
redevelopment areas. Interconnection points between the City's Low Lever
Interceptor and High Level Interceptor may require further enhancements to ensure
tllat the high flows experienced in the trunk system during wet weatller events are
managed to the greatest extent possible within the interceptor pipes.
With regard to the water and wastewater plant capacities, the majority of the new
development growth in the Port Lands, West Donlands and East Bayfront areas are
in close proximity to tlle City's largest water supply and water pollution control
facilities - the Harris and Ashbridges Bay Plants. The Task Force proposal has not
included any upgrades to eidler plant facility, Adequate capacity is available for
average day demands and dry weather servicing. However, peak summer demands
and wet weatller conditions occasionally exceed the plant capacities.
In this regard, the City has a Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan and a
Water Efficiency Master Plan underway to provide initiatives for addressing these
peak conditions. The roll-out of dlese master plans, along with the accompanying
public awareness programs, involving such initiatives as downspout disconnections
and homeowner and industry water efficiency initiatives, have shown marked
improvements to average and peak flows at the plants.
Further, it should be noted that the current Development Charges By-law does not
include plant or trUllk system upgrades in connection witll dIe Task Force proposal.
An opportunity exists at the five year review of the Development Charges By-law to
include such upgrades, if required, and upon a further review of the success of
ongoing programs associated Witll the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan
and Water Efficiency Master Plan initiatives and their resulting impact on the plant
capacities.
Other Utility Infrastructure
The Toronto Public Utilities Co-ordinating Committee, and in particular the Planning
sub-group, has met to review the Task Force Proposal and to begin planning a
coordinated roll-out of gas, hydro, telecommunication and cable services in
conjunction with the water, wastewater and road infrastructure servicing, Further,
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 44
219
Infrastructure
City Council has endorsed the creation of a Telecommunication Co-ordinating Group
to co-ordinate the activities of the telecommunication companies within the street
allowance.
It will be the task of these groups to co-ordinate the roll-out of the underground
buried infrastructure in conjunction with the local and arterial road systems, tlms
minimizing future road disturbances.
It is important that the underground infrastructure including the utility servicing
for both tlle local trunk and sub-trunk systems be phased in conjunction with the
roadway reconstruction program and housing development phasing. In tlns way, the
most cost effective metllods can be used for tlle buried infrastructure including
minimizing the road restoration costs. It is anticipated that tlle waterfront governing
body would work with the City to establish the overall servicing and development
phasing to meet both parties' objectives for cost-effective servicing.
Mouth of the Don River
The soutllern reach of the Don River, immediately to the south of the railroad
crossing, discharges to the lake tllrough a confined man-made channel known as
the Keating Channel. This confined discharge route for tlle Don River has been
problematic due to the hydraulic limitations of tlle channel. Further, to minimize
these hydraulic deficiencies, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and the
Toronto Port Authority have undertaken an annual dredging of tlle channel, the cost
of wInch the City shares,
The Task Force Report recommends a re-configuration of tlle moutll of the Don
which would, in addition to improving the river hydraulics, furtller assist with flood
protection and minimize the siltation problems of the past. In conjunction with the
re-alignment work, the Report also identifies the need for a flood protection berm
to protect the proposed West Donlands development. Further, the Report
recommends an extensive naturalization program for tlle Mouth of the Don which
would provide, not only opportunities for wildlife and fish habitat renewal, but also
a degree of improvement to the river quality through bio-remediation techniques
and public access opportunities through enhancement to the Don River trails and
bicycle paths. The Task Force Report recommends an allowance of $95 million for
the flood protection, river re-alignment and naturalization features,
45 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
220
Infrastructure
An independent study was carried out jointly by tlle City, Ontario Realty Corporation
and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority to review the river hydraulics at the
mouth of tlle Don and further to evaluate appropriate flood protection measures for
tlle West Donlands area, The recommendations contained in the Task Force report
are consistent witll the City's independent study and therefore the flood protection
cost estimate and hydraulic improvements identified in the final report are
satisfactory to staff.
Environmental Issues
The Task Force Report notes tllat, although significant water quality improvements
have been achieved through tlle Remedial Action Plan and other initiatives (e,g, tlle
Eastern Beaches tanks, Western Beaches Tunnel) on the eastern and western
waterfronts, considerable work is still required across the Central Waterfront area,
It should be noted tllat tlle water quality along the central Central Waterfront is
seriously degraded, due to the pollutant loading from 18 storm outfalls and 14
combined sewer outfalls, as well as the discharge from the Don River, which carries
pollutants from upstream combined sewer overflows and storm discharges. The
Task Force Report has identified funding in tlle amount of $1 15 billion for
environmental related projects,
Of this sum, $320 million has been set aside for further initiatives to improve the
near-shore water quality across the Central Waterfront area. In considering the range
of costs and solutions which the City has applied in tlle past to manage storm water,
it would appear that the allowance for water quality improvement in the Task Force
Report will be sufficient to significantly improve the near shore water quality. TIus will
ensure consistency with the provincial guidelines for recreational water quality
activities, Body contact swimming quality standards could not, however, be aclueved
given the present Task Force funding estimates. It is important to undertake tIle water
quality projects using tlle most effective servicing methods to achieve the best use of
the available funds and the highest standards in near shore water quality, TIus will
be particularly important in tlle event of a successful Olympic Bid,
The Task Force report also recognizes the City's on-going preparation of a Wet
Weather Flow Management Master Plan.
It is intended that the funding identified for water quality in the Task Force Report
will allow for the timely completion of this Master Plan, along with implementation
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 46
221
Infrastructure
of the water quality initiatives for tlle Central Waterfront area identified through the
master planning process.
Soils and Groundwater Remediation
For many years, the Port Lands areas served as the bulk storage and tank fann site
for many oil and chemical companies. Similarly, the East Bayfront and West Don
Lands Areas, to a lesser degree, will require soil remediation due to the extensive
filling of tllese areas at the turn of the century when the dockwell system and land
filling was a major initiative. The Task Force Report recognizes the need for both
soil and ground water remediation as a significant part of the redevelopment plan
for tllese areas.
The Report provides an allowance of $490 million for tlns purpose. The City has,
in the past, undertaken a review of soil contamination issues in tllese areas
tllfoughout the mid-1990s. TIle Task Force has taken advantage of tllese earlier
works by the City in preparing tlleir cost estimates. Further, a release in 1997 by the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment entitled, "Guidelines for Cleanup of
Contaminated Sites", wInch allowed for site specific risk assessment and risk
management alternatives to be considered in establishing a cleanup program, has
been considered by the Task Force, Staff have reviewed the cost estimate breakdown
provided in the final Report and believe the allowance for these works to be
appropriately conservative,
With regard to the specific areas around the Port Lands site, dIe Report identifies
dIe need to provide a leachate or ground water collection system which will reduce
the effect of ground water pollutants on tlle near shore waters. The collected
leachate would be pumped for treatment at the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant,
subject to confirmation or acceptability under the sewer use by-law
Environment Approvals
It is expected that a harmonized environmental assessment process would be set up
for the component projects of the waterfront redevelopment. TIns would include key
processes under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. Given tlle support of the Task Force's work from
the senior levels of govemment, such an environmental assessment process could
be quickly established and implemented witllin the timeframes necessary,
There may be significant cost and time savings achieved by all parties in developing
such a harmonized process. However, tlle actual costs and timeframes for
completion of the environmental assessment process would be subject to the
47 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
222
Infrastructure
outcomes of the applicable studies and public input resulting from assessment of
information from waste studies, The environmental assessment process could
consider tlle City's overall environmental and strategic goals as shown in the
Environmental and Strategic Plans,
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 48
223
Implementing the Toronto Waterfont Revitalization Task Force Proposal
Implementing the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Task
Force Proposal
The Task Force Proposal
The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force report sets out a broad concept
for an implementation structure to oversee the revitalization of Toronto' s
waterfront. Central to the Task Force proposal is:
· the creation of a single-purpose governing body enabled with the powers
necessary to catalyze private investment
· the incorporation of this body as a tri-level, non-share capital corporation in a
joint enterprise by all three levels of government. This enterprise would have
control of the development of all publicly-owned waterfront lands, implementing
a previously agreed-upon overall plan
· the granting of certain tools to the governing body, including powers to acquire,
mortgage, hold and dispose of property, raise financing and be a party to
transactions and legal proceedings in its own name, as well as all other tools
normally assigned to corporations
· the ability of the governing body to take advantage of a fast-tracked regulatory
process for development approvals
The Task Force studied governance models from twelve cities: Cardiff, Wales;
Mancllester, UK, Dublin, Ireland; London, UK, New York, USA, Saint Paul, USA,
Detroit, USA, Baltimore, USA, Boston, USA, San Francisco, USA, and Capetown, South
Africa, as well as a New York State-run governing body.
The Task Force report listed the following elements as common to all tllese
precedents:
· autllority to sell, lease or mortgage tlleir land assets
· operated in a business model, with requisite real estate and management skills
· offered investors or partners a greatly simplified planning process
· an efficient and action-oriented governance structure
. government financial assistance in the form of grants, tax abatements, credits
and other programs
. intergovernmental in ownership and support
79 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
224
Implementing the Toronto Waterfont Revitalization Task Force Proposal
Recommended Approach
City Council now has tlle opportunity to provide more definition and structure to tlle
Task Force's implementation proposal.
The most obvious question is: What responsibility lies Witll tlle municipality and
what responsibility lies with tlle new waterfront development governing body?
While the Task Force report assumes that this tri-Ievel governing body would take
the form of a corporation, tIlis report suggests that some further study and
discussions with senior govenunents be undertaken before a final recommendation
would be made to City Council on a preferred model.
225
I
i
!
Next Steps
Once City Council has approved tIle Task Force proposal in principle, work on the
new Central Waterfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law can begin. To maintain
momentum, tlle new Central Waterfront Official Plan and ZOnhlg By-law should,
subject to the normal statutory requirements, he ready for adoption by the newly
elected City Council in early 2001
More detailed studies of several aspects of tlle Task Force proposal will need to be
undertaken immediately. Some of these studies will help formulate a new Central
Waterfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law,
The City will also need to commence discussions with the federal and provi.ncial
levels of government to establish a waterfront governing body.
Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum 82
226
I
I
Conclusion
Conclusion
Toronto will be known for its distinctive beauty, blending green lands, public
places, historical sites, commercial and recreational facilities, residential areas
and public art,5
Staff believe that the proposal put forward by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Task Force is a decisive milestone in the life of the new city. It is an exciting vision
Witll far-reaching benefits. The risks are manageable,
With sound implementation, the Task Force proposal represents a clear and
significant opportunity to build on the quality of life in Toronto This is important
both for citizens and for tlle city's future as an international presence in a global
economy,
The Task Force proposal is founded on Council-endorsed principles first outlined
in "Our Toronto Wateifront - Wave of the Future"
From principles come strategy. The Task Force proposal also directly addresses the
five major themes outlined in Toronto's Strategic Plan Phase 1 that focus on
economic vitality, social development, environmental sustainability, good
governance and city building.
The waterfront development is an example of the kind of strategic thinking tlle new
Toronto needs to exemplify.
With a clear vision and sound strategies, Toronto's future waterfront will be among
the world's best.
5 Principles for Renewal, Our Toronto Waterfront - The Wave of the Future
83 Our Toronto Waterfront Building Momentum
227
RES.#D59/00 - YORK REGION DRAFT GREENING STRATEGY
Provide comments to York Region on their Draft Greening Strategy
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Region of York be advised
that the Authority supports their draft Greening Strategy and will continue to provide
advice, support and delivery of programs which complement and support the Region's
initiative.
AND FURTHER THAT the region be requested to support the various program initiative's
of the TRCA, such as the Natural Heritage Strategy, Monitoring program, educational
programming, updated Regulation program, and acquisition, as well as the TRCA
Nursery in providing native stock, which will assist the region in furthering the draft
Greening Strategy and implementing the Sustainable Natural Environment policies in the
Regional Official Plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In January of 2000, the F.egion of York initiated the York Greening Strategy as a result of the
review of the Regional Tree By-law, Official Plan Report Card of 1998/99, and the recent
partnerships initiatives with the Conservation Authorities Since January, the region has held
workshops, prepared a discussion paper and held a symposium on the directions of the
Greening strategy
The purpose of the Strategy is identify a number of action areas and practical steps that can be
taken, together with partners, to implement the Sustainable Natural Environment policies in the
Regional Official Plan
Action Plan consists of 9 initiatives
. Information - Region to take a lead role in the development of a GIS system which
identifies the Greenland/Natural Heritage Geographic Information System,
. Naturalization - Region will assist partners with the development of naturalization projects
that provide for community and corporate involvement.
. Acquisition of Priority Properties - The acquisition of priority properties will be actively
pursued through partnerships with the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCe), the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
. Community Education & Promotional Campaign - Raising awarent:.ss of the natural
environment and its role in sustainable healthy communities is essential Coordination of
the promotional matEdals and educational tools at the regional facilities and Conservation
Authority facilities will be undertaken
. Regional Operations - Region will review its own operational issues so that it may lead by
example through its own office practices as well as capital works projects and on-going
road maintenance.
. Role of Federal/Provincial Government Legislation - Advocate stronger federal and
provincial legislation for regulations and incentives to protect, conserve and enhance our
natural environment.
228
. Urban Forest - Increase the extent of urban tree plantings which provide a significant role
in providing environmental benefits such as oxygen production and carbon dioxide
sequestering
. Corporate Green Partnerships - Develop opportunities with the Conservation Authorities
and private sector green initiatives to advance each of the action plans within the strategy
. Monitoring Results - The region would provide an annual report outlining the progress
and completion of the various action plans
The Region of York has request comments from the Authority on the draft Greening Strategy
by the end of December
Rationale
The draft Greening Strategy and the 9 action plan initiatives recommend by York Region staff is
an excellent program to further the Official Plan policies for the Sustainable Natural
Environment. Through the report card process the implementation of the environmental
policies was seen as a important issue for the region to address This strategy brings together
many tools that are necessary to comprehensively implement the conservation, protection and
enhancement of the Region of York natural heritage system
Staff recommend that the Authority fully support this York Region initiative. The TRCA is an
important partner in assisting the region in furthering this Strategy Many of these action items
have been identified within the Living City Campaign which builds on public/private
partnerships In terms of each of the action plans the Authority can provide assistance and
advice in the following areas
. Information - The creation of a GIS inventory of the most up to date information on natural
features is an important step in understanding the attributes within the region The
Authority has been undertaking a Natural Heritage Program which incorporates this step
As well, this program pmvides a modeled system in order to understand and evaluate the
relationship between various features and their potential with further protection and
restoration
. Naturalization - TRCA has been actively involved in regeneration and has an existing
partnership through the Ontario Power Generation to fund several planting programs as
part of the carbon sequestering program. Coordinating these initiatives with the region and
other private corporations will enable the region and TRCA to make significant strides in the
planting program within the region
. Acquisition of Priority Properties - This initiative complement's the Authority's existing
program to acquire properties with significant natural attributes With the information base
established through the Natural Heritage Program the identification of the priority sites will
be greatly assisted and enhanced through this partnership
. Education - The Authority has several educational opportunities that are coordinated
through Residential, Day Use and Outreach Programs A coordinated approach with York
Region would enhance the overall effectiveness, raising the public's awareness of the
natural environment.
229
. Legislation - The province has recently adopted a new Conservation Authority's Act which
updates the areas in which an Authority regulates development. The implementation of
these revised regulations first requires that the province adopt a Generic Regulation for the
province and then each of the Authorities would be required to update and adopt individual
regulations for the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources This revised regulation
framework will significantly enhance the ability of the Authority to regulate changes to the
natural environment.
. Monitoring - The draft Greening Strategy recommends that an annual report be completed
which measures progress and completion of the various actions The Authority is
establishing a Monitoring program which is to measure the health of the natural heritage
system This monitoring framework will identify areas where we have made positive
improvements and where we need to continue our efforts This framework will provide the
Region with specific data as a basis to alter or amend the action plan in the future
The majority of the draft Greening Strategy initiatives relate directly to existing and approved
Authority programs and the region's support of our program initiative would be a major step
forward in completing their action plans In particular, the TRCA would continue to look for the
Region's support of the Natural Heritage Strategy, Monitoring program, Education, Acquisition
and Regulation program as well as support for the TRCA Nursery in providing native stock for
the planting program, The combined efforts and partnership of the public agencies and private
corporations will ensure that the Sustainable Natural Environment policies in the Regional
Official Plan are achieved
Report prepared by. Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
For Information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date. December 06, 2000
RES.#D60/00 - CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/00 The minutes of the Carruthers Creek
Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/00 held on November 22,2000, are
provided for information
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by bH Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Carruthers
Creek Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/00, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Draft membership selection, work plan, reporting procedures and Terms of Reference for
the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces, dated October 1999, and adopted
by the Authority at meeting # 11/99 held on November 26, 1999 by Resolution # A298/99,
includes the following provision
230
Section 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
Report prepared by. Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
For Information contact: Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
Date. December 05, 2000
RES.#D61 /00 - DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/00 The minutes of the Duffins Creek Watershed
Task Force Meeting #4/00, held on November 29,2000, are provided for
information
Moved by. Bill Saundercook
Seconded by' Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins Creek
Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/00, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Draft membership ::.Alection, work plan, reporting procedures and Terms of Reference for
the Duffins and Carruther~ Creek Watershed Task Forces, dated October 1999, and adopted
by the Authority at Meeting #11/99 held on November 26,1999 by Resolution #A2.98/99,
includes the following provision
Section 4,5 Reportinq 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
Report prepared by. Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
For Information contact: Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
Date December 05, 2000
231
RES.#D62/00 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #4/00 held on October 17, 2000 The minutes of
Humber Watershed Alliance Meeting #4/00, held on October 17, 2000,
are provided for information
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance Meeting #4/00, held on October 17, 2000, 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 . 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. November 02, 2000
RES.#D63/00 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #7/00, September 21,2000 The minutes of Meeting
#7/00 held on September 21,2000 of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council is provided for information
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMl.UDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #7/00 held September 21,2000 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 5238
Date. November 02, 2000
232
RES.#D64/00 - DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES
Minutes of Meeting #3/00 The minutes of Duffins and Carruthers Creek
Watershed Task Forces Meeting #3/00 held on October 18, 2000, are
provided for information
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMM[NDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek Task Forces Meeting #3/00, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Draft membership selection, work plan, reporting procedures and Terms of Reference for
the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces, dated October 1999, and adpoted
by the Authority at meeting #11/99 held on November 26, 1999 by Resolution #A2.98/99,
includes the following provision
Section 4.5 Reportinq 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
Report prepared by' Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
For Information contact: Debra-Ann Taylor, extension 5330
Date December 05, 20UO
- --
RES.#D65/00 - ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meetings #8/00 & #9/00 The minutes of Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force Meeting #8/00 held on
September 28, 2000 and Meeting #9/00 held on October 26, 2000, are
provided for information
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force Meetings #8/00 and #9/00, as appended, be
received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watershed Strategy, dated
June, 1999, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #6/99 held on Ju",e 25, 1999 by
Resolution #A 166/99, includes the following provision
233
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: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date. November 02, 2000
RES.#D66/00 - OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 124/161
ENVIRONMENTAL/AGGREGATE POLICIES
Town of Caledon, Region of Peel Request for participant status before
thE':: Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the Official Plan Amendments
124/161 related to the Environmental and Aggregate policies for the
r(Jd'1 of Caledon
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to seek
participant status before the Ontario Municipal Board related to a hearing on the Town of
Caledon Official Plan Amendment 124 (Environmental policies) and 161 (Aggregate
policies)
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Town of Caledon's environmental policies are set out in Official Plan Amendment 124
which was adopted by the Town in the early 1990's A portion of OPA 124, which dealt with the
settlement areas of the Town, was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and consolidated
with the Town's growth management amendment (OPA 114) The Ontario Municipal Board
approved OPA 124 on July 1,1997 only as it applies to certain areas of the Town with some
modifications to the environmental policies
Official Plan Amendment 161 was adopted by the Town of Caledon on \!larch 7, 2000, which
sets out the Aggregate pGlicies This amendment was appealed to the 80ard and a series of
prehearings have been "o!d over the last several months At the prehearing on August 3,
2000, the OMB issued a provisional order for the consolidation of the remaining portion of OPA
124
Authority staff attended the prehearing on September 18, 2000, and requested participant
status and indicated that if necessary the Authority may be requesting Party status at a later
date. A similar request was made by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and Save The
Oak Ridge Moraine Inc. (STORM) The Board requested that each of the participant's confirm
at the prehearing on November 24, 2000, their status at the upcoming hearing
234
At the prehearing on November 28, 2000, their was agreement among the various parties that
the hearing would be scheduled in two phases Phase 1 would deal with the overall policies of
both the Aggregate and Environmental Policies, Phase 2 would pertain to the site specific
applications which are also in front of the Board All of the site specific applications are within
the CVC's area,
After discussions with the Town of Caledon, both the TRCA and the CVC, indicated to the
Board at the November bearing that we were requesting participant status for the Phase 1
portion of the hearing The CVC were also requesting party status for the Phase 2 portion of
the hearing A further prehearing is scheduled for January 11, 2001, at which time the Board
has requested that the issues be identified by the various parties, and that the start date and
length of hearing be canvassed among the parties so that the Board can set the procedural
order and hearing dates The Board will be checking their schedule for a potential start date of
September 7,2001
RATIONALE
Authority staff have commented on both Official Plan Amendment 124 and 161 and have
indicated our support of the environmental protection policies within the Amendments The
Environmental policies set out an eco-system planning and management approach with an
emphasis not only on the protection of the ecosystem but also the enhancement and
restoration of the ecosystems The policies deal with the ecosystem as a whole and recognize
the interdependance between the various features and their functions The Ecosystem
Framework identifies four components Natural Core Areas, Natural Corridors, which are
designated as Environmental Policy Area, and the Supportive Natural Systems, and Natural
Linkages
Authority staff are very supportive of this Natural Systems approach to defining, understanding
and protecting the env;ronmental resources The Town of Caledon has incorporated the
objectives of the Valley dl"l.j Stream Corridor Management Program within the amendment as
well as the other water resources objectives identified through the Authorities' comments
The aggregates policies also incorporate the Ecosystem Planning and Management Objectives
in balancing the aggregate resource areas within the Town
It is recommended that the Authority direct staff to continue with the participant status at this
upcoming Board hearing In addition, staff will be discussing our role in relation to potential
witnesses who would provide the Town assistance in the presentation of their case,
Report prepared by. Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
For information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date December 13, 2000
RES.#D67/00 - RC~IJGE RIVER MARSHES REHABILITATION INiTIATIVE
City of Toronto To obtain approval for the Rouge River Marshes
C(J ::.ept plan and provide a status report on the implementation through
the Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative
235
Moved by Bill Saundercook
Seconded by Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Rouge River Marshes
concept plan (November, 1999) as co-ordinated by the Ministry of Natural Resources be
approved,
THAT the status report on the Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative (Parking
Lot/Access and Shoreline rehabilitation) - City of Toronto, be received for information,
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources, the City of Toronto and the
Rouge Park Alliance be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In March, 1998, the Coastal Wetlands Rehabilitation Plan was released by the Ministry of
Natural Resources for tl- ~ollowing coastal wetlands
. Humber River Marshes
. Toronto Islands Wetlands
. Highland Creek Wetlands
. Rouge River Marshes
The key objectives of this plan are as follows
1 To develop rehabilitation targets (structure, composition and function) for the coastal
wetlands of the Metro Toronto and Region RAP areas and contribute to addressing
wetland management targets within the various national, provincial and regional
agreements and plans
2. To develop concept rehabilitation plans for each coastal wetland based on a sound
understanding of each wetland area while respecting the social needs of the local
community
3 To improve interpretative and educational opportunities for the regional and local
communities
4 To ensure that each plan is workable based upon science, cost effectiveness and
experimental opP'vtunities that are identified
5 To ensure that existing wetland and riparian habitat inventory information is identified,
evaluated and quantified
6 To foster private and public stewardship of coastal wetlands through effective
communication and using local volunteer effort.
7 To modify and improve existing wetland restoration techniques, and where necessary
develop new techniques to enhance the coastal wetlands of the Metro Toronto Area.
The following remedial recommendations were outlined for the Rouge River Marshes
236
ROUGE RIVER MARSHES REMEDIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Internal External
. litter and debris remcNal . reduce silt and sediment production
. purple loosestrife removal . reduce water quantity levels
. silt and sediment control . reduce erosion in the watershed
. prohibit waterfowl feeding and relocate
mute swans
. improve public access, promote
recreation and education
. control carp access and construct
exclosure fences and barriers in lagoons
. create suitable habitat structures for fish
and wildlife
. re-introduce compatible fish and wildlife
species
. naturalize parking lot edge
. reduce/remove existing parking lot
Source Metro Toronto Coastal Wetlands Rehabilitation Plan - Table 8
ROUGE RIVER MARSHES - REHABILITATION TARGETS
Structure Targets
. install six black tern nesting platforms
. construct one ospre" nesting platform
. rehabilitate two hectares (3% of total area) narrow leafed emergent marsh as pike
spawning habitat
. install fifteen brush 5m~lters
. install twenty basking logs
. install 50 nesting boxes for cavity nesting bird species
Composition Targets
. rehabilitate of 8 hectares of submergent, floating, robust emergent, and narrow-leaf
emergent marsh
. re-introduce Bull Frog, Trumpeter Swan, River Otter, Porcupine and Lake Sturgeon
. rehabilitate existing populations of Bowfin, Northern Pike, Longnose Gar, Largemouth
Bass, Spring Peeper, Gray Tree Frog, Mudpuppy, Northern Water Snake and Redbelly
Snake through habitat rehabilitation
Function Targets
. restore biological functions of breeding, nursery and feeding for shorebirds, reptiles,
amphibians and warm water piscivorous fish
. increase social function through the installation of viewing and interpretative opportunities
Source, Metro Toronto Coastal Wetlands Rehabilitation Plan - Table 9
In early 1997, the Rouge Marshes Working Group held its first meeting with the following
membership
. Ontario Ministry of N.ltural Resources (Lead Agency)
. Environment Canade
. The Rouge Park Allidi Ice
. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
237
. City of Toronto Parks
. West Rouge Community Association
. Ravine Property Owners Association
. Ontario Streams
. Save the Rouge Valley System
To further the Metro Toronto Coastal Wetlands recommendations, the Rouge River Marshes
Working Group agreed to the following Vision, Goal and Objectives
Vision.
Located at the mouth of the Rouge River on Lake Ontario, the Rouge River Marshes are the
largest coastal wetlands in Toronto and encompass the most southerly section of the Rouge
Park. The Rouge River Marshes, as a major ecological component of the Rouge Park, will be a
special place of outstanding natural features and cultural heritage in an urban setting,
protected and flourishing as an ecosystem Appropriate recreational activities such as fishing,
canoeing and nature enjuvment will exist in harmony with the natural ValdeS of the Rouge River
Marshes and all objectives of the Rouge Park.
Goal
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.
Natural Heritage Objectives.
To protect, restore, and enhance the natural ecosystem of the Rouge River Marshes by
ensuring the health and diversity of its native species, habitats, landscapes, and ecological
processes
Cultural Heritage Objectives:
To identify, protect and conserve the cultural heritage features of the Rouge River Marshes and
surrounding area for their inherent value and depiction of the long-term human use and
occupancy of the area. Promotion of continued human uses of the marsh should be
consistent with the Natural Heritage objectives of the Rouge River Marshes
Interpretative Objective.
To promote knowledge and understanding of the natural and cultural v:::tlues of the Rouge River
Marshes, their protection and management requirements and their signiticance, sensitivities
and interrelationships
Land Use Objective
To ensure the protection of the ecological integrity and the cultural values of the Rouge River
Marshes through innovative planning, management and the promotion of stewardship and
active involvement of landowners in the areas surrounding the Rouge River Marshes Land
use within the Rouge River Marshes should be limited to the minimal requirements necessary
for public safety and access for compatible educational and recreational activities
Recreational Objectives
To provide opportunities for compatible recreational enjoyment such as fishing, canoeing and
nature appreciation and to provide access for the Waterfront Trail and Rouge Beach Park.
238
At its June 1, 1998 meeting, the Rouge Park Alliance passed the following resolution
"The Rouge Park Alliance approve the Rouge Marshes Vision, Goals and Objectives, as
outlined in this report."
In April and October, 1999 public meetings were held Based on the public's comments and
the Working Group's cor :.erns, the attached final Rouge Marshes Concept Plan was prepared
(November, 1999) The key elements of the plan are as follows
. Increase of floating aquatics,
. Expansion to the area of emergent vegetation,
. Improved fish access,
. Wetland habitat along south shoreline (approx, 800m) J
. Stormwater management of parking lot run-off;
. Consolidation of existing parking,
. New pedestrian trail with central boardwalk section and potential boardwalk extension into
proposed emergent vegetation zone.
To implement the Concept Plan, the Ministry of Natural Resources in conjunction with the
Rouge Marshes Working Group, prepared "The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative"
The project followed the procedure for "Shoreline and Stream Bank Stabilization" as outlined in
the Class Environmental Assessment for Small Scale MNR Projects manual
The preferred alternative focused on the Rouge Marsh Parking Lot and access and habitat
rehabilitation along the s'..Juth shoreline (800 m)
The preferred alternative :-;onsisted of' changes to the organization and location of parking
spaces supplied by each parking area, (the Working Group decided to provide the maximum
number of spaces without compromising the interests of the wetland, and the boardwalk was
extended to further the visitor's experience in the inner marshes.
The preliminary design for the preferred alternative is included as Figures 8 - 11 in Appendix I
to this report. The Appendix also provides the details on the restoration activities, operational
considerations, environmental effects, environmental protection measures, monitoring and
maintenance,
The Ministry of Natural Resources coordinated implementation of the first phase of wetland
habitat (west of the central boardwalk) in the summer and fall of 2000
RATIONALE
The Rouge River Marshes Concept Plan should be approved by the Authority as it.
. complies with the Rouge Park Management Plan,
. assists in meeting the rehabilitation (structure, composition and function) targets
established in the CO~.stal Wetlands Rehabilitation Plan - Ontario Mhistry of Natural
Resources (OMNR)- March, 1998,
. reflects the vision, goal and objectives outlined by the Rouge River Marshes Working
Group,
. reflects the comments and concerns of the public and community groups,
239
. provides the management framework to guide the implementation of specific rehabilitation
initiatives (i e - Rouge River Marshes Parking/Access and habitat rehabilitation for the
south shoreline (800 m)
WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff have and continue to participate in the Rouge River Marshes Working Group and
provide assistance on the implementation of the Concept Plan
At the request of OMNR, the south shoreline initiative is included in the Fish Compensation
Plan and authorization for the Port Union Shoreline Project (Highland Creek to the Rouge
River) The detailed design of the Fish Compensation Plan is currently underway as per the
directions from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans The Rouge Marshes initiative (south
shoreline) will provide additional compensation and flexibility in meeting the compensation
requirements for the Port Union shoreline project.
Further work with the <>' will occur in 2001/2002 on the parking lot/access improvements,
implementation of the peaestrian trail/boardwalk and public access improvements to the
existing bridge across the Rouge River into the City of Pickering
FINANCIAL
Those elements of the concept plans associated with the Port Union Fish Compensation Plan
will be funded from the Port Union Waterfront development capital Commitment of this
capital, subject to receiving approval by the Minister of the Environment under the
Environmental Assessment Act expected in early 2001
Other funding assistance (i e. marsh boardwalk) will be provided under the Toronto Waterfront
Development Project 2000-2004 Phase,
Report Prepared by Larry Field, extension 5243
Date. December 13, 2000
Attachments. 2
For Information contact. Larry Field, extension 5243
Date. December 13, 2000
Attachments
240
Attachment 1
1IIIillllllj
J DDllIirID[ll 0 iliJEl OC)l ~I
Ii
.
.
."
~
I ~:
, ;
!
h~ I' I
~r:: l'~,ll~ ~
I~ iF ~~ 11 t
I It ~ Ri r f
l,rl!lf,
,/Lc';: ;
"'-..t. 1
~I~" "
j U EIJ1i.1 ~
I. ..... oJ It ;'; i
. t] ] ,- .. ,~
I I, 'I .
i !m \'1 J
nil
II i R <nl'~ ~ '8 .' II I ,
~ lul, ! ~ II r.J~ j
II l'II~; jt Jail ~1 ~ ~ ii J ~ 1/
k fnn A 8 " ~ :[, J
. I ~ Ij ~ 6~tE ~11lZ.l1, 4~ "7 ,- JI -Ai J J 22
.....
241
Attachment 2
APPENDIX I
ROUGE RIVER MARSHES REHABILITATION INITIATIVE
CLASS E.A. PROJECT PLAN
Step 4 Project Plan
Step 5 Project Plan Review
Step 6 Implementation and Monitoring
Drawings L 1, L2, L3 and L4, Preliminary Design
242
I
I
I
I
! 57
I Step 4 - Project Plan
15.0 Project Plan
I 151 Project Plan
I The Preferred Alternative
The major refinements to the preferred alternative consisted of: changes to the organization
I and location of parking spaces supplied by each parking area, (the working group decided to
provide the maximum number of spaces without compromising the interests of the
I wetland), and the boardwalk was extended to further the visitors' experience into the inner
I marshes.
I Construction Details
I The refined preliminary design, as illustrated in Figures 8-11, was prepared by Harrington
and Hoyle Landscape Architects in consultation with OMNR, TRCA, the City of Toronto,
and other interest groups. Each phase of the project engages similar activities in different
I regions of the site. All works will take place during summer and fall to coincide with normal
I low lake levels and relativdy stable conditions. All three phases are delineated bdow
Construction details for the access road, parking lot and trail will be prepared and
I implemented by the City and coordinated with the naturalization work as budgets are
I established.
I Restoration Activities
~
Year 2000 TIUs phase concentrates on the westerly and easterly parking lot sections.
I Site control fencing will be erected out of 9-42 gage wire fence with wooden posts on Sm
intervals at the easterly parking lot as per plan drawing. Site control fencing will also be
I erected at the westerly end as per plan drawing. Public information signs will be installed for
I interpretation of the project phases and marsh values and ecological functions. Existing
armourstone and large rocks will be stockpiled and placed along the shorelines once grading
I of the shoreline is complete. Once the wetland soil and sand mixtures has been added to the
new shoreline planting will begin.
I
! Year 2001 Phase two involves boardwalk construction and related activities.
Foundations for the boardwalk are to be installed by the City of Toronto and the actual
I boardwalk is to be constructed by volunteers. The areas planned for paving, planting, swale
I
I creation and waters edge work must be initially sub-graded. Additional armourstone and
large rocks are to be set along the boardwalk area and those found and not needed are to be
removed from the site. The base course of asphalt on the parking area will be established
and all pre-cast curbs will be installed as required. Again, the shoreline will be augmented
with a soil/sand mixture once the desired grade is reached and site control fencing will be
installed along with public information signs. Propagated plants can be planted in the fall
months.
July 2000 Ontario Streams
Class Environmental Assessment Harrington and Hoyle Ltd.
for The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative 243 Onwio Muustry of Natural Resources, Aurora District
I
I
I
i
I
58
, Year 2002 The remaining portions of the access road shall undergo the same
I construction activines as the parking lot areas in phase one.
I
( Operation
I
I
l The naturalized marsh shoreline must be properly managed and maintained as part of the
! Rouge Park using the following considerations:
i 1) Protection, repair and restoration of the marsh
t
I The condition of the marsh must be monitored to ensure no activities or changes occur
l that could degrade the corridor. As a public park, the Rouge RIver Marshes are
governed under the park by-laws of the City of Toronto.
I 2) Access Control
I
Access to the marsh must be managed to ensure that people do not detrimentally affect
the stream or stream corridor.
,
.
3) Landscaping/Routine Maintenance
The marsh should be maintained in a natural vegetated cover as much as possible.
, Municipal by-laws should also be adopted to require the proper disposal of garbage.
, Periodic clean-out of accumulated sediment in the swales may be required. Such
r
sediment should be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriate facility
i
I 4) Public Education
Nurture appreciation and understanding as to why restrictions and certain maintenance
practices are required in the marsh must be understood by the public if the project is to
i be accepted and successful. Ontario Streams, Save the Rouge Valley System, and the
Rouge Park Alliance will work together to educate and solicit responsible marsh
maintenance practices on privately owned marsh lands by providing fact sheets and
, workshops to landowners.
I
I
The partnerships developed for the Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative will
constitute a large portion of the operational responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities of
I each member of the Rouge Marshes Working Group is outlined in Appendix A, Working
Group Terms of Reference.
Abandonment
I If such a need arises to abandon the rehabilitation, initiative, a decommissioning procedure
I will be developed by OMNR in consultation with affected parties.
I
I
Environmental Effects
i
I
! There are some concerns regarding the impacts of continued construction activities while
initiating naturalization phases. There is also a concern regarding restricted public access.
I Access will be restricted during the rehabilitation process to protect sensitive areas of the
I
I wetland undergoing works, to protect post-construction efforts, and to protect fish and
wildlife habitat and vegetative integrity
July 2000 Ontario Streams
Class Environmental Assessment 244 Harrington and Hoyle Ltd.
Cor The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative Ont:lno Mirustry of Natural Resources, Aurora District
,
I
!
I
t
59
1 Concerns have also been expressed over the effectiveness of silt control measures in abatlng
excessive sedimentation. With any large-scale project, short-term construction noise and
reduction in aesthetic value for public visitors is unavoidable. In this case, the concern is
i amplified specifically because the Rouge River Marshes attracts many visitors and is home to
i a number of residents within close proximity to the work site.
I The newly planted vegetation is at risk if controls are not put in place to properly manage
! the grazing impacts of Canada geese. The geese have been an on-going problem, partially
I due to an abundant supply of food provided by the public, which supports a large
; population. Mitigation measures will address the negative effects listed. TIlls proposal
I includes many major environmental benefits in the areas of fish and wildlife, cultural and
,
t natural integrity, and ecological functions.
! Environmental Protection Measures
An interpretation area will be provided at the base of the pedestrian footbridge to explain
! the importance of the Rouge River Marshes and the reasoning behind the parking lot
I reconfiguration. The interpretation and fishing areas would be hardened to accommodate
heavy foot traffic, but the rest of the shoreline would have a soft gentle slope. Drainage of
I the parking area would be accommodated through a center swale that would collect and treat
stormwater. TIlls treatment facility would include an overflow pipe that enters into a newly
created vegetation community that would help to treat excess run-off before entering the
I marsh. A roadSIde swale will act in a similar way along the length of the access road.
Garbage receptacles will be placed strategically along walking paths and parking areas.
( The final concept designs encourage appropriate recreational usage such as canoeing, fishing
! and nature enjoyment by providing access points to the waters edge via foot trails and
lookouts. Active community groups also support and encourage appropriate use of the
natural features of the Rouge River Marshes. The silt fences are extremely effective as long
I as structures are maintained on a daily basis; such control measures will prevent construction
I activities from damaging concurrent naturalization efforts. The City has agreed to provide
multi-language signs to discourage waterfowl feeding, this will help to deter geese from
\ populating the rehabilitated shoreline. To compensate for the reduction in useable space at
! the location of the existing parking area, the public will be provided with a winding path that
leads them through a dynamic trail of diverse vegetation and wetland viewing sites,
,
I Monitoring
I
Monitoring of wetland rehabilitation techniques will be based on the success or failure of the
, establishment of a healthy, vigorous, native plant community as the benchmark.
Maintenance of habitat structures and vegetation units shall be observed on a trend through
I time based during post construction. Structures and vegetation units will also be monitored
I dunng the spring, summer and fall to detennine use by fish and wildlife. Community and
I
school groups will be encouraged to become involved in long-term monitoring of fish,
amphibians, birds, vegetation, and mammals.
July 2000 OntlU"ioSU'c:ams
Class Envirorunental Assessment 245 Harrington and Hoyle Ltd.
for The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative Ontario MinIstry of Natural Resources, Aurora DistrlCI
r
I
\
\
l
60
r Monitoring data will be recorded as follows:
I
l
. ConstrUction site during constrUction - daily
r . ConstrUction site post constrUction - monthly
1 . Fish - during spring every 2-3 days
. Wildlife and birds - during site visits and volunteer days
. Bird boxes - during the spring
f
. . Vegetation transects - during the fall
l
! All collected data will be reported annually and data collection will continue in this fashion
until 2005.
Maintenance
f
Created vegetation units should be self-maintaining after their second year of growth.
Maintenance will be continued until a stable vegetative cover of healthy, native, indigenous
plants is established. Annual maintenance of habitat strUctures may be required at minimal
\ cost. OMNR assumes the responsibility for long-term maintenance of habitat structures and
will continue to support partnerships with volunteer organizations in order to ensure long-
I term community involvement.
[
r
\
r
,
r
t
I
r
I
,
I
I
I
I
, Ontario Str=s
July 2000
Class Envirorunental Assessment 246 Harrington and Hoylc Ltd.
, for The Rouge River Marshcs Rchabilitation Initiative Ontario Ministry of Natural Rcsourccs, Aurora District
,
I
I
I
i
f 61
15.2 Table 11: Class EA Process
I
Date Project Component Comments
! February 12, 1997 First Working Group meeting
May 4, 1998 Concept plan submitted to Working Studies must be done to
i Group for review determine plant types for
r vegetative buffer
June 1, 1998 Rouge Marshes Project vision, goals, and Approval by Rouge Park Alliance
! objectives approved by Working Group
July 18, 1998 Rouge Park day Display for Rouge Marshes
I Initiative presented by Ontario
Streams
, April 16, 1999 First Public Notice issued by MNR Distributed in the News
r Advertiser Friday Edition and
Scarborough Mirror
! April 22, 1999 Community workshop / Public Open Port Union Community Centre
House
! April 22 and 24, 1999 Rouge Marshes Earth Week Tecumseh Senior Public School;
I hosted by Ontario Streams
, April 24, 1999 Rouge Marshes Earth Week West Rouge Sport and Recreation
I Association and West Rouge
Community Association: hosted
\. by Ontario Streams
October 20, 1999 Public Meeting Sir Oliver Mowat Collegiate
r School
! March 8, 2000 Rouge Marshes phasing plan presented to
.
l the Working Group by the Oty of
Toronto
! April 28, 2000 Earth Week events in the Rouge Marshes Tecumseh Senior Public, TEAM
I Program Milliken Mills Public
School, and West Rouge Public
. schools; hosted by Ontario
I Streams
April 29, 2000 Earth Week events in the Rouge Marshes Open to the public; participation
I from Sport and Recreation
I Association and West Rouge
, Community Association; hosted
\
by Ontario Streams
, May 12, 2000 Final Notice issued by MNR Issued in Scarborough Mirror and
Pickering Advertiser
May 17,2000 Shoreline Naturalization phasing plan
I presented to the Working Group by
I Harrington and Hoyle
June 12,2000 Class EA consultation Process concludes
July 17, 2000 Initiate shoreline grading and
naturalization
r
July 2000 Ontario Streams
Qass Environmental Assessment Harrington and Hoyle Ltd.
for The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative 247 Ontano Mirustry of Natural Resources, Aurora District
J
J
t
l
\
,
~
62
l
~ Step 5 - Project Plan Review
~ 16.0 Project Plan Review
i
Should new concerns be identified by the public during thirty day review period for the final
, notice, it is the responsibility of the project coordinator to ensure that the District Manager
I
l is informed. It is also essential that further mitigation and preventative measures be worked
into the project plan in order to address the concerns raised by the public.
I The final public notice for this project was issued on May 12, 2000 and no public concerns
were raised during the 30 day review period..
i 16.1 Project Summary Report
,-
The purpose of the Project Summary Report is to provide a brief synopsis of the planning
l process for external filing with the Ministry of the Environment and internal filing with
MNR regional and main offices.
, The project summary report for this project can be found in Appendix H.
,
I
i
,
Step 6 - Implementation and Monitoring
!
I 17.0 Implementation and Monitoring
i
r 17.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures
I
\
The following mitigation recommendations were developed during Step 3 of the Fidd
Environmental Planning Procedure and will be implemented over the course of the
; construction period:
l
. Construction is to take place during the summer and fall when the shoreline is
i expected to be dry and stable in the work area and also to minimize impacts on
wildlife and fish.
. Only native plants to the Rouge River Marshes will be included in the plant list.
. "State of the art" sediment and erosion control practices will be installed and
I maintained for the duration of the installation construction to protect water
f quality
. Access to the construction area will be controlled by use of safety fences and
i Public Notices.
l . Construction activities will be limited to weekdays and between the hours of 7.30
am and 5:00 pm. Residents will be notified of proposed construction activities.
I . Garbage receptacles will be provided along the existing trails and annual Rouge
i
River Marsh clean-ups will be coordinated with community groups.
. A comprehensive monitoring plan will be implemented, incorporating all aspects
of the rehabilitation initiative.
July 2000 Ontario Streams
Class Environmental Assessment 248 Harrington and Hoyle Ltd.
for The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District
i
\
,
I 63
17.2 Monitoring Measures
As described 10 Section 15.1 of Step 4, monitoring of wetland rehabilitation techniques will
; be based on the success or failure of the establishment of a healthy, vigorous, native plant
I community as the benchmark. Maintenance of habitat structures and vegetation units shall
be observed and recorded on a trend through time base during and post construction.
j Structures and vegetation units will also be monitored during the spring, summer and fall to
i determine use by fish and wildlife. Community and school groups will be encouraged to
l become involved in long-term monitoring of fish, amphibians, birds, vegetation, and
mammals.
(
I Monitoring data will be recorded as follows:
,
i . Construction site during construction - daily
. Construction site post construction - monthly
. Fish - during spring every 2-3 days
. Wildlife and birds - during site visits and volunteer days
1
, . Bird boxes - during the spring
I
. Vegetation transects - during the fall
I All collected data will be reported annually and data collection will continue in this fashion
I
1 until 2005.
f 17.3 Project Completion Notice
I
Following the completion of construction, the Director of the Environmental Assessment
I Branch of the :rvfinistry of.the Environment will be notified by letter.
I
I
r
!
I
,
i
I
i
i
I
!
July 2000 Ont2rio Streams
Class Environmental Assessment Harrington and Hoyle Lcd.
for The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative 249 Omano MlnlStry of Natural Resources, Aurora Districc
t
l
j
64
, Bibliography
I
,
~
I Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1998 and 1999 Water Levels: Great Lakes and Montreal
Harbour Canadian Hydrographic Service
I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1992. Class Environmental Assessment for Small Scale
i MNR Projects OMNR publication
I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1996. Metro Toronto Coastal Wetlands Rehabilitation Plan
!
I OMNR Publication
I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1991 Ecological Survey of the Rouge Valley Park OMNR
Central Region
i Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, March 4, 1991 Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan,
t Part 1. Man~ement Strategy.
I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, December, 1992. Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan.
I Part II, Assessment and Rehabilitation.
I
I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, November, 1991 Streams and Stream Corridors: Discussion
! Paper NO 2. Greater Toronto Area Branch MNR
1
i MTRCA, January 12, 1990. A Comprehensive Basin Management Strat~ for the Rouge River
Watershed.
I.
I Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, December 1988. Maple District Fisheries Management Plan
! 1989-2000. OMNR Maple District,
\
I
I
\
July 2000 Ontario Streams
Class Environmental Assessment 250 Harrington and Hoyle Ltd.
for The Rouge River Marshes Rehabilitation Initiative Ontario Mlrustry of Natural Resources, Aurora District
,
I
ROUGE MARSH REHABILITATION IN ITIA TIVE
JUL Y, 2000
I
PARTNERS IN ACTION
l SRYS
! lontorto
~S
I
SI.., tile Iloase ValIoy S"""" -'--UOI'I.1CftW1
I REI~ ;;R
I -
~ Ontario Ontario Federation
, ~
! c
~orNIIIttnII~ Hunters
, M~lurlll< du Richusa narunU~1
. -
.
r r~
I
I Rouge Park
".
! ~ ~ .
7
......;-=.i.
~ ....-
I ( ~,
t.'..
"7 THE TCAllNTO AND REGIDII Metro-East -_......_-..--
;'tl'C
..::.~ CoHOI::J'IVATIOH AuTllonm" 4'1 ~..~-
I LIST OF DRAWINGS CONSULTANT
I ~ TURONlO ~ L 1 OF4 PLANTING PLAN - PHASE ONE ~~~.
DW<s UinitEd Canada
1+1 ~-.:::-. ~ L2 OF4 PLANTING PLAN - PHASE TWO
I GREAT LAKES 2000 :::::::::::
GlEANUP FUND Marich.... Oalul.. UlE U5
L3 OF 4 T.........IU (100) ZI4-1Z1Z
Ravine Property Owners Association PLANTING PLAN - PHASE THREE ram (IH) ZI4-7n3
I -- .. ~ .. c-hWp
I George Cedric Metcalf Charitable Foundation L4 OF 4
I PLANTING PLAN - PHASE FOUR
I 1'1 . 'i !1'llIl, . ]
I JI I I 'u. I
I "II II I ! ~~ II II I~ . 'I". ~ Ii Ii
I~;!ri ,I "I '111111 II ' ,
111!i11ii 1!lhh~I~li ~I,
ft ~!illlllll ill !II!I:'~ I";!'
. I. ,1'1.11.. .ib Ii .1
.. " . 0I'a!
. = i~i
II 1111
, III
"'" ....
I! nq! ~I t
.: liP., ~
I, ., '" 2, e
li Ill' I~' I, ·
,.11 Ill', I
' a-, .
!I,II .r.."
I 1'1 111'11
. .1
.
.
.
,
, I
=-- ::>>..:
. .
I
,
. d!~ ~
.
,
Ii Iii l~ e
IllSrnl !
I ! ell
.
,
,
. ~ ~ ~q ~ I,
\ i
:III! hl,~ ~
I '1' ~ ' i
iD~ I ~i!1 .
. 1 ~
I
!
\-- I.
, , :,
..
I II
. . Il
I .
. '
. ,
, ,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
252
~ -- --- .....~ -' -.,..-- ~ -. .-..--.... ...---...... -- - - - -- -- - - -
I "I I 11"111 ' 1 II' ;!
I JI I I -Iii , I i IiI' ,
I I I I I j, 'I I 'Ill" II '. !ID !
I I J . .~.. J.' II .
I: 1111 ~i I!li !W~ I,I!!!I ~ I~;ll I! dlipl ~ t B
i~ ~r I ~~!~~,~~i~~J;!~III~ I ~11~ Oa
j Ill!lflfl~ I III ~ I
~, .!. 1t.1 !I.!I,~ ,!h h.:' II! II , 2210
~ ~ :.:f .. z ..
.~. II I 11111
111111 II III I liB
i . I I ,
. -,...,' ....". ",.,.
, . ",.." .".,., 0" ..
. . . .,..,.. ".."
i
1111
I I
. I
~m i~! i I
. Ic~ 1!l1 I
I, ~I lid,' i -.., ... 'R
I";: 'I .1
I" '.'.' II
-------'r-l-
c11~ ~
i!'SII i
ell
I
~
~ ri! ~p ~ ~ i
iil1m I ~ I:
IIi!~; Ie
~
a
II
I,
I.
I'
l~
253
-- ~ ~~ -" -.. --- - ~-_... --.-.' --' .- -- -- -
I III . 'I !I ill! ;1 ,1.!1I1 i I III ~ I!
I I' I J I III I IIi U a
I d II I I I'IU II "Iii .11 J Ii: flli II' :1
IcJm;!ri II
'I ., I, 'I" ! ! ~ III a
;'I!i'lij Id!!~i!II!I'li ill J! dMpl I ~tm' Oa ,
~ !1:ill.!I!llilhl!!J!ll!llf I ft j 1!i!IlIJf~ I )11 ~ I I
It .. 114 II Jf ,! 2'2"!
II II
II
II
I I
. ., "" " '"
. ""0" to .0.
. , " .0.
J
I I
I
I;;
~ II II ',Ill
2 Ill: I I I.
Iii! '11
,11,1 qll
'I ~l 12! I
~.II tin ':
.~. I
I'" "",
j m lb'"
- --~- - -- ------------------------ ~ ~ IlliL II
I.
!!
II
d
254
~ .- - - -" --- .. _ _J - -. - - - -- -- --
, I III . '''11111 jJ J I "Ill I J I. I!
'I
"1'1 I Ii II~ J J II, I,
I I I . . !I. :111 Iii . 'I II Ii : II i i j" II
I~;!n *ii'lii 1!lnil,il.!I',1 iI, f I dt!pJ ! ~ ;~ I
I ~111' I
alllillll,llil;III!I:,:I,II,!. ifulUIIIJ' I ~ fl I
!; I. Ii rlll.!I.. .,111, .1
II: "'.. 'It nnll .~f ~
.. ~ : ~.
I I II 11
1/111 " III
, / , It
. . I ""'" '" ""
... ! ....... .......
, . III '" '"
I
-
~ If "I I
I ,; II,jib, II
! I 1~ ~I
II ~." hI" I
'''Ii .1. II
· , ;lbl.lll:l, I
-T~- --.1 - - -~ -- -- ~~-----
.:
;:
: I
i I! b~
: ~,~~
. I..
! cjl
l 8
: a
i ~
: ~
, ~ Ii!!!!jf ~ U
,
, !ik~~ I r.
:!: I~ 'l.iI~ - ~
, ilIl ~l ilil D I
,
,
,
I.
II
I,
II
rl
II
I
.
- - ~ ~~ . -- -- - .- --.- - --- -.- -
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1054 a.m., on December 15, 2000
Lorna Bissell J Craig Mather
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
jks
256