HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Management Advisory Board 2001
ITEM 1
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/01
April 20, 2001
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/01, was held in the Humber
Room, Head Office, on Friday, April 20,2001. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting
to order at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon
Lorna Bissell
lIa Bossons
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
Pam McConnell
Jim McMaster
Dick O'Brien
Ian Sinclair
Frank Scarpitti
Tanny Wells
Member
Vice Chair
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Chair, Authority
Member
Member
Member
REGRETS
Dave Ryan
Member
RES.#D1/01 -
MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Bas Balkisoon
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/00, held on December 15, 2000, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGA TIONS
(a) Jim Robb of Friends of the Rouge Watershed, speaking in regards to item 7.21 - Village
Securities OMB A.)peal (Morningside Heights), City of Toronto.
(b) Barry Horosko, Bratty & Associates, speaking in regards to item 7.21 - Village Securities
OMB Appeal (Morningside Heights), City of Toronto.
1
(c)
Ron Christie, Chair, Rouge parJAmaF,c[ s;J~ ~ regards to item 7.21 - Village
Securities OMB Appeal (Mornin~-side ~i9msr. City of Toronto.
RES.#D2/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DELEGATIONS
Jim McMaster
Pam McConnell
THAT the above-noted delegations (a) - (c) be heard and received.
PRESENTATIONS
CARRIED
(a) A presentation by Gord MacPherson, Coordinator, Coastal Ecology, in regards to item
7.1 - Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program, Toronto Harbour Northern Pike
Habitat Utilization Study.
RES.#D3/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PRESENTATIONS
Bas Balkissoon
Dick O'Brien
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be deferred to a future meeting.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D4/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program, Toronto Harbour
Northern Pike Habitat Utilization Study. The Toronto Region
Conservation Authority is conducting an intensive study into the habitat
utilization characteristics of northern pike in the Toronto Harbour, in
partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the
University of Waterloo.
Bas Balkissoon
Dick O'Brien
THAT the staff report be deferred to the Authority Meeting to be held on April 27, 2001.
CARRIED
2
RES.#D5/01 -
YORK REGION LONG TERM WATER PROJECT
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's position concerning
the Environmental Assessment for the Lake Ontario Water Supply via
Durham West and the status of negotiations concerning the proposed
pumping station to be located within the Petticoat Creek Conservation
Area.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff be directed to complete
negotiations with the Region of York for a draft lease to accommodate the proposed
pumping station within the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and report to the Authority
as soon as possible;
THAT the staff be directed to complete comments on the Region of York's Environmental
Assessment and make a submission to the Ministry of the Environment by May 4, 2001 in
accordance with approved Authority policy;
THAT the Minister of the Environment, as part of the review of the Environmental
Assessment for the Region of York's Lake Ontario Water Supply via Durham West be
requested to have parti ~ular regard to the following:
(a) That the constructi..,: I of this pipeline through the rural countryside of Pickering and
Markham will not contribute to urban spr'awl in the GTA;
(b) That there are not other, more sustainable options to providing water to meet York
Region's future growth and employment targets; and
(c) That the construction of this pipeline and water reservoir will not adversely impact the
Oak Ridges Moraine and the watersheds of the Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and
Duffins Creek;
AND FURTHER THAT York Region staff be requested to present the York Region Long
Term Water Project to the Authority at its April 27, 2001 meeting.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Region of York commenced a process to secure adequate long term water
supplies to service the growth anticipated by the Region's Official Plan. After adopting a
Master Plan which contains a combination of approaches including water conservation, the
Region commenced a full Environmental Assessment for the Durham West component of the
master plan. Components of .the Undertaking to-be.determined in this Environmental
Assessment included a raw water intake from Lake Ontario and a pumping station. The
location of sites considere>d in the Environmental Assessment included tn = Petticoat Creek
Conservation Area.
The Authority's Executive Committee dealt with this issue at Meeting #5/99 and adopted
Resolution #B98/99:
3
'THA T an appropriate location within the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area be
offered as one alternative to a pumping station location for the York Region Long
Term Water Supply Master Plan via Durham West's Environmental Assessment;
THA T staff be directed to negotiate an appropriate compensation package for the
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area pumping station site with the Region of York
for the Authority's subsequent approval;
AND FURTHER THAT the Region of York's project team be so advised."
The Region of York has completed the Environmental Assessment and formally submitted the
documents on March 12, 2001. The recommended location for the pumping station is
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. Under the Environmental Assessment process, we are
currently in a period of government and public review of the Region's submission with
comments due to the Ministry of the Environment by May 4, 2001. The Authority staff has
advised the Ministry of the Environment, by our comments on the draft environmental
assessment, that issues concerning the use of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area are still
under discussion with the Region of York through the mechanism of a proposed lease.
Negotiations are ongoing between Region of York staff and TRCA on all aspects of the
proposed lease including the basis for the evaluation of the real estate value of the lease, and
improvements to the Conservation Area as part of the mitigation of construction impacts. The
spir!t of the negotiations reflects the continuing partnership between the Region of York and
the TRCA on a broad range of initiatives. We are confident that a suitable lease can be
completed which will address the Region's need for a pumping station site while providing
adequate resources to the TRCA to renew the swimming lake complex, replace the
maintenance building and yard which would be impacted by the proposed pumping station,
provide for safer pedestrian access into the Area along White's Road, establish and enhance
environmental buffers, and deal with any operational impacts on the Area during the
construction period.
While the negotiations between the Region of York and TRCA are progressing well and will
likely culminate in a draft lease which the staff of both agencies would be prepared to
recommend to their respective boards, there is strong opposition to the entire project by
numerous members of the community as well as the Council of the City of Pickering. Most of
the objections relate to concerns about noise, dust and traffic impacts of the proposed
construction. Councillor David Ryan, wrote to Chairman O'Brien on March 26, 2001 (copy
attached) expressing the position of Council and asking for the Authority's support to oppose
the project.
Although Pickering Council has expressed opposition to the project, there are negotiations
ongoing between the Region of York and the City of Pickering regarding a "Community
Benefits Agreement" which w.ould confirm environmental mitigation.measures and provide
compensation measures that would be implemented if the Environmental Assessment is
approved and the project proceeds.
The Region of York and a local ratepayer's group, the Pickering Community Working Group,
are also carrying on discussions related to confirmation of environmental mitigation measures
and local compensation issues.
4
City of Pickering Council passed a resolution at its May 15, 2000 meeting which read as
follows:
"Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering requests the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority to endorse the City's opposition to the York
Region Long Term Water Supply Project as it impacts on lands under their
stewardship".
At its meeting #6/00 held July 7,2000, the Executive Committee received the Resolution of
Pickering Council in a letter dated May 19, 2000 from Bruce Taylor, City Clerk, Pickering, in
regards to the York Region Long Term Water Supply Project and adopted Resolution #B90/00:
"THA T the above-noted correspondence be received and be referred to staff for a
report. "
Delay in reporting to the Authority on this matter was to allow the Environmental Assessment
process to consider all alternatives, submission of our comments on the Draft EA (Le. early
March 2001) based on Authority approved policy and program interests and for a full
discussion on a potential lease arrangement. In addition, the request was contrary to previous
Authority direction through Resolution #B98/99.
Councillor Ryan, in his letter of March 26, 2001, has asked the Authority, in the event that the
Authority does not decide to op'pose the project, to ask the Minister of Environment to have
particular regard to the following three issues:
(a) That the construction of this pipeline through the rural countryside of Pickering
and Markham will not contribute to urban sprawl in the GT A;
(b) That there are not other, more sustainable options to providing water to meet York
Region's future growth and employment targets; and
(c) That the construction of this pipeline and water reservoir will not adversely impact
the Oak Ridges Moraine and the watersheds of the Rouge River, Petticoat Creek
and Duffins Creek.
While these issues are not directly associated with the Authority's traditional role in
commenting on municipal proposals, they are very important issues to which the Regions of
York and Durham and the Province of Ontario should have proactive and aggressive policies to
protect and regenerate the environmental health of the watersheds within the TRCA's
jurisdiction.
For Information contact: .Brian.Denney, extension 6290
Date: April 12, 2001
Attachments: 1
5
Attachment 1
~.
Pickeri.ng Ovlc Complet
an" The Iisplanade
~Ont.asio
Canada
LIV 610
Otnd Nxt:85 (905) 420-4660
cI~
l'i
., :\.
COUNCfi..WR'S aFPlCB
David Ryan .
City Councillor. Ward 1
OlreCl (9OS) 420-4609
paalmiJe (9OS) ~
dryan@city.pickering.-.ca
R~QtEQ'ff,~
March 26. 2001
. MAR 3 {j ?,t}B1
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Sborebam Drive . .
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 184
IAll6i M.mliliW~'s mnrP.
Attention: Dick. O'Brie1\, Chair
Subject York Region Water Supply Project via Durham West
I am writing to seek the Authority's SUl'~ for a positio~ taken by the City of Pickering
with respect to the York R.egion .Vfawr Supply Project A:s you may ~ow, this project
involves the removal of Water'trom Lake Ontario at a point 'within the City of-Pickering
that is immediately offshore of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. The raw water is
proposed to be piped via Ii pumping station in the }'~tti~t Creek Conservation Juea to a
water treatment plant south 'of Highway 1 in MarkhaJ:O.. ~ then to 8. water reservoir in
the Town ofWhitchurch-Stouffville: on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Piclrerlng City Council is on record as being opposed to tWs."project ~ opposition is
based on our belieftbat the project Will have significant impacts on the people, businesses
and environment of our community and the surrounding countryside. We have both
short-term and long~term CO~~ with die project.
During the construction period, the City is concerned about the impact of building a raw
water pumping station within the Petticoat Creek. Co~ation ~a on the appearance
and usability of that park. We also have concerns about the noise. dust. 'fibration, and air
quality impacts of construction on our existing businesses in the area, and on local traffic
and pedestrian safety. particularly with respect to the thousands of school children that
will be affueted (we have three schools immediately along the proposed pipeline route).
In the longer ten:n. we are concerned that this new water. pipeline will encourage urban
sprawl and tlueaten the Oak Ridges Moraine. You can see from the attached map that for
.most of its length, the pipeline goes through one of the last remaining tracts of ~ and
open space lands in Pickering and Markham. The water'reservoir is located on the Oak
Ridges Motaine in the Town of Whitcl1uroh-Stou1fville. History and. experience have
6
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
March 26, 2001
Page 2
taught us that development usually goes where infrastructure is provided. Unless we are
able to establish some extremely tough planning controls, it will likely be just a matter of
time before the pressure to urbanize these lands is too great for fUture municipal councils,
or the Ontario Municipal Board to resist.
A Final Enviro~ental Assessment Report on the project was distributed to interested
parties in early March. Conunents are requested by May 41h. To my knowledge, the
Authority has not yet established a formal position on the matter, either in favour or
against. Yet, given the potential long-term impacts that this project could have on our
watershed, it would be wrong to remain silent.
The City of Pickering Wvuld appreciate the Authority's support in opposing the project.
If the Authority is not prepared to do this at this time, I would request that we at least
send a strong message tu the provincial Minister of Environment encouraging him to
review the project carefully, and to not approve the Final EA document unless he is
convinced of the following:
a) That the construction of this pipeline through the rural countryside of
Pickering and Markham will not contribute to urban sprawl in the GT A;
b) That there are not other, more sustainable options to providing water to
meet York Region's future growth ~d employment targets; and
c) That the construction of this pipeline and water reservoir will not
adversely impact the Oak Ridges Moraine and the watersheds of the
Rouge River, Petticoat Cr~ek and Duffins Creek.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have on the matter.
Yours very truly
r-~
\.
t\ j -!''--_____
---~~/--'
_ David Ryan
City Councillor, Ward One
l:ryanlyrkrcg2l0 1 0326
7
Attachment 2
--.- ! I c Nf
,., . .. "2'1f
I~" Township of ~.~. - '. ~.
~:. 1 i..::J .:1
! Uxb~id'ge I~ .
L_._,.---1__. ':;.:_-'__.___.:.
Uxbridge - P ekerl' 9 Tawn Line
Prc:fcm:d Rs... W...r Pumping SbUian .
P",C.m:d Water T rc:almalt PIarI. .....
P",fcm:d W.... Sr=se R.osonoir .
l4md
Proforml Tuand Tnn&missian W.... Main Ahsnm=:
A1lrm2liyc Tunnel TnnsnusSlOll Watu Main Alignment
Pr.f.m:d Open Cut Tnnsmis.,on M.... AIignmcnt
Shaft Laacian.
-
......
.
t:a ~ '"0'''
Nor1:h RIGIONAL
West ..
~ \Nate.. YiirrU gLOJI CONIULUNTI
4lIIo.___..~ Oflour
THE UNDERTAKING
EXHIBIT 1
lalc: DaIanO Watl:r Supplv via Durham Wal EnvU'OtuneDLaI Aslcssmenl
8
RES.#D6/01 -CONSERVATION ONTARIO'S WALKERTON INQUIRY SUBMISSION Public
release of Conservation Ontario's research paper for the Walkerton Inquiry.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT all watershed councils, alliances
and task forces be advised that the Conservation Ontario paper entitled: The Importance
of Watershed Management in Protecting Ontario's Drinking Water Supplies, is available
for public review and b(' advised of the date of the Town Hall meeting in Toronto once a
date is confirmed.
AMENDMENT
RES.#D7/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Jim McMaster
THAT the following be inserted after the main motion:
THAT the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) be provided with a copy of the
Conservation Ontario submission to the Walkerton Inquiry;
THAT FCM be requested to support the comprehensive watershed management
approach to managing and protection our water resources as espoused in the
Conservation Ontario paper;
AND FURTHER THAT FCM establish a communcations link with Conservation Ontario for
discussing water management issues.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In June 2000, an independent Commission (The Walkerton Inquiry) was set up under the
Public Inquiries Act to examine the contamination of the water supply in Walkerton, Ontario by
E. coli. bacteria and to look into the future safety of the water supply in Ontario. The
contamination resulted in several deaths and caused hundreds of people to become ill. The
Commission's mandate is to inquire into the cause of these events including the effect, if any,
of government policies, procedures and practices and to make recommendations to ensure
the safety of drinking water in Ontario. Findings, conclusions and .recommendations will be
delivered to the Attorney General of Ontario who shall make them public.
Conservation Ontario, on behalf of all Conservation Authorities and specifically in partnership
with Saugeen Conservation and the Grand River Conservation Authority, were granted
standing in Part 2 of the Inquiry. Part 2 will examine the overall safety of the water system in
Ontario, including contamination of source waters, within the context of public policy, while
Part 1 focuses on the specific events that occurred around the Walkerton incident itself.
9
Conservation Ontario has prepared a paper on the role of watershed management in
protecting drinking water sources and in managing water supplies. The Executive Summary of
this paper is attached. The full paper is posted on the Inquiry website for public cOl"Dment
(www.walkertoninquiry.com). The paper acknowledges that the current practice of watershed
planning in Ontario has not consistently integrated drinking water supply strategy efforts,
typically led by municipalities, with environmental planning efforts, often led by conserv
* "n authorities. However, examples, such as in the Grand River watershed, show how these
two initiatives are being conducted in more integrated fashion with successful results.
The Conservation Ontario paper provides recommenda~ions for improvements in the current
practice of watershed management that could strengthen the protection and long term security
of drinking water supplies. Key recommendations are as follows:
1. The protection of drinking water sources should be recognized as a permanent
and integral part of a long term, secure water supply strategy.
2. The watershed should be recognized as the viable unit for managing water.
3. A provincial integrated water policy should be developed.
4. Adequate and stable source(s) of funding should be established to finance
watershed management throughout Ontario.
5. The Province should encourage the Federal Government to develop a national
framework for water policy and to strengthen co-operative agreements with
provinces under the Canada Water Act.
The Conservation Ontario paper was prepared by a team of Conservation Authority staff,
including staff from TRCA. It was circulated for peer review by selected municipal, university,
and non government organizational groups. The paper was approved
* "submission to the Inquiry by a Conservation Ontario approval team made up of General
Managers.
Benefits
Participation in Part 2 of the Inquiry gives Conservation Ontario a valuable opportunity to
promote the role of watershed management in protecting drinking water and at the same time
ensuring that a broad range of other environmental, human health, and social concerns are
being addressed. With an improved understanding of watershed management, the
Commission should be in a position to r:nake informed recommendations for improvements in
water management policies and procedures in Ontario.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Conservation Ontario paper will be open for public discussion at an Expert Meeting on the
Protection of Drinking Water Sources, to be held May 3,2001 in Toronto. The paper will be
read into the public record at the Hearing set for July 24, 2001.
10
The Walkerton Inquiry ::.. : '')sting a series of Town Hall meetings across the province, as a
means of seeking further rublic input to its deliberations. A date for the Toronto Town Hall
meeting has not yet been set, but is expected to occur in late summer or fall 2001. Members
of TRCA's watershed councils, alliances, and task forces may wish to participate in this
meeting.
For Information contact: Sonya Meek, extension 5212
Date: April 06, 2001
Attachment: 1
11
Attachment 1
The Importance of Watershed Management
In Protecting Ontario's Drinking
Water Supplies
EXECUTfVE SUMMARY
March 20, 2001
Prepared by: Conservation Ontario
12
Letter of Transmittal
March 20, 2001
Conservation Ontario, on behalf of all Conservation Authorities and specifically in partnership
with Saugeen Conservation and the Grand River Conservation Authority respectfully submits
this paper, entitled The Importance of Watershed Manl!gement In Protecting Ontario's
Drinking Water Supplies, to the Honourable Dennis O'Connor, Commissioner, for the
Walkerton Inquiry.
Conservation Ontario wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the Walkerton Inquiry
Office and the assistance and direction provided by Dr. Harry Swain and Mr. James VanLoon.
In addition, Conservation Ontario wishes to extend its appreciation to its writing team, under
the direction of Dr. Tony Smith of the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Ontario's Conservation Authorities look forward to the development of new relationships with
the Province of Ontario and its many partners for the protection of Ontario's valuable drinking
water resources. It is our hope that the recommendations in this submission will be considered
a valuable contribution toward ensuring the safety of Ontario's drinking water.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Potter
Chair
Conservation Ontario
Frank Beirnes
Chair
Conservation Ontario
Peter Krause
Chair
Grand River C.A.
13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Watershed Management
Water systems are life supporting, and a healthy water system is essential for a robust
economy and a good quality of life. History has demonstrated that almost every action we take
on the land shows up in the water systems, for better or for worse. This paper is written from
the perspective of local watershed managers, Ontario's Conservation Authorities. It describes
how integrated watershed management is an important part of selecting and maintaining
cost-effective water supply with minimal impact on the environment. While watershed
management is broader in focus than drinking water supply, adequate, safe, and contaminant
free water supply can be achieved while maintaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem.
In contrast to the simple, end of pipe solutions (treating the symptoms), this paper focuses on
reducing or eliminating problems at their source. The integrated watershed management
approach attempts to influence how water is managed at each point of contact: by farmers,
landowners, recreationalists, industry, land developers, municipalities, wastewater managers,
and water supply managers. Rather than focussing piecemeal on individual problems, an
integrated watershed approach takes a holistic view, exploring the cause-effect relationships of
human activities on natural functions and processes that extend across jurisdictional
boundaries, and finding solutions that minimize negative environmental impacts. This is usually
done through the implementation of a watershed action plan that describes what each must do
to ensure a safe and secure water supply and a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Therefore, the
plan must be prepared in collaboration with those who must take actioil (e.g., interested
parties, government, industry, and the general public).
Recommendations
Based on a review of watershed management in Ontario, the following recommendations focus
on ways that the province could improve upon current practices, and thus strengthen the role
that watershed management plays in protecting the long-term security of drinking water
supplies.
1. The protection of drinking water sources should be recognized as a permanent
and integral part of a long-term, secure water supply strategy.
Source protection represents the first layer in a multiple defence system for ensuring
that clean water is available to all water users. Source protection is especially vital to
water users, such as rural residents and businesses, whose geographic location and
low water usage afford them few alternative drinking water supply options and may limit
the economic viability of employing end-of-pipe treatment measures. Source protection
programs are consistent with practices being adopted by water supply agencies in
other international jurisdictions.
2. The watershed should be recognized as the viable unit for managing water.
This is the appropriate unit for the management of both surface and groundwater
resources. Valerie Gibbons in her"report Managing the Environment: Executive Summary
(Executive Resource Group, 2001) states that there should be a strategic shift in
managing the environment "towards a place-based approach wIth boundaries that
make environmental sense and facilitate a cross-media, cumulative approach (such as
watershed management}". While groundwater aquifers sometimes extend beyond
surface water drainage boundaries, the human activities and resulting influences occur
and can be managed within a surface watershed context. Drinking water source
14
protection programs should be developed as part of an overall watershed management
strategy.
3. A provincial integrated water policy should be developed that:
. Recognizes the principles of watershed management and deals with all aspects of
water.
The Province should expand its interests in watershed management beyond flood and
erosion control operations to achieve maintenance and enhancement of ground and
surface water {both quality and quantity} for all users. Watershed management is based
upon an understanding of the watershed, its water cycle and its interrelationship with
human activities. Watershed management includes identification, protection and
enhancement of significant natural features including, headwaters, groundwater
recharge and discharge areas, wetlands, vegetated stream buffers and forest areas,
while considering historical and current human activities impacting the system.
I
. Builds upon the conservation authority model to advance watershed management.
As a resource that crosses jurisdictional boundaries while lending itself to so many
different and conflicting uses, water defies simple division.into federal, provincial or
municipal responsibility. Protection of water supply and quality requires collaboration
and co-ordination at a level where progress can be made through actions determined
by long-term watershed management plans. The conservation authority model provides
an opportunity to co-ordinate, focus and streamline local delivery of water management
and protection actions. Current strengths need to be built upon and the capacity of
conservation authorities increased to provide a base level of watershed management
for the benefit of 90% of the provincial population.
. Clarifies the role of the provincial government in water management.
The Province has the broadest jurisdiction over water and therefore has a leadership
responsibility in ensuring the best water management for the citizens of Ontario. A
provincial water policy should specify the role of the Province in developing consistent
standards, implementation procedures, regulations, and enforcement measures to
ensure performance at the local level. It should also recommit to the watershed
planning initiatives undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of
the Environment in order to provide guidance to local and regional authorities in
planning appropriate future land use while at the same time, protecting water resources
and the environment.
. Promotes research into water issues and development of decision support tools to
ensure the best science, technology and management practices are shared and
available for local application.
The Province should foster Jesearch into .water. issues and the development, transfer
and application of decision-support tools (e.g., water budget models, water quality
models) for the implementation of watershed management. These tools provide the
basis for implementing provincial regulatory actions (e.g., provincial water taking
permits, certificates of approval for wastewater) that support water supplies and quality
from a watershed perspective.
15
. Supports an adequate monitoring program to measure change and adapt policies and
programs accordingly (i.e., adaptive environmental management).
MOl)itoring networks need to be improved, maintained and accessible for effective local
watershed management. A commitment must be made to the long-term support of
state-of-the-art monitoring networks.
. Supports the improvement, maintenance and accessibility of resource data for effective
local watershed management.
Modelling complex water resource systems requires extensive databases such as
streamflow, precipitation, water quality and land use. The Province should establish
database standards, facilitate data sharing mechanisms and, where necessary, provide
support for database development and maintenance.
4. Adequate and stable source(s) of funding should be established to finance
watershed management throughout Ontario.
Provincial, municipal and conservation authority investments into securing water
supplies and water quality require long-term stable funding to support watershed
management operations. A user pay approach can be taken through the municipal
water bill and the provincial Permits to Take Water. Where local"user pay" sources are
inadequate, the Province should supplement or provide mechanisms for appropriate
distribution of funding to these areas to ensure a base level of watershed management.
Incentive-type programs and innovative funding opportunities should continue to be
pursued to support capital investments (i.e., projects, studies, structures) necessary to
implement watershed management plans.
5. The Province should encourage the Federal Government to develop a national
framework for water policy and to strengthen co-operative agreements with
provinces under the Canada Water Act.
The Federal Water Policy of 1987 was tabled in Parliament but not extended into a
national policy. Funding for co-operative agreements with provinces declined from over
$12 million in the late 1970s and $8 million in the 1980s to zero in 1998. Since water
problems cross political and jurisdictional boundaries and are becoming increasingly
global, the Province should encourage the Federal Government to develop a national
framework for water policy in close consultation and co-operation with the provinces.
The national policy should define the federal government's role in the design of national
standards for water quality and environmental monitoring and in providing research,
data collection, analysis, and monitoring on a watershed basis to maintain the health of
the Great Lakes.
16
RES.#D8/01 -
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES MORAINE COALITION
Draft Work Plan.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 2001 Work Plan for the
Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition be supported.
THAT the report from the CAO regarding the Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition
be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on April 28, 2000, the Authority unanimously adopted Res.#A76/00, as follows:
THA T the attached report, Oak Ridges Moraine - The Way Forward be received;
THA T the Authority endorses the establishment of a coordinated program
directed at achieving the goal of the protection of the form, linkages and
ecological functions of the Oak Ridges Moraine through a cooperative effort by
the nine Conservation Authority's who share the Oak Ridges Moraine;
THAT the partner Conservation Authorities be advised that the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority offers its full participation and support for an Oak
Ridges Moraine Alliance as the vehicle through which such a coordinated
program would be delivered;
THA T staff be directed to work with the other eight Conservation Authorities to
complete the next steps in the creation of an Alliance as identified in the Oak
Ridges Moraine - The Way Forward report;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority provide up to $10,000 in the year 2000
towards this initiative.
Since that time a great deal of progress has been made in moving this initiative forward
including a press confere.lce held on December 6, 2000 where the nine Authorities announced
the formation of the Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition (CAMC). The press conference
was very well attended and we received a great deal-of coverage. At that time we also
released a Discussion Paper which outlined the vision for the Coalition and identified what we
collectively hoped to achieve.
Subsequent to the press conference, we have continued to meet and plan for the future. To
date we have achieved some significant milestones including the development of a Work Plan
for this year, the commitment of funding from all nine Authorities to support both the
administration and program development of the Coalition. A copy of the work plan\is attached.
17
Finally, your Authority has hired a Senior Planning position which will help us focus our efforts
on the piece of the Moraine included within our watersheds. He will also provide both a
secretariat function for the Coalition and will help move the Coalition's agenda forward across
the entire moraine. A more detailed work plan will be developed over the next few months
outlining how this position will assist in the Coalition's efforts.
We have already identified many opportunities for the future in terms of delivering on the
Coalition's stated goals and objectives and in working with many partners across the entire
moraine. This is the first time any such coordinated effort has occurred among this many
Authorities and we believe it will be a model for other similar Authority initiatives around the
province.
Report prepared by: J. Craig Mather, 416-667-6289
Date: April 02, 2001
Attachments: 1
18
Attachment 1
CrE'd. . '031 J oy Cons,... v,lll on
Not taw..1s..lq..l VilIlley ConselOVoll ion
TOlonlo ..uvJ Regioll Conselvatlon
L..lke SlmcQO Region Consolov<Jt Ion
Cent 10" 1 L..lh. Ont.'uoIO Consel V..lt Ion
(t>~S.el ~,~tj<.;:~ A~4;:hQdde~
.>~~~::.:, ~1t4!"()kr~ r.~~~~~tk::~
.~
. ":'.,
K..'lw..lrtlhl Con~el v.1l ion
1"'j..'n.ll.'~Io...l R,?C) Ion Con:O;j:Iol Vc.'\t Ion
Olon..'\hl."e Consel Vclt Ion
Lowe 1 Tlonl ConS~lvalolon
DRAFT
2001 WORK PLAN
BACKGROUND
The Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) was formed in the spring of2000. It
represents a strategic alliance of the nine Conservation Authorities whose watersheds include the
Oak Ridges Moraine.
. Central Lake Ont(lrio
. Credit Valley
. Ganaraska Regi~,.,
. Kawartha Region
. Lake Simcoe Region
. Lower Trent Region
. Nottawasaga Valley
. Otonabee Region
. Toronto and Region
The mission of the Coalition is to advance the science and understandmg of the Oak Ridges
Moraine and to work towards government, agency, and community support for the conservatIon
and protection of the form, function and linkages of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The vision of the Coalition is:
Forward Lookin[! - take a long-term view to ensllre an environmentally healthy moraine for
future generations
Holistic - maintain a moraine wide per~pective and consider the implications of 01/1' actions and
the actions of others, on the Oak Ridges Moraine as a whole
Balanced - recognize that Krowth will occur in and around the morame cnd that a balance
between the environmentc/' and economy and between communities is required. We will work to
achieve a COnSefl.\7JS be. Illt- ~n competing interests, values and demands
Proactive - take a proactIve approach to eco~ystem management. Where there IS uncertainty,
risk or irreversibility we will be cautiolls and err on the side of the environment
19
nevelof}. lInderstandin[! - make decisions and take action hased on 0111' knowledxe, skills and
experience. The Coalition Will work continually to improve our understandinK of thefunctioninx
qf the Oak Ridges Moraine, its important features and the links that make the moraine one
.\ystem .
Action - implement management by providing services. Through partnerships with our member
conservation authorities and others we will provide services to many.
Loca/ fnvo/vement- involve the local community. {f the local community bui/d~' an
understanding, an appreciation and commitment to the conservation of the moraine then the
environmental health of the moraine will be ensured
Partnerships - recognize that the responsibility to manage the Oak Ridges Moraine is shared by
many. The conservation, restoration, development and management of the moraine's natural
resources will only be achieved through successful partnerships with municipalities, aKencies,
groups and individuals
Practical & Innovative - persue reasonable, practical approachesfor complex problems. We
Will strive to foster innovation and creativity in our Coalition, our partners and our
communities. We believe in continuous learning and are always seeking innovative approaches
to cost effective resources management.
2000 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Year 2000 was the start up year for the Coalition. The early part of the year was devoted to
laying the groundwork for the Coalition and resulted in the finalization of the Discussion Paper
dated November 2000 (copy attached).
A press conference was held on Wednesday, December 6, 2000 to formally announce the
formation of the Coalition. Press coverage of this event was wide spread across the Moraine,
creating expectations from the public for Coalition action.
Approximately $42,000.00 of direct costs were incurred by the Coalition in 2000; with the
majority of the costs attributed to the development and organization of the press conference. In
the absence ofa funding agreement among the Coalition members, the apportionment of these
costs were distributed among the Coalition members on a random formula, largely based on
ability/willingness to pay.
In addition, the members of the Coalition within the Greater Toronto Area and in particular the
Regions of Peel, York and Durham, were working closely with the three Regional Governments
in the tri regional Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy Development Work Plan (flow chart attached).
2001 WORK PLAN
On FebmalY 28, 200 I the Coalition members met to discuss the work plan for 200 I. Prior to the
meeting each member was requested to outline his or her priorities for the Coalition for 200 I as
well as for the next five years.
A matrix was developed which consolidated this information and ranked it based on common
priorities.
In addition to assist in the discussion, an update was provided on each of the work streams within
the Tri Regional initiative.
Three areas of priority emerged from the discussions:
20
Gl"Oundwater (~l component of the Tri Re2ional initiative): TRCA coordinated a Phase I
Groundwater Study (of the area of the Moraine within the Regions). This work has identified
gaps in science, data and understanding of the groundwater system and has identified priorities
and an approach for nlture work. As soon as the report is finalized, it will be forwarded to all
members of the Coalition.
In the discussions, it became clear that all of the partners of the Coalition believe that action on
groundwater protection IS a key priority of the Coalition and a key gap in Moraine protection. It
is essential that the Moraine area receive consistent application of the science, data and
understanding, and this can occur through the Coalition. The common approach would assist in
future policy and planning challenges as well as set standards in a facet of our business where
none exist (ie hydrogeology). In fact, this very well may be a 'first' for a space based approach.
The Coalition, in particular the members within the Tri Regional initiative, will develop a Phase I I
program that will achieve a common approach and consistency of standards in nlture conservation
authority oak ridges moraine groundwater initiatives. It is anticipated that work in this discipline
will be multi year and require an ongoing financial commitment from the three Regional
Governments. This project is already included in the budget requests to the Regions for 200 I
(subject to budget approval).
Natural Herita2e Data Standards: The Tri Regional initiative is finalizing a report on Natural
Heritage - standards, data, gaps. Through this work, it is clear that the Coalition members have a
significant role to play in setting the natural heritage standards and collecting data to fill the
natural heritage data gaps. The Coalitjon is committed to continuing with this work in 200 I
through staff participation on the Tri Regional Sub Committee No direct resources are required
for this work in 200 I, alt~:;)ugh each Coalition member is encouraged to d~velop a workplan and
budget for closing the dat~. gaps within their area of jurisdiction.
Coordination: Dedicated resources are required to coordinate the work of the Coalition. Right
from the arranging of Coalition meetings, to looking for opportunities to raise funds for priority
Coalition work. In addition, there is benefit to tracking the individual actions of the Coalition
members on the Moraine to demonstrate collective action. Financial participation of all Coalition
members is required for such a position. During the discussions at the meeting, the TRCA
advised that they would be' hiring an Oak Ridges Moraine Specialist to represent the TRCA on
Moraine matters as well as network with community groups. TRCA offered to make a portion of
the time of this position available to the Coalition for 2001. This offer was accepted by the
Coalition and it was agreed for 200 I that 20% of the time of the Specialist would be spent on
coordinating activities of the Coalition as well as joint fundraising for priority Coalition activities.
It was also recognized that some seed money will be required to leverage/enhance fund raising
activities. A total of$30,000 for 2001 would be required from the Coalition members - $20,000
towards the staff position and $10,000 for fund raising leverage.
Since TRCA will be providing the services of and accommodation for the Specialist, it was agreed
that the $30,000 should be distributed among the balance of the Coalition members as follows:
· $5,000 each -Central Lake Ontario, Credit Valley, Lake Simcoe Region & Ganaraska
Region
· $2,500 each - Kawartha Region, Lower Trent Region, Nottawasaga Valley & Otonabee
Region
21
At the end of 200 I, both the position and the financing will need to be reviewed.
DECISION MAKJNG & ACCOUNTABILITY
Decision making and accountability will rest with the General Managers of the nine member
conservation authorities, through Coalition coordinating meetings.
Prior to commencing with the Groundwater component of the Workplan, a detailed proposal will
be prepared for the review and approval of the Coalition. This proposal will detail the scope of
the work, scheduling, required resources, key products and outcomes.
LONG TERM PRJORITIES
As noted above, at the February 28, 2001 meeting the Coalition members also discllssed their
priorities for the next five years, as well as 2001.
Some of these priorities include:
. Long term workplan and secure funding for coordination & Sllpport to the Coalition
. Continuation of the Groundwater initiative. The reality is that groundwater work needs to
become a program and not just a project, either at the Coalition level, or within each or
groups of moraine conservation authorities
. Collection of Natural Heritage Data, including the development of analytical tools
. Securement of Land - target # of hectares to be established; this will include the
development of partnership with agencies and organizations in the land securement &
funding business
. Oak Ridges Trail - development of a partnership with the Oak Ridges Trail organization
and the facilitation of trail development
. Stewardship projects - target # and location to be determined; perhaps by individual
Coalition partners and reported collectively; or perhaps a certain # through a joint
initiative
. Public outreach - perhaps through a Symposium, web page etc.
22
SUMMARY
2001 WORKPLAN
Activitv 2001 Cost Financine
Groundwater, increasing $350,000 (taken from TRCA Tri Regions as Phase 2 of
science, knowledge & data for budget submission to Peel the Groundwater work
policy & decision making, Region)
setting common standards,
approach etc.
Natural Heritage Standards & In Kind nJa
Data; setting standards &
seeking opportunities to close
the data gaps
Coordination; of the Coalition $30,000 $5,000 ea.
and among the Coalition . $20,000 for 20% of CLOCA,
Specialist time cve, LSRCA
. $10,000 for fund raising & GRCA
leverage $2,500 ea. KRCA,
L TRCA, NVCA & ORCA
VB: March 2001
23
RES.#D9/01 -
TORONTO WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION It~ITIATIVE-
LOWER DON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
(Naturalization and Flood Protection Component). .The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) management of the Naturalization
and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River: Environmental
Assessment and Functional Design Component of the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Initiative.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
I
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Government of Canada, the
Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto be advised that the TRCA will undertake the
Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River: Environmental Assessment
and Functional Design component of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative and
will make every reasonable effort to complete the project through to the submission of
the Environmental Assessment within the 18 month time frame established for the work;
THAT the staff be directed to expedite the necessary contracts or agreements with the
Interim Waterfront Corporation necessary to enable the Environmental Assessment and
Functional Design for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Don River to
proceed;
THAT the staff be directed to work closely with all levels of Government, and in
particular, the City of Toronto to ensure that the project is integrated into the other
waterfront revitalization initiatives, the Olympic Bid, transportation plans, the Toronto
Remedial Action Plan, and the new Central Waterfront Plan;
THAT the Interim Waterfront Corporation and the future Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation, once formed, be requested to include implementation costs in their
projected capital budget commencing in 2002 anticipating that thE7 Environmental
Assessment will be completed in 2002;
THAT all direct costs and reasonable indirect costs arising from the Environmental
Assessment and Functional Design Project be recovered through the funding allocated to
the project through the Interim Waterfront Corporation and its successor the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Initiative, and its shareholders: the Federal Government; the
Province; and, the City of Toronto;
THAT the preliminary studies undertaken to date, be used whenever possible to expedite
the process including the fulfillment of the public consultation requirements of the
Environmental Assessment Act through the demonstration of a long history of public
consultation and support;
24
AND FURTHER THAT the staff proceed as quickly as possible to hire the appropriate
consultants that have proven expertise for this project in such a manner that expedites
the process while providing a cost effective approach and achieving excellence in design
and the incorporation of the City of Toronto's policies for environmental sustainability.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The following is a brief chronology of events.
On November 3, 1999, Mayor Mel Lastman released the vision document "Our Toronto
Waterfront! The Wave of the Future", and with the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister
announced the creation of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force to develop an
action plan for realizing the new vision for Toronto's waterfront.
On March 27, 2000, the Task Force released its report "Our Toronto Waterfront: Gateway to
the New Canada" outlining a conceptual plan.
At Authority meeting #2/00, held on April 28, 2000, the following resolution on the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Task Force was approved:
RES. #A86/00:
"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 re~toration efforts
concurrent with wate/lC~ont specific initiatives;
THA T the three level!;; Jf 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 thePort Lands;
THA T the three levels of government be ~dvised that the Authority would be pleased to
assist in discussions concerning the gofternance 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;
25
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 Sustainability 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/Mimico,
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 ':4rea of Concern" within the Great Lakes Basin;
AND FURTHER THAT an environmental restoratipn of this scale is of international
significance, represents outstanding business opportunities and constitutes a global
imperative. "
The City of Toronto at its August 1, 2 and 3, 2000 Council Meeting received a staff report
entitled "Our Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum" and endorsed in principle, the concepts
put forward in the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force proposal.
On October 20,2000, government leaders of the city, provincial and federal governments
announced their support for the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative and their joint
commitment of $1.5 billion to be shared equally by the three governments. The leaders
directed senior staff of their respective governments to cooperate in developing the mechanics
of implementing the plan, including a governance structure.
The TRCA responded to these actions on January 5, 2001 with the Authority approving at
Meeting #11/00, the following:
RES. #A268/00
"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; 5. water
quality; and, 6. the preparation of the detailed "Master Plan" as the implementing framework
for the new waterfront governing body;
26
THA T 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;
THA T the Authority indicate its willingness to continue as the implementation agent for the
eastern and western waterfronts including Tommy Thompson Park;
THA T the Authority indicate the importance of proceeding concurrently with the watershed
regeneration initiatives in partnership with the City to ensure a healthy waterfront;
THA T the Authority support the western and eastern waterfront initiatives proceeding in their
own timeframes along with a commitment of funding from the overall waterfront governing
body in the same timeframes;
THA T the Authority endorse the principles set out in the Building Momentum report
including the additional principles added by Council for the proposAd 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. II
On March 5, 2001, City of Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, Federal Transport Minister The
Honourable David Collenette and Ontario Deputy Premier and Finance Minister The
Honourable Jim Flaherty announced the commitment of the three governments to the creation
of a Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the funding for priority capital projects
totalling $300 million. Included in the priority capital projects was a $2 million allocation for the
Environmental Assessment and Functional Design for the Naturalization and Flood Protection
for the Lower Don River and the identification that the project will be managed by the TRCA.
The objectives established for the Lower Don project as outlined in a City of Toronto report
from the office of Michael Garrett, CAO dated April 2, 2001, to the Policy and Finance
Committee were identified and include:
1. To clean up a significant local source of soil and groundwater pollution;
2. To establish a corridor of land for the Don River that provides:
(a) Natural, stable, r""~r channel and river mouth;
(b) Healthy lake, river and shoreline habitat;
(c) Natural habitat li,lt< between Lake Ontario and Don River Valley; and
(d) Pedestrian and bicycle trail links between Lake Ontario Trails and Don River Valley
trails;
3. To provide a flood protection solution for the West Don Lands .that enables removal of the
Holding Symbol;
4. To remove all other developable lands from the Regulatory Flood Plain and remove the
Special Policy Area designations in the Lower Don Lands;
5. To maintain existing road traffic capacity through or around the affected area; and
6. To maintain a rail connection to the Port Industrial Area and the East Bayfront.
27
The report identified the importance within the context of the Waterfront Revitalization and
Olympics and the expected time required for completion:
"Environmental improvement is a major tenet of both Toronto's waterfront revitalization and
2008 Olympic bid. Renaturalization of the mouth of the Don River is a significant symbol of
governments' commitment to environmental improvement through waterfront revitalization.
Flood protection measures included in this project will enable development of the West
Don Lands. The Olympic Bid includes a plan to construct the Media Village in the West
Don Lands and the Aquatic Centre on reclaimed land where the Keating Channel now
exists. Naturalization of the Lower Don River establishes a welcoming entrance to the Port
Lands to encourage future development."
"It is expected that the Environmental Assessment will be completed over the next 1 8
months. This will include assessment of alternatives, which will inform the design of the
reconfiguration of the river mouth. "
City of Toronto Council has yet to deal with the Waterfront Revitalization Initiative. An
important staff report was considered by Policy and Finance Committee on April 6 and will be
before Council in the last week of April. Authority staff are reporting in advance of Council
approval in anticipation of approval to avoid any delays in initiating the work as soon as
possible.
RATIONALE
The Authority has indicated its strong desire to work with all levels of government in realizing
the vision of Toronto's waterfront revitalization and its willingness to take a lead role where
appropriate. The flood risk issues in the Lower Don and in the Port Lands have been under
study for many years and this site is ranked as the TRCA's first priority for remediation (Flood
Control Program - a component of The Watershed Plan, 1980). Naturalization of the mouth of
the Don has been identified for over 10 years as an important step in the regeneration of the
Don and may contribute to the further reduction of flood risk in the Port Lands area. Past
experience of the TRCA staff with the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment and the
dredging projects spanning over 15 years carried out in partnership with the Toronto Port
Authority and the City of Toronto, joint studies on the West Don Lands and ongoing
involvement in many waterfront developments (TRCA designated by the Province in 1970 as
the Waterfront Implementation Agent) provides an excellent basis for the TRCA to undertake
the project management for this work.
WORK TO BE DONE
Interim and Permanent Waterfront Corporation
The City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario and the Federal government are currently
finalizing the governance issues associated with the establishment of the Waterfront
Corporation. It is pr:oposed that it will be a .non agent, nOr:! share, not for profit Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation established by the three governments to create a
business and development strategy to undertake the revitalization of Toronto's waterfront.
The establishment of this corporation will require further legislation and it is proposed that an
Interim Waterfront Corporation be established to expedite the priority projects which include
the Lower Don River Environmental Assessment and Functional Design.
28
The Interim Corporation will initially co-ordinate the implementation of the four priority projects
including the development of the legal agreements and contracts required so that the projects
may begin.
In the period pending the development of these agreements/contracts, TRCA in consultation
with City staff and others will develop an,initial approach to address the functional design,
environmental assessment, and public consultation and determine the consulting team that
will be required.
The Environment Asses....ment and Functional Design will be complete:' over the next 18
months. This will include assessment of alternatives, which will inform the design of the
reconfiguration of the rh/'.=r mouth. Overall project costs will be determined at that time.
The Environmental Assessment includes the following activities:
(1) Scoping of the project
(2) Project Design/development of alternatives
(3) Environmental studies
(4) Evaluation of alternatives
(5) Project design of preferred alternative
(6) Environmental Assessment of alternatives
(7) Cumulative effects assessment
(8) Peer review by recognized experts
(9) Public consultation
(10) Reporting
(11) Project management
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The announcement of the Lower Don River Environmental Assessment and Functional Design
component of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative identified 3n allocation of $2
million for the project. .
Maximum Allowable exp..:\ilse for the Environmental Assessment for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002 is $1 million.
The funding provided for the Environmental Assessment and Functional Design must be
followed by the commitment to implement the preferred alternatives. The Financial Impact
Analysis for the Waterfront Revitalization does not show any allocations for the implementation
of this project in the first 300 million expenditures. (Appendix #E, Policy and Finance Report -
Governance and Funding to Implement the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative). It is
recommended that an allocation for the implementation of this project be included
cOrylmencing in 2002 assuming that the Environmental ASsessment and functional designs will
be completed during 2002.
For I~formation contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: April 1 0, 2001
29
RES.#D10/01 -
ENVIRONMENT CANADA, GREAT LAKES SUSTAINABILlTY FUND
AND ECOACTION 1999-2000
Recognition of Our Ten Year Partnership with Environment Canada's
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and EcoAction Programs. Since 1990, 1
The Toronto Region Conservation Authority has partnered with
Environment Canada through the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and
the EcoAction Program. The Authority would like to recognize the
substantial contribution and the environmental improvements that this
psrtnership has provided to our watersheds.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Chair send a letter to the
Honourable David Anderson, Minister of Environment, in recognition of the ten years of
support provided by Environment Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and
EcoAction Programs;
AND FURTHER THAT our appreciation be expressed to the staff of Environment
Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund and EcoAction programs congratulating them
on the tenth anniversary of this successful program.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In the mid 1980's the International Joint Commission (IJC) identified 43 Areas of Concern
(AOC's) within the Great Lakes Basin. The delineation of these AOC's prompted the
development of comprehensive plans to improve a suite of common environmental conditions.
These plans were termed "Remedial Action Plans" and outlined a three phased approach to
delisting the different AOC's.
The Toronto waterfront from Etobicoke Creek to the Rouge River and all watersheds draining
this area was identified as the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. The initial works
around the RAP process focussed on defining existing problems and conditions. These
collective works and investigations formed the Stage 1 component of the Toronto RAP. In the
early 1990's, the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan released its Stage II report, "Clean
Waters, Clear Choices". This report identified the following restoration goals and objectives:
. Ecosystem Health
. A Self Sustaining Fishery
. Rehabilitation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
. Protection and Rehabilitation of Wetlands
. Control of Stormwater Quality and Quantity
. Clean Sediment.
Environment Canada developed two funding programs in support of the RAP process, to
provide a catalyst for environmental enhancement and to assist various agencies,
environmental groups, and interested organizations.
30
In 1990, Environment C'\'l: da announced the Great Lakes CleanUp Fund (now Sustainability)
and Action 21 (now EcoAction) funding programs. These programs supported activities that
furthered the process towards delisting our Great Lakes AOC's and RAP's. The Great Lakes
CleanUp Fund provided support to projects that showcased innovative remedial projects,
activities, and techniques. The Action 21 program directed support to community groups for
projects that have measurable, positive impacts on the environment. Both programs were
renamed in 1995 to the Great Lakes 2000 CleanUp fund and the EcoAction 2000 fund and the
projects were geared towards specific goals and targets for the year 2000.
Since 1990, the EcoAction Fund has supported projects that protect, rehabilitate or enhance
the natural environment, and build the capacity of communities to sustain these activities into
the future. To date, the Conservation Foundation has partnered with EcoAction on many
projects including the Watershed Infrastructure and Ecology Program, Frenchman's Bay
Watershed Rehabilitation Project, the Toronto Waterfront Naturalization Initiative and the
Humber River Multicultural Stewardship Program.
The Great Lakes Sustainability Fund has supported numerous projects within the TRCA
jurisdiction. The focus of this funding program includes habitat restoration, cleanup of
contaminated sediments, and stewardship projects to reduce urban anj agricultural non-point
source pollution to streams. Many of our projects fit well within this program and we have
enjoyed a broad base of '3upport for habitat restoration, rural clean water practices, strategic
studies, and various management plans.
With the recent announcement to extend these two programs, the Great Lakes Sustainability
Fund and EcoAction Fund will continue to be a solid supporter of our watershed management
objectives. Ten years ago, many concepts and techniques for restoring degraded
environmental conditions were abstract and untested. Support from these two programs made
possible our initial attempts at habitat restoration and over the years has helped build a
broader understanding of the importance of habitat within the Greater Toronto Area. In
addition, this support has led to the development of a suite of restoration techniques and
experiences and mutual recognition of our collective efforts. Future efforts will be focussed on
activities that provide Clean Air, Clean Water, improve habitat and achieve community
awareness.
For Information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 5246
Date: April 11 , 2001
RES.#D11/01 -
.. ttr..i.ERAL ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING .THE "PICKERING
LANDS"
Authority participation in a process to be led by Transport Canada and
the Greater Toronto Airports Authority concerning the disposition and
management of approximately 3,000 hectares of federally owned land on
the Oak Ridges Moraine and areas around the Rouge Park.
31
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority extend its appreciation to The Honourable David Collenette,
Minister of Transport, for the Government's commitment to protect the environmental
significance of these lands;
THAT Authority staff be directed to participate fully in the process to determine the future
disposition and management of these lands;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority express to the Federal Government and the Greater
Toronto Airports Authority that the option of consolidating these lands with the other
significant holdings of the Authority within the Rouge Park and along the Oak Ridges
Moraine should be considered.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2001, The Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport, made an
announcement and issued a news release which read in part as follows:
OTTAWA - Transport Minister David Collenette, along with the Greater Toronto
Eastern Area MPs, today announced that the federal government will take
immediate action to further protect the federally owned portion of the Oak
Ridges Moraine and areas around the Rouge Park as green space. These
portions of the property, a total of 3,051 hectares (7,562 acres), would be
equivalent to 3.5 times the size of the Toronto Central Waterfront.
"Over the next 12 months, we will work with the community, environmental
groups and other federal and provincial agencies to ensure that this portion of
the Oak Ridges Moraine and a corridor along the Rouge River on the Pickering
Lands are protected in perpetuity as green space," said Mr. Collenette. "The
federal government is committed to doing our part in safeguarding these
environmentally sensitive areas. It is our intention to set up a consultative group
to fully explore the issues regarding the transfer, stewardship and management
of the properties, including the option of establishing a Trust."
Transport Canada will preserve approximately 2,251 hectare (5,562 acres) of the
Oak Ridges Moraine located on the northern portion of the federally owned
Pickering Lands Site and, in addition, Transport Canada will preserve another
800 hectares (2000 acres) along the western boundary for the purpose of an
alternate Rouge Park Corridor. The Rouge Park North Management Plan
envisions a contiguous green. space corridor .extending from Lake Ontario
northward to the Oak Ridges Moraine. Again, all options for the transfer,
stewardship and management of this corridor will be considered over the
coming months.
32
Subsequently, on April 9, 2001, the Authority received a communication from Transport
Canada, copy attached, concerning the announcement of the role of the Greater Toronto
Airports Authority (GT AA) in the interim planning, including extensive public consultation, for a
possible future reliever a;:port. It is not yet clear whether this announcement means that the
GT AA will be leading the ~rocess referred to in the earlier announcement concerning the green
space lands.
The TRCA is the agent of the Rouge Park Alliance for acquisition and management of lands
obtained for the park. The TRCA already owns substantial holdings within the park and is in
the process of completing transactions with the Province of Ontario and the Ontario Realty
Corporation to transfer substantial amounts of additional lands in Toronto, Markham and
Pickering to TRCA ownership. The federal lands proposed for addition to the Rouge Park are
immediately adjacent and upstream of the lands the Authority is presently acquiring.
Concerning the federal lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Authority already has extensive
holdings on the Moraine, in Uxbridge, to the north and east of the federal lands. The recently
formed Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, comprised of the 9 Conservation Authorities which
share the Moraine, established as an early objective, a comprehensive land acquisition
strategy to protect large blocks of significant green space along the Moraine and to seek to
create linkages between those blocks.
For Information contact,: Brian Denney, extension 6290
Date: April 11 , 2001
Attachments: 1
33
Attachment 1
. .. Transport Transports
Canada Canada
4900 Yonge SLrcct
Suite 300. 4'" Floor
Toronto, Onlario
M2N 6AS April 200 1
Dear Interested Party,
Further to my recent correspondence regarding green space initiatives for the Pickering
Lands, and in the interest of keeping you fully apprised of decisions concerning these
lands, I would like to personally inform you of an announcement made today by the
Minister of Transport, the Honourable David M. CoUenette.
In order to protect the property for possible future aviation requirements, the federal
government has decided to proceed with the designation of the property as an 'airport
site' under the Aeronautics Act. This is a necessary step and represents prudent long
term technical planning. It does not, in any way, mean that a decision to proceed with
an airport has been made.
As you may recall, this process began when Transport Canada published its intention
to declare the Pickering Lands an 'airport site' in the Canada Gazette I on August I,
1998. Later this year, the department will be publishing a Regulatory Impact Analysis
Statemcnt in the Canada Gazelle ll. This will lead to the implemclltatic., of airport
zoning through either the municipal Alternative By-Law Process or feo, 'I'al Airport
Zoning Regulations. both of which protect surrounding lands for compati!lIlity with a
possible future airport.
The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GT AA) who is responsible for serving the
Greater Toronto Area's aviatioD needs, has been asked to conduct, on behalf of
Transport Canada, interim planning which is required before tbe Government decides
whether to proceed with an airport on the Pickering Lands. This planning will require
extensive public consultation and will determine overall requirements for a reliever
airport.
lfyou have any questions or require clarification on this announcement, you may send
me your written questions to the above address, or send an e-mail toshortl!Dra1tc.2c.ca.
Please feel free to visit our Pickering Web Site at www.tc.gc.ca/Ontario Region.
Yours truly,
~4~'
Patricia Short-Galle, Regional Manager
Greater Toronto Area Programs
34
.._---~~,
">~-
In
I ~i <~ Ji
11,.H
tI y. It
Ijh2t
II II
n~~1
lIS
e 11. ~
dl~Uf
h IM.-.
HI
.HI
lfl ...
tuill
."lOlI 3
.. .
I.. .
E
~
35
REs.#D12/01 -
MUNICIPAL SPILL MANAGEMENT FOR THE TORONTO AREA OF
CONCERN
To support and participate in the Municipal Spill Management Project
initiated by Ryerson Polytechnic University.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lorna Bissell
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT THE TRCA support the Municipal
Spill Management Project initiated by Ryerson Polytechnic University;
THAT the Municipal Spill Management Project be allocated $5,000 from the Toronto RAP
and $5,000 from each of the Peel and York Natural Heritage budgets;
THA T staff be directed to work with Ryerson through the provision of in-kind support
including project management and technical review;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on the results and
recommendations of the project upon its completion in March 2002.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In Ontario, approximately 5000 spills occur every year (MOE1996). Half of these are oil spills,
while the remaining half are chemical spills. Between 1998 and 1997, the average number of
oil spills in the Greater Toronto 905 Region is about 300 per year (Sit 1999). According to our
~nalysis of oil spill data, the average clean up percentage is about 66%. The average annual
oil spill volume in York, Durham, and Peel is estimated to be about 142,000 Llyear (Li and
McAteer 2000). Thus, almost 47,000 Llyear of spilled oil enters our environment. No matter
how much effort we are going to take to rejuvenate our environment (e.g. restoration of fish
habitat, wetlands, etc.), a single oil spill can wipe out all of our remedial works. It is important
that we develop effective spill management programs.
References
Li, J. and P. McAteer. 2000. Urban oil spills as a non-point pollution source in the Golden
Horseshoe of Southern Ontario, Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 35:331-340.
Sit, M. Characterization of oil spills in urban regions of the Greater Toronto Area. BASc Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ryerson Polytechnic University, 1999.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The objectives and methodology of the project are listed below:
Obiectives
. Compile a comprehensive database of urban oil and chemical spills
. Characterization of urban spills
. Evaluation of spill prevention and control options
Methodology
. Compile the 905 Region's spill database from MOE's Spill Action Centre and local
municipalities
36
. Evaluate spill event characteristics (e.g. event volume, date, company name, municipal
street address, location, road type (new), municipality, oil type, source, sector, cause,
reason, environmental impact, cleanup volume and percentage)
. Analyze the statistics of spill event characteristics
. Develop the sizing criteria for oil interceptors at various locations (e.g. service stations,
storage depots, roads, industrial parking lots, etc.)
. Identify spill prone sewersheds using Geographic Information System
. Review design features of stormwater management ponds for spill containment
. Technology transfer ')f study findings
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total project cost is 63timated at $35,000. Confirmation of funding has been received from
the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund ($7,000 in 2001 and $13,000 in 2002). In addition, TRCA
will contribute $15,000 from the Toronto RAP and the Regions of York and Peel Natural
Heritage funds.
Report prepared by: Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
For Information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212 or
Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
Date: April 05, 2001
RES.#D13/01 -'
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Amending corporate environmental policy and establishing management
directives to guide the development of a TRCA Environmental
Ma. lagement System.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Oi';\.. O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the following revised corporate
Environmental Policy Statement be adopted as a corporate policy;
THAT the proposed framework for implementing an Environmental Management System
(EMS) be approved;
THAT an allocation of $11,000 from account 242-04 be approved for EMS activities in
2001;
AND FURTHER THAT the consultant's ISO 14,000 Gap Analysis report and other
appended documentation be received. .
CARRIED
37
BACKGROUND
On October 29, 1999, at its meeting No. 10/99, the Authority approved the TRCA's first
Environmental Policy Statement along with a Work Plan for pursuing a corporate
Environmental Management System.
Since that time, staff have established an Environmental Management Committee consisting of
13 representatives from across TRCA operations, conducted extensive research into both the
feasibility of an Environmental Management System and its optimal configuration within the
TRCA, and retained consulting services to provide recommendations for establishing an ISO
14,000 based EMS.
The work plan contained in this communication reflects the lessons learned through research
and consultant's input, and allows for an actively operating EMS by the end of 2001.
RATIONALE
All companies, agencies and organizations, like all individuals, impact the environment through
their very existence. These impacts occur in many ways, most of which are above and beyond
government regulations and laws. In recent years, an international movement to
non-regulatory or "soft-law" type voluntary environmental management systems has taken
place in response to the many looming environmental crises facing the earth and the
tremendous impact the world's companies have in affecting those issues. The TRCA, having
the environment as our core business, is proposing to join the movement of many companies
and a few leading municipal agencies, in establishing an EMS in order to both reduce the
impacts of our operations on the environment and maintain our credibility in the eyes of the
public, our partners and donors.
Environmental Management Systems provide the administrative framework on which all
corporate environmental initiatives and corporate environmental impacts are constructed.
Though various international EMS standards exist, ISO 14,000 is the best known and most
utilized standard in North America. The eventual launch of an ISO based EMS at the TRCA will
allow us to demonstrate corporate environmental stewardship, an essential endeavour for
ensuring our environmental performance and supporting our Living City Campaign with the
kind of internal credibility demanded by donors and partners. The TRCA GAP analysis report,
conducted by GEMS Environmental, will act as the ISO 14000 benchmark for our EMS. To our
knowledge, ISO 14000 has not been fully implemented in a non-industrial setting, and for that
reason, along with the diverse makeup of TRCA operations, staff propose a TRCAlISO 14000
hybrid EMS which will be reflective of the unique qualities of our situation.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The TRCA EMS will: set out corporate environmental policy; identify our major environmental
impacts; prioritize programs to address the impacts; act as a central information database
detailing the specific.programs (and any.procedures.and/or standards to be followed); provide
the structure and procedures for setting targets, monitor progress, ensure regular senior
management review, and continual improvement; ensure staff responsibility is defined and
institutionalized (and listed on all job descriptions); and effectively communicate progress
internally.
38
The proposed work plan includes the stated goal of achieving EMS certification or recognition
within five years. As well, integration of the reporting and monitoring components of the EMS
with Living City and Watershed Strategy bench marking, reporting and monitoring efforts is a
fundamental goal of the EMS. In order to achieve the full integration of EMS within the TRCA's
greater internal and external corporate performance issues, it is proposed that the
Environmental Management System maintain constant integration with the TRCA Business
Planning process. This integration will also ensure a coordination of efforts and proper
corporate focus and resource allocation.
Proposed Environmental Policy
"It is the Policy of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to protect the natural
environment, reduce the-ecological impact of our operations, and embrace the concept of
sustainable developmerl. In order to achieve this vision, the Authority hereby institutes an
Environmental Management System which shall:
. ensure the Authority operates in compliance with all applicable environmental legislation
and regulations;
. apply to all Authority employees; and
. strive for pollution prevention and continuous improvement while creating environmentally
sustainable programs and practices.
The TRCA shall implement the Environmental Management System by:
. establishing and supporting an inter-departmental EMS Committee reporting to a member
of senior management;
. performing research on environmental issues, maintaining liaison with outside
organizations, and promoting awareness as may be appropriate with employees, other
government agencies, and the public: and
. monitoring and managing environmental performance.
Over-arching goals of the Environmental Management System include:
. conserving and reducing the use of natural resources, including specific targets for the
reduction of waste;
· developing an energy conservation program, with specific targets to reduce TRCA
greenhouse gas emissions;
. reducing or eliminating the risk of the discharge of contaminants and pollutants into the
natural environment from or onto TRCA property; and
. contributing to both a healthy workplace and community well-being."
The changes to the policy were made in direct response to recommendations in the
consultants report which graded our existing EMS in relation to the ISO 14,000 requirements
for Environmental Policies.
39
Proposed Implementation Framework
Given the implementation framework information obtained from the consultant and the high
level of TRCA internal EMS expertise, implementation can proceed without additional
consulting services in the short term.
The following actions will be undertaken in 2001 :
. Adoption of the new Environmental Policy.
. Communication of Policy and EMS plans to staff, through:
. development of a four page staff EMS newsletter called 'Walking The Talk, in order to
introduce the EMS and the new Environmental policy and motivate staff to support the
effort;
. framing of the approved environmental policy and distribution tl: all work locations; and
. a CAD message enlisting support for the EMS.
. Develop criteria for assessing TRCA environmental aspects and impacts (to be used at the
working sessions in 2001.
. Finalize EMS Committee membership with appointment of Environmental Representatives
from all work areas (done in consultation with Human Resources, Program Forum,
Management Committee).
. Launch EMS - Committee representatives to meet with staff in their work areas to:
. present an overview of EMS;
. outline Work Plan - reasons for Phase 1 concentration;
. conduct a working session to derive a list of environmental aspects and impacts
involved in their work, identify priority items, and suggest ways to measure and targets
to be met;
. Environmental Representatives to hold work sessions with their work groups to identify a
list of environmental aspects and impacts and prioritize.
. Collection and analysis of priority aspects and impacts lists; identify and catalogue
corporate regulatory requirements; identify existing internal policy requirements; select
proposed list of aspects to be addressed (Head Office, Kortright primarily but not
exclusively) .
. Outreach to staff to review list of aspects identified, targets set and suggested methods for
measurement.
. Finalize aspects and targets; Management Committee approval of lspects and targets -
review and/or estaqlish delivery mechanisms (persons responsible etc.).
. Implement initiatives to reach targets.
. Obtain Authority input and Community input through watershed councils.
. Development of EMS database and manual containing work activity contact names, EMS
supported work procedures, targets for EMS and individual work activities; the
Environmental Policy; a complete description of EMS reporting and monitoring procedures;
EMS protocols; and, training requirements. Develop Terms of Reference for Committee and
EMS.
. Prepare and distribute two additional issues of Walk the Talk.
. Establish corporate management mechanism for reviewing all new business activities for
environmental impacts (staff through EMS committee to assess impacts and determine if
EMS procedures should be put in place).
. Year End Review - Committee and Management Committee - outreach to staff to assess
progress and establish new aspects and targets for 2002.
40
In 2002:
. Carry out training needs assessment and develop EMS training manual.
. Carry out awareness training - on EMS in general, all procedures and targets to be met,
procedures for reporting, monitoring and continual improvement (also addressed will be
areas in which emergency preparedness is an issue).
. Training of staff auditor (s)
. Ongoing refinement ,.Jf manual and EMS initiatives (with added aspects and expansion of
programs).
. Internal Audit as per \(,0 14001 auditing guidelines.
. Management review of audit and new directions.
. Year End Review.
. Possible review of system by outside consultant.
Options for the Future
Outside audit and registration or internal audit and self declaration.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
The cost of implementing the 2001 component of this project is estimated to be approximately
$11,000. Funds are available in account 101 20.
For Information contact: Brian Dundas, extension 5262
Date: April 04, 2001
RES.#D14/01 -
.~T;:WARDSHIP AND OUTREACH EDUCATION PROGRAM
TIl~ roronto and Region Conservation Stewardship Program has been
restructured to provide a vehicle in which informed watershed
stakeholders can make a valuable contribution towards the conservation
of our land and water resources.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the funding for the TRCA's
Stewardship Program be approved;
THAT the Stewards~ip Program partnerships be identified;
AND FURTHER THAT the municipalities of our juri.sdiction be so advised.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since 1957 The Toronto Region Conserilation Authority (TRCA) has played a leadership role in
improving the land and water encompassed by nine watersheds located across the Greater
Toronto Area (GTA). In recent years, this task has become even more important and difficult.
41
More than 4.6 million people reside in the GTA which places a tremendous amount of pressure
on our land, air and water resources. Growth of the GT A population averages 100,000 per year
threatening urban expansion and further degradation of our natural resources.
The Stewardship Program will encompass the watersheds within the TRCA's jurisdiction with
special emphasis placed on areas of interest like the waterfront, Oak Ridges Moraine, Rouge
Park, and address important issues like rural water quality, farm management practices, and
fish and wildlife habitat management. The program will continue to deliver some of the TRCA's
original stewardship initiatives such as Watershed on Wheels and prov;de technical support
through Forestry Services. However, new programs will be developed ~o fill in some of the
gaps which have been identified to ensure that the Stewardship Program embodies all the
elements of good watershed management.
RATIONALE
Recent media focus on such issues as urban sprawl, climate change, development on the Oak
Ridges Moraine, the drinking water crisis in Walkerton, and the City of Toronto's reinvestment
on the waterfront, has helped reinforce the value of our natural resources. The public has
responded with a renewed interest in seeking opportunities and information related to
stewardship activities. In response to public demand, the TRCA has refocused our
stewardship efforts and restructured our staff compliment to provide a Stewardship Program
which provides watershed stakeholders with the knowledge and tools required to contribute to
the sustainability of our land and water resources.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Stewardship Program will assist to satisfy many of the
goals and objectives identified by TRCA's Watershed Strategies; Living City and the Natural
Heritage Strategy. It will also be useful in reinforcing our commitment to the Toronto Remedial
Action Plan, as well as, our municipal, provincial and federal partners.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The goal of The Toronto Region Conservation Stewardship Program i::> 10 empower watershed
residents with the knowledge and tools to become effective stewards (/, our environment. The
expected outcome of this goal will be: substantial gains in the areas of ecosystem function and
connection; improved water quality; public awareness of watershed issues, and community
participation in land and water resource restoration and protection.
The goal of the Stewardship Program will be met by achieving the following objectives:
1. Equip the public with the knowledge and the tools to employ environmental best
management practices.
2. Communicate watershed issues and stewardship themes through education programs.
3. Encourage proper land stewardship by example through the environmental management
of TRCA properties.
4. Develop strong working relationships with our funders and partners in conservation.
5. Provide technical support and financial incentives to rural land stewards in order to
encourage long term commitments to improving ecosystem function and sustainability.
6. Provide opportunities for public involvement in community restoration projects.
7. Promote environmental awareness, foster contacts and provide opportunities for new
Canadians to participate in community restoration projects.
8. Create a Stewardship Information Centre to house and disseminate i.nformation.
42
9. Host Conservation Seminars on various stewardship related topics in cooperation with our
many partners in stewardship based activities.
10. Facilitate a bi-annual workshop to showcase Stewardship Projects.
11. Relate information on stewardship themes and program progress through the TRCA's
watershed newsletters.
12. Use targets identified by Watershed Strategies, Toronto Remedial Action Plan, and
Municipal Official Plans to direct the implementation of strategic projects.
13. Utilize the methodology of the Natural Heritage Strategy and tools such as the Agricultural
Non-Point Source Model to locate priority project sites.
In order to respond to the different problems arising from the cultural pressure placed on our
watersheds, the Stewardship Program has identified three separate target areas: urban
communities; areas of urban expansion; and rural areas. Programming for these target areas
will meet the challenge of protecting and restoring our natural resources by updating existing
programs, developing new programs and educational literature specific to each area.
In an effort to offer our watershed residents a full range of support services, the new
Stewardship Program wili work with our partners to provide:
. community outreach;
. education programs;
. a resource centre and website;
. te'chnical services;
. biannual newsletters;
. annual workshop;
. limited financial support and information on other funding opportunities; and
. the Conservation Seminar series.
Communities respond very well to local volunteer opportunities and learning experiences.
Community events and workshops provide the opportunity to increase awareness of
watershed issues and the environment, educate the public about Best Environmental
Management Practices and promote ownership of local restoration projects and natural areas.
The 8.tewardship Program will use community events and workshops as an effective. tool in
reaching out to our target communities, like the ones situated on the waterfront, adjacent to
critical habitat areas, the Oak Ridges Moraine and areas of new development. Currently the
TRCA has two programs which are committed to delivering events and workshops to our
waterfront communities.
The Stewardship Progl am will also encourage the participation of newcomers to Canada
through the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program. In the GTA new immigrants
represent 52% of our population. Many of these new Canadians are unaware of the local
environmental issues and the opportunities that exist in preserving our natural environment.
The goal of the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program is to reach out to these
groups by providing the opportunity for participation in a variety of events and workshops
designed to inform and empower individuals in the spirit of conservation.
43
Unlike the community events and workshops delivered through the Stewardship Program, the
goal of the Outreach Education Programs will be to target youth. Since the education
programs will be mainly directed at school-aged children, they will be strongly tied to the
Ontario School Board curriculum. These programs will relate general environmental
information to students by using the local themes and the examples of our watersheds.
Through current programs such as the Aquatic Plants Program, Watershed on Wheels, and
Yellow Fish Road, the Stewardship Program will provide opportunities for large groups with a
general interest in the environment to learn more about the pressures being placed on our
resources and provide an opportunity for active participation in a local \estoration project.
Building on the success of the LandOwner Resource Centre in Manotick, the Stewardship
Resource Centre (SRC) will offer our watershed residents a library of information on various
land management issues. The SRC will house books, videos, pamphlets, and fact sheets
which will be available at little or no cost to the public. It will also offer a library of reference
material available for on site research. A permanent location for the SRC has yet to be
established.
The SRC website will provide a similar service to those watershed residents with internet
access. This website will be directly linked to the TRCA's homepage and will also provide links
to the websites of our many partners. This site will provide landowners with access to
information on stewardship related topics in down loadable form, cutting down on printing
costs and paper resources.
The TRCA will offer technical support to large scale landowners such as our local
municipalities, estate property owners and farmers to develop and implement a long term
management plan. This long term management plan will employ the principle of Best
Environmental Management Practices. It may also involve the development of more formalized
plans i.n order that they be recognized by our partners such as the Environmental Farm Plan or
the Managed Forest Plan. Landowners which employ the Best Environ;nental Management
Practices will be recognized by TRCA Watershed Steward Sign and mc;~y be nominated by the
TRCA for environmental awards offered by the local municipality or other agencies such as the
Rouge Park's River Keeper award.
The Stewardship Program Newsletter will be created to compliment the Watershed
Newsletters. The newsletter will be updated to coincide with the release of the Watershed
Newsletters and will be treated as a one page insert. The Stewardship Newsletter will identify
the stewardship programs which are currently available in the watershed, opportunities for
community participation, Best Environmental Management Practices tips, acknowledgement of
recent projects and a list of current events.
An annual workshop will be held to bring together.....our stewardship partners to showcase our
own project sites. The workshop will follow the Stewardship Forum, hosted by the TRCA and
the City of Toronto. The goal of the workshop will be to demonstrate new technologies which
employ Best Environmental Management Practices to landowners and other environmentally
focused organizations. These workshops will feature projects completed on our own
agriculturally leased properties and our conservation areas. The experts which assisted with
the project and the people which ensure that ongoing stewardship is maintained will share their
insight on the various aspects of the project.
44
With the help of our own funding partners, like the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, the TRCA
is able to offer several Technical Services which will either subsidize a landowner's project or
reap the benefits of land lax reductions. Projects completed by landowners on agricultural
lands which result in improved water quality are eligible to receive subsidies through the
TRCA's Rural Clean Wat@r Program. This program is delivered as one of our Technical
Services. Another one of the TRCA's landowner assistance program is the development of an
approved Managed Forest Plan. A Managed Forest Plan eases the economic burden on
landowners through tax incentives provided by the provincial government. The TRCA will also
work with landowners to secure project funding from a variety of other.sources through our
large network of partners.
The Conservation Seminar Series will provide a venue in which landowners can benefit from
the knowledge and experience of the experts in land stewardship. The TRCA will host a
number of seminars on various topics such as: bioengineering, soil conservation, fish and
wildlife habitat creation, backyard naturalization, pond management and forest management.
These seminars will offer valuable information and a "hands on" learning experience, without
cost to the participants.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
The TRCA recognizes that developing formal partnerships between environmental
organizations, funding partners, government agencies, and our municipal partnerships as
integral to a project's success. The Stewardship Program will actively partner with numerous
groups in the delivery of ".rogramming, dissemination of information and in the prescription of
site specific recommend~ tions.
Many organizations whic!~ address stewardship issues and build the public's capacity to
contribute to effective and sustainable land management have developed throughout TRCA's
jurisdiction. These groups are represented by both governmental agencies and nonprofit
community groups. Through investigation of the many stewardship groups operating in the
GT A, the TRCA has identified that there are numerous stewardship experts from specialized
fields operating in our area. Rather that replicate their efforts the TRCA will work with these
specialists in an information sharing capacity and direct landowners to these groups as
perspective clients when appropriate. The TRCA has also recognized the potential of using
pa~nerships as a team approach to tackle specific problems in the area of land management.
Numerous organizations currently operate in our province to promote land and water
stewardship. Some of the key organizations that have been identified as being integral to the
establishment and day to day success of the program are:
. . The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
. The Ontario Forestry Association
. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
· The Private Land Resource Stewardship Programs (OMNR) for Durham, York, and
Halton/Peel; Ducks L'~iimited Canada.
. The Wetland Habit~~ ;':und
. The Evergreen Canada Initiative
. The LandOwner Resource Centre
. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; and
. Credit Valley Conservation Authority.
45
These organizations illustrate some of the groups that the TRCA has identified as being able to
provide support or additional strength to our Stewardship Program.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Private Land Stewardship Program Budget.
Program Account TO York Peel TRCA Other Total
Rural Clean 11 7-59 0 5,000 7,000 44,000 35,000 116,000
Water GLSF
25,000
Rouge
Private Land 361-05 5,000 40,000 52,500
Tree and private
Shrub 7,500
GLSF
Managed 121-55 7,500 7,500 15,000
Forest private
Conservation 15,000 5,000 10,000 30,000
Seminars
-1-
TOTAL 15,000 20,000 17,000 56,500 I 107,500 213,500
.'
Outreach Education Program Budget
Program Account Toronto RAP York Peel TRCA Total
MOU
Aquatic Plants 113-81 15,000 4,000 7,000 7,000 34,000
Program
Watershed on 361-05 13,000 10,000 1,000 8,500 5,000 37,500
Wheels ,
Yellow Fish 121-55 16,200 6,000 6,200 12,200 40,600
Road
Multicultural 123-20 2,000 2,000 2,000 40,000 46,000
Environmental
Stewardship
Program
-
Community 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000
Outreach
TOTAL 49,200 20,000 19,200 32,700 40,000 167,100
46
Total Stewardship Program Budget - $380,600.
Funding will also be sought from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Healthy
Futures for Ontario Agriculture Fund.
For Information contact: Laura Stephenson, extension 5296
Date: April 09, 2001
RES.#D15/01 -
CITY OF VAUGHAN STORMWATER RETROFIT STUDY
To support and participate in the implementation of the
recommendations of the City of Vaughan Stormwater Retrofit Study.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dir.l{ O'Brien
Jirr. McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authori~y support the
recommendations of the City of Vaughan Stormwater Retrofit Study, as prepared by
TRCA staff;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with City of Vaughan staff to
address the municipality's comments, facilitate approval by Vaughan City Council,
facilitate implementation of the recommendations, and ensure that the Authority's
objectives are met.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The City of Vaughan Stormwater Retrofit Study is a broadly-based, planning level study which
addresses the issue of stormwater management on a city-wide basis. The study was carried
out as a joint initiative between TRCA and the City of Vaughan staff. The intent of the study is
to provide the City with a preliminary framework for a long-term strategy to implement
stormwater quality and quantity controls within the existing urbanized areas of the City. It was
re'cognized that the continuation of development review on a site by site basis, for infill
development, would lead to a proliferation of small facilities throughout the City and would
ultimately lead to an increase in construction and future maintenance costs.
The City of Vaughan Stormwater Retrofit Study was undertaken using a two-phased approach.
The Phase I component zo:used on the review of background information and collection of
existing data. A number of GIS-based maps were produced which provide information
.regarding the existing state of.stormwater management within the.City of Vaughan.
Phase II involved the preliminary evaluation of the potential to retrofit the existing quantity
control facilities (Le. post to pre-control dry ponds) to provide improved water quality and
additional erosion control measures. The evaluation was based on engineering feasibility and
benefits to the natural environment. Existing, uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls, within the
established urban areas of the City, were also investigated to determine the feasibility of
constructing new facilities at these locations.
47
Draft copies of the report have been circulated to staff at the City's Urban Design and
Engineering Departments. TRCA staff will continue working with City staff to address specific
comments regarding streamlining of development review, funding opportunities and land
availability.
Summary of Key Findings
Based upon the preliminary investigations including field verification, it was concluded that 11
existing stormwater management ponds have potential to be retrofitted for water quality and or
erosion control. In addition, field investigations confirmed 22 locations adjacent to existing
uncontrolled stormwater outfalls, where stormwater management facilities could be
constructed.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that those ponds identified for retrofit
within the Black Creek subwatershed, (22.0,41.0, and 42.0) and within the Rainbow/Robinson
Creek subwatersheds (83.0, 97.0, 141.0, 141.1) be the first priority in the implementation stage.
In order to optimize the design of each of the retrofit ponds, a detailed subwatershed analysis
for each subwatershed should be carried out. These analyses should ;xovide the required
retrofit design criteria, prepare a cost estimate for each pond and prioritize the proposed
works.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA will continue working with City staff to address the municipality's comments and to
implement the recommendations of the Retrofit Study.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
In recognition of the need to avoid a proliferation of smaller SWM facilities and the benefits of
retrofitting older urbanized areas without SWM controls, TRCA staff retained the engineering
consultant Sabourin Kimble and Associates in 1998 to determine an appropriate financial
contribution to be paid by development proponents in lieu of on-site SWM controls on smaller,
infill sites. Upon surveying the construction costs of approximately 60 existing ponds
throughout the GT A, it was determined that the average construction cost is $26,500 per
impervious hectare.
It is emphasized that this approach is intended only for infill development areas where a retrofit
study is in place. As infill developments proceed, the City or TRCA staff will collect the financial
contribution from the proponent and direct these funds toward the implementation of the
retrofit strategy. (There also remains the option to provide on-site SWM controls if the
development proponent can demonstrate that the proposed measures will meet the required
SWM criteria.)
Other potential funding mechanisms .to impJement the Retrofit Study include special project
funding (eg., the York Region Natural Heritage Project) and the erosion levy collected by the
City within the Rainbow/Robinson Creek subwatersheds.
Report prepared by: Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
For Information contact: Darlene Conway, extension 5278
Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
Date: March 9,2001
48
RES.#D16/01 -
CITY OF BRAMPTON STORMW A TER RETROFIT STUDY
T'o support and participate in the implementation of the
recommendations of the City of Brampton Stormwater Retrofit Study.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
JiM McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority support the
recommendations of the City of Brampton Stormwater Retrofit Study, as prepared by
TRCA staff;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with City of Brampton staff to
address the municipality's comments, facilitate approval by Brampton City Council,
facilitate implementation of the recommendations and ensure that the Authority's
objectives are met.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The City of Brampton Stormwater Retrofit Study is a broadly-based, planning level study which
addresses the issue of stormwater management on a city-wide basis. The study was carried
out as a joint initiative between TRCA and the City of Brampton staff. The intent of the study is
to provide the City with a preliminary framework for a long-term strategy to implement
stormwater quality and quantity controls within the existing urbanized areas of the City. It was
recognized that the continuation of development review on a site by site basis, for infill
development, would lead to a proliferation of small facilities throughout the City and would
ultimately lead to an increase in construction and future maintenance costs.
The City of Brampton Stc.rrnwater Retrofit Study was undertaken using a two-phased
approach. The Phase I component focused on the review of background information and
collection of existing dai.&. A number of GIS-based maps were produced which provide
information regarding the existing state of stormwater management within the City of
Brampton.
Phase II involved the preliminary evaluation of the potential to retrofit the existing quantity
control facilities -(Le. post to pre-control dry ponds) to provide improved water quality and
additional erosion control measures. The evaluation was based on engineering feasibility and
benefits to the natural environment. Existing, uncontrolled storm sewer outfalls, within the
established urban areas of the City, were also investigated to determine the feasibility of
c.onstructing new facilities at these locations.
Draft copies of the report have been circulated to staff at the City's Works and Transportation
and Community Services Departments. TRCA staff will continue working with City staff to
address specific comments regar.ding streamlining of development review, funding
opportunities and land availability.
49
Summary of Key Findings "
Based upon the preliminary investigations including field verification, it was concluded that two
existing stormwater management ponds have potential to be retrofitted for water quality and or
erosion control. In addition, field investigations confirmed 22 locations, adjacent to existing
uncontrolled stormwater outfalls, where stormwater management facilities could be '
constructed.
Recommendations
The initial group of SWM facilities to be considered for retrofit include the two, existing
quantity control ponds. A further study should be carried out to develop an implementation
strategy, including the prioritization of existing storm sewer outfalls, using environmental,
financial, and social factors.
Another outcome of the implementation of the Retrofit Study will be a further streamlining of the
development review process. City of Brampton and TRCA staff are currently in the process of
developing a memorandum of ul)derstanding regarding the streamlining of technical review
and clearance of development applications. Streamlining this process will eliminate the
requirement for TRCA review and approval of detailed development applications, for those
areas where an approved stormwater management plan (which meets current TRCA criteria) is
in place. These overall SWM Plans will still be reviewed by TRCA staff at an earlier stage of
development, but the review and approval of detailed engineering submissions will be
undertaken solely by the City. Upon implementation of the Retrofit.Study, this streamlining
approach will also be applied to infill or redevelopment applications within existing urbanized
areas where the stormwater controls in place do not meet current TRCA criteria. In these
instances, the TRCA will no longer review and approve development applications (unless a
permit is required or the development abuts a stream/valley corridor or other area of TRCA
concern).
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
TRCA will continue working with City staff to address the municipality's comments and to
implement the recommendations of the Retrofit Study.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
In recognition of the need to avoid a proliferation of smaller SWM facilities and the benefits of
retrofitting older urbanized areas without SWM controls, TRCA staff retained the engineering
consultant Sabourin Kimble and Associates in 1998 to determine an appropriate financial
contribution to be paid by development proponents in lieu of on-site SWM controls on smaller,
infill sites. Upon surveying the construction costs of approximately 60 existing ponds
throughout the GTA, it was determined that the average construction cost is $26,500 per
impervious hectare.
It is emphasized that this approach is intended only for. infill development areas where a retrofit
study is in place. As infill developments proceed, the City or TRCA staff will collect the financial
contribution from the proponent and direct these funds toward the implementation of the
retrofit strategy. (There also remains the option to provide on-site SWM controls if the
development proponent can demonstrate that the proposed measures will meet the required
SWM criteria.)
50
Other potential funding mechanisms to implement the Retrofit Study include special project
funding (eg., the York Region Natural Heritage Project).
Report prepared by: Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
For Information contact: Darlene Conway, extension 5278
Patricia Lewis, extension 5218
Date: March 9, 2001
RES.#D17/01 -
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:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the 2001 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 $105,000.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1994, approval was received to commence construction of a $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 all shoreline protection works have been completed. This work included two
underwater reefs which were constructed to create nearshore aquatic habitat in accordance
with the Fisheries ComJ,Jensation Plan and Agreement entered into with the Department of
Fisheries & Oceans.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 2001, grading will be completed and the site prepared for fall landscaping and
plantings. In addition, beach feeding with cobblestone will be carried out to enhance the
appearance of the beach cells.
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 2001. 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.
51
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 2001 is $105,000 under Account Number 133 subject to final budget
approval.
Report prepared by: Joseph Delle Fave, 416-392-9724
For Information contact: Jim Berry, 416-392-9721
Date: April 09, 2001
RES.#D18/01 -
THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL 2001-2003
Appointment of Members Appointment of members to the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council 2001-2003.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the following persons be
appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as Citizen Members:
Barbara Anderson
Margaret Buchinger
Margaret Casey
Pat Ciufo
Geoffrey Cook
Don Cross
Laurian Farrell
Phil Goodwin
Moyra Haney
Peter Heinz
Ed Horner
Lorna Krawchuk
Deb Martin-Downs
Helen Mills
Roslyn Moore
Douglas O'Bright
Nancy Penny
Mel Plewes
Mark Wilson
THAT the following Business appointments to the Don Council be ..:onfirmed:
Stephen Cockle; Pasteur Merieux Connaught Laboratories
Dave Robinson; Mountain Equipment Co-op
THAT the following Don Watershed public agency appointments to the Don Council be
confirmed:
Waterfront Regeneration Trust:
Tija Luste
Suzanne Barrett (alternate)
Ministry of Natural Resources:
Ian D. Buchanan
Warren May (alternate)
52
THAT the following Don Watershed regional and municipal appointments to the Don
Council be confirmed;
City of Vaughan:
Councillor Mario Racco
Councillor Susan Kadis (alternate)
Michael DeAnge-lis, Commissioner, is the Staff Liaison member
Sue Montgomery - Parks Liaison
Majie Fras~!l' - Works Liaison
Town of Markham:
Councillor Erin Shapero
Karen Boniface is the Staff Liaison member
Town of Richmond Hill:
Councillor David L. Cohen
THAT the following Authority members be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council as the Authority representatives:
Dick O'Brien, Chair
Tanny Wells (alternate)
THAT the following persons appointed to the Don Council by interest groups as provided
for in the Terms of Reference be confirmed:
Richmond Hill Naturalists
Michael White
Tom Waechter (aiternate)
The Task Force to Bring Back the Don
Kevin Mercer
Janice Palmer (alternate)
Friends of the Don East
Paula Davies
Brendan Flanigan (alternate)
THAT a person representing the Don River Partner as designated under the Living City
Campaign be appointed to the Don Cauncil:
Representative from Unilever Canada Foundation
AND FURTHER THAT the term of appointment for the members follow the approved
Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council 2001-2003, as stated
below:
53
'~.6 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 Don Watershed Council members and
TRCA senior staff. "
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #11/00, held on January 5, 2001, the Authority resolved that the report on the
Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the third term of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council be approved.
The opportunity for membership in the Don Council was advertised throughout the Don
watershed in community newspapers, on The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) web site, and through letters advising Don Council members and others that
applications were being sought. A public meeting was held to provide potential applicants with
an introduction to the TRCA and the work of the Don Council.
15 applications were received from new members and 10 applications came from past
members of the Don Council wishing to reapply. After careful consideration, 19 applicants
were chosen to serve as members of the Don Council. The interview team consisted of
Councillor Bill O'Donnell, Craig Mather, CAO and Adele Freeman, Don Watershed Specialist.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Due to appointment scheduling difficulties, a 20th member to the Don Council will be
appointed at a later date. A staff report with this appointment information will be submitted at a
later date.
The City of Toronto Community Committees have appointed their Coundllors and their report
will be going to the City of Toronto Council for approval on April 24, 2001. A staff report with
their recommendations will be forwarded to the Watershed Advisory Board when these
appointments are finalized.
The Regional Municipality of York will be appointing their Don Council representative at their
next Council meeting. A staff report with this information will be submitted at a later date.
Not all of the businesses or educational institutions have appointed members and alternates to
the Don Council at this time. A staff report outlin~ng these appointments to the Don Council
will be submitted to the Board, when finalized.
Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: April 06, 2001
54
RES.#D19/01 -
THE HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Appointment of Members. The formal appointment of watershed
residents, regional and local municipalities and community council
representatives, public agency representatives, representatives from
community groups, businesses and business organizations, academic
institutions and the Authority's member to the Humber Watershed
Alliance.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jir."1 McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the appointments, as set out in
the staff report, be approved, effective immediately, for a three-year period commencing
April 17, 2001 ;
AND FURTHER THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance report to the Authority's Watershed
Management Advisory Board, at least, on a semi-annual basis on projects and progress.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December, 2000, were
approved at Authority meeting #11/00.
Letters were sent to watershed residents, regional and local municipalities and community
council representatives, public agency representatives, representatives from community
groups, businesses and business organizations, academic institutions requesting that they
appoint delegates to the Alliance. Advertisements for watershed resident positions were
placed in local newspapers and on the Internet. Three public information sessions were held in
strategic locations within the watershed. An overview of the Humber Watershed Alliance was
provided and questions from the participants answered. New applicants were interviewed by a
Selection Committee cOI,l;:>rised of Anthony Ketchum, Member of the V':"tershed Management
Advisory Board; and Garl Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist. .
. To date,.the following individuals are recommended for appointment to the Humber Watershed
Alliance. Additional appointments will be brought to the attention of the Authority members
once they are confirmed by their respective Councils, business associations, agencies and
groups.
TRCA
Dick O'Brien, Chair or his alternate
55
REGIONAL AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS
Municipality Member
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio To be confirmed
T own of Aurora To be confirmed
City of Brampton To be confirmed
T own of Caledon Richard Whitehead
Township of King Susan Swail
City of Mississauga To be confirmed
Township of Mono Harry Baker
Regional Municipality of Peel Lorna Bissell
Town of Richmond Hill Vito Spatafora
City of Toronto - North Community Council Maria Augimeri
City of Toronto - Southwest Community Council David Miller
City of Toronto - West Community Council Suzann Hall
City of Vaughqn Bernie Di Vona
Regional Municipality of York Michael Di Biase
WATERSHED RESIDENTS
Name Municipality
Carol Ray Town of Caledon
Nancy Stewart Town of Caledon
Horst Truttenbach T own of Caledon
Bill Wilson Town of Caledon
Ron Hingston Township of King
Lynda Rogers T~wnship of King
Yvette Fournier City of Mississauga
Christine Tu City of Mississauga
. Ron Allan City of Toronto
Beth Cragg City of Toronto
Derek Doyle City of Toronto
Ian Gagatek City of Toronto
Zophia Gagatek City of Toronto
56
WATERSHED RESIDENTS CONrD
Name Municipality
Lois Griffin City of Toronto
Jeff Hathaway City of Toronto
Alyson Hazlett City of Toronto
David Hutcheon City of Toronto
Maja Jankovic City of Toronto
Leo Luong City of Toronto
Madeleine McDowell City of Toronto
Arthur Mittermaier City of Toronto
Miriam Mittermaier City of Toronto
Marjorie Mossman City of Toronto
Barbara Nagy City of Toronto
Rick Palmer City of Toronto
~
lain Craig City of Vaughan
-
Ian Gray City of Vaughan
Joanne Nonnekes City of Vaughan
Deb Schulte City of Vaughan
I PUBLIC AGENCIES
Agency Name Member Alternate
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food &
Rural Affairs
Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture &
Recreation
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Waterfront Regeneration Trust Tija Luste Suzanne Barrett
57
I COMMUNITY GROUPS
Group Name Member Alternate
Action to Restore a Clean Humber Luciano Martin Bill Saundercook
Black Creek Project Jose Ramirez Sandy Agnew
.chinese Environmental To be confirmed
Ambassadors
Evergreen Foundation To be confirmed
Federation of Ontario Naturalists To be confirmed
Friends of Claireville Rob Frank Janie Frank
Humber Heritage Committee Mary Louise Ashbourne Joan Miles
Ontario Streams To be confirmed
Richmond Hill Naturalists Michael White
Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Jane Underhill
Toronto Environmental Alliance Shelley Petrie Janet May
York Soil and Crop Improvement Hugh Mitchell
Association
BUSINESSES/BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
Business Name Member
Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario Jackie Fraser
Emery Creek Environmental Association Cheryl Gonsalves
Urban Development Institute To be confirmed
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Name Member
Humber College To be confirmed
Peel Region School Board To be confirmed
Seneca College Judith Limkilde
Toronto District School Board Lyn Short
Toronto Montessori Academy Angela Pumputis
Umoja Learning Circle Anyika T afari
York Region Board of Education To be confirmed
York University To be confirmed
58
DETAILS OF WORK T() PE DONE
Confirm the remaining members of the Humber Watershed Alliance.
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: April 04, 2001
RES.#D20/01 -
THE ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Extension of Term - June 28,2001 to November 22,2001. Extension of
the term o"f the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force to
November 22, 2001.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the extensivn of the term of the
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force, to November 22,2001, be
approved;
THAT monthly meetings continue to be held, except in August, at locations to be
determined within the watersheds;
THAT the text for the final management strategy document be completed by June 28,
2001, as assigned in the original Terms of Reference for the Task Force, dated October
1999 ;
THAT the Task Force produce, at the end of their extended term, the following:
final management strategy document, including layout and design, graphics and
photos, and final editorial changes.
recommended terms of reference for the future watershed strategy
implementation group; and
recommended work plan for implementing the management strategy document;
AND FURTHER THAT th9 Task Force's Terms of Reference be updated to include these
changes. .
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force is required by its Membership
Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference, dated October 1999, to provide the
Authority with a draft watershed strategy document by June 30, 2001. To facilitate
accomplishment of this task, the Task Force is developing management strategies, watershed,
action area, and action site plans, is working with a professional writing team, and is planning
public consultation meetings.
59
By June 28, 2001, the Task Force expects to have completed the text for the management
strategy document. At this time, it is expected that staff will continue development of the final
document, including layout and design, graphics and photos, and final editorial changes.
Printing of the final document will be budgeted for in the Etobicoke-Mimico 2002 budget.
RATIONALE
The Task Force is requesting an extension to their term so that they can continue to be
involved in the layout and design, graphics and photos, and final editor:al changes to the final
management strategy document. Staff fully supports these recommended changes as their
input is seen as beneficial to the continuum of the project, and budget implications are
minimal.
Two other tasks that the Task Force would be resp.onsible for are recommending a terms of
reference for the future watershed strategy implementation group and recommending a work
plan for implementing the management strategy document. Because the Task Force is so
intimate with the details of the management strategy document, it is felt that they are the most
logical group to make recommendations regarding the direction of its implementation. Two
key elements to implementing the management strategy document are development of the
terms of reference and work plan, as described above.
Additional Task Force meeting dates would continue on the fourth Thursday of every month,
except August, as follows:
July 26, 2001
September 27,2001
October 25, 2001
November 22, 2001
It is not anticipated that the Task Force's four working groups would need to meet beyond the
month of June, as originally scheduled.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Financial implications for extending the term of the Task Force include four dinners, ranging in
cost of $400 to $600 each. Monies for these dinners will be budgeted for in account #118-70.
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date: April 1 0, 2001
RES.#D21/01 -
PROGRESS REPORT DUFFINS & CARRUTHERS CREEK TASK
FORCES .
To provide an update on the progress of the Duffins and Carruthers
Creek Watershed Task Forces.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
60
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report back to the
Authority in the fall of 2001 regarding the status of producing a final watershed strategy
document for the Duffins and Carruthers Creeks.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In June 2000, the Authority approved the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces
appointment of members. At that time, the first joint meeting of the Task Forces was
scheduled for June 28, 2000 at the City of Pickering.
A total of three joint Ddfins and Carruthers Creek Task Force Meetings were held in June,
September and Octobe,'..)i 2000 to give members a good understanding of the technical
issues, the watersheds and the strategy development process. Dick O'Brien provided the role
of Acting Chair at these first three meetings.
TRCA staff and members of the Duffins and Carruthers Technical Advisory Committee hosted
two watershed bus tours over the summer months. The Duffins Creek tour was held on July
20, 2000 and the Carruthers Creek bus tour was held on August 17, 2000. Both tours were
very well attended. Tour booklets were prepared and distributed to all participants.
The two task forces held separate meetings for the first time in November 2000. It was at these
meetings that the role of Chair and Vice Chair were' formalized as follows:
Duffins Task Force Chair: .
Duffins Task Force Vice Chair:
Carruthers Task Force Chair:
Carruthers Task Force Vice Chair:
John Nemeth, Ajax resident
Councillor Mark Carroll, Whitchurch-Stouffville
Neil Burnett, Ajax resident
Councillor Scott Crawford, Town of Ajax
On Saturday, J.anuary 27, 2001 approximately 50 people attended an all day task force
workshop. Participants included all members of the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Task
Forces, municipal and a~ :mcy staff members and TRCA staff. The products of this facilitated
workshop included for:-. M' g a consensus of task force priorities for 2001 and the formation of
three working groups 0Nb."er, Policy, Outreach}, and a rough draft of their meeting dates ,and
agendas to enable them to complete two watershed strategies by December 2001.
Members of the working groups are a combination of membership from both the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek Task Forces. The working group membership is as follows:
61
Land Use & Policy Land & Water Public Outreach &
Working Group Working Group Awareness
Working Group
Sam Arabo (Transport Paul Kuebler Jane Brooke
Canada)
Councillor Mark Carroll Dr. Neil Burnett Norm Carr
Councillor Scott Crawford Cindy Mitton- Wilkie Christine Doody-Hamilton
(MTO)
Chris Darling (Durham Councillor Pat Brown Teresa Johnston
Region)
Councillor Joe Dickson Tim Rance (MNR) Gord MacPherson
Dr. Doug Dodge Dr. Doug Dodge Gord McKay
Steve Gaunt (City of Steve Yourt Suzanne Murphy
Pickering)
Alex Georgieff (Durham John Nemeth Councillor David Pickles
Region)
Carolyn Hart (Town of Ajax) Rick Gerber (U of T)
Barb Jeffrey (York Region) Judy Sullivan
Councillor Randy Low Kirk Bertschy
Tom Melymuk (City of Reed Russell
Pickering)
Councillor Susan Para Bill Booty (Environment
Canada)
Mayor Steve Parish Robert Flindall (Town of
Ajax)
Councillor Erin Shapero
,
Councillor Tony Wong
The Land Use and Policv WorkinQ Group
Members of this group are responsible for providing their input and expertise into the current
state of the land use planning process, identifying environmental issues and areas which are
currently being challenged and that require sound science to support them. This group has
met twice since the January 27 workshop.
62
The Land and Water '.-\'~':\l'<in~ Group
This science based group have the research experience and expertise to produce the
supporting data and scientific evidence required to support existing and proposed changes to
municipal, regional and provincial policy and plans. This group has met six times since the
January 27 workshop.
The Public Outreach and Awareness Workinq Group
This group acts as the communications liaison between the first two working groups. On
behalf of both Task Forces they plan to organize information sessions on such topics as golf
courses, aggregates, and stewardship opportunities. They will develop and share the good
work of the Task Forces and other active watershed residents through newsletters, web site
information and public events and displays. This group has met three times since the January
27 workshop.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The working groups will continue to meet on a regular basis and work independently
inbetween meetings to accomplish the tasks and action items they have established towards
the completion of the watershed management strategy.
A joint meeting of the Dufflns and Carruthers Creek Task Forces is being planned for May 2,
2001. The purpose of this meeting is to recap on the progress that the working groups have
made since the January ';!.7 workshop, to discuss the progress and direction of the three task
oriented working groups and to revisit and finalize the June to December 2001 work plan to
ensure that a Duffins and Carruthers Creek watershed strategy document is produced in the
time allocated that can be implemented by municipal and regional decision makers within the
two watersheds.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Staff, with the help of many of the Task Force members, continue to pursue funding
opportunities with various local, regional, provincial and federal government departments to
seek and secure funding for all aspects of strategy development and implementation.
Report prepared by: Joanne Jeffery, extension 5334
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: April 04, 2001
RES.#D22/01 -
DO,N WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #8/00. The Minutes of Meeting #8/00 held on
November 30, 2000 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is
provided for information
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Anthony Ketchum
63
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #8/00 held November 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.
Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: April 1 0, 2001
RES.#D23/01 -
ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meeting #10/00, #11/00, #1/01, #2/01. The Minutes of
Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting #10/00,
#11/00, #1/01 and #2/01 held on November 23,2000, December 14,
2000, January 25, 2001, and February 22, 2001, respectively, are
provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meeting #10/00, #11/00, #1/01 and #2/01 held on
November 23, 2000, December 14, 2000, January 25, 2001, and February 22, 2001,
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 the Authority at meeting #6/99 held on June 25, 1999 by
Resolution #A166/99, 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: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date: March 29, 2001
64
RES.#D24/01 -
f(:~'l.GE PARK NORTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Endorse the Rouge North Management Plan to be used as a guideline
taking into consideration the current planning policies until such time as
the Implementation Strategy is completed and implemented through the
Official Plan policies
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Rouge North Management
Plan be endorsed;
THAT the Authority direct staff to use the policies of the Rouge North Management Plan
as a guide, within the context of the current approved planning policies, until such time
as the Implementation Strategy is completed and adopted by the Authority.
AND FURTHER THAT the resolution be forwarded to the Rouge Alliance for information.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On July 28,2000, the Authority adopted the following resolution:
THA T the Rouge North Management Plan be endorsed.
THA T 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 the Provincial Policy Statement.
THA T 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.
THA T 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.
In addition, resolutionsJ,yAre also received for all members of the Alliance which recommended
that the completion of an Implementation Strategy was necessary to achieve the objectives set
out in the Rouge North Management Plan. In response the Rouge Alliance requested that
Rouge staff and the consultant (Schollen & Company Inc ) prepare the final wording of the
Rouge North Management Plan.
On March 9, 2001, the Rouge Alliance received various reports from the consultant, Rouge
Staff and results of an Alliance working meeting and adopted the following resolution:
65
".... AND THAT the Rouge Alliance approve the Rouge North Management Plan as
revised by the:
1. "Comprehensive Comment and Edit Summary Report, January 2001" (blue
pages);
2. "Summary Report - Rouge North Management Plan, Rouge Park Alliance Work
Session, Thrusday, February 15, 2001";
3. "Preface"
AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance direct the consultant, Schollen and Company Inc. to
finalize the Rouge North Management Plan;
AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance forward the Rouge Alliance approved Rouge North
Management Plan to all partners for endorsement by June 1, 2001;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance request that the Plan be used as a guide
for implementation until such time as the Implementation Strategy is finalized and fully
approved by all partners."
Rationale
Authority staff have not yet received the consolidated version of the Rouge North Management
Plan, however, comments have been requested by June 1, 2001. The substantive change to
the Plan is to incorporate a process to develop an implementation strategy which consists of
the following components:
1. Planning and Policy Implementation Strategy - The objective of this strategy is to
provide a more comprehensive and detailed strategy to define specific roles and
responsibilities and to address current legislative and policy requirements.
2. Land Acquisition and Funding Program - This plan will focus on defining a detailed
process to facilitate the acquisition of Rouge Park lands including short and long term
funding requirements, identification of funding sources and a protocol for accessing
and acquiring funds.
3. Technical Review Process - The objective of this review is to support and supplement
the boundary definition criteria, develop criteria for minor tributaries and establish a
watershed wide protocol for defining the park boundary. This initiative may include the
preparation of a summary reference docu'ment to guide practitioners, landowners,
municipality and agency staff in the application of the park boundary criteria, as well as
the review and approval processes.
4. Trail and Public Access Strategy - The preparation of a comprehensive Trails and
Public Access policy to address potential trail routing, hierarchy of trail types, location
of trail heads and access points, wayfindng strategy and requirements for support
facilities. .
The completion of these four components of the Implementation Strategy are necessary to fully
implement the vision of the Rouge North Management Plan. Authority staff are participating in
the various sub-committee's and will report further when these strategies are completed.
66
In the interim, Authorh>' :~:(Iff will use the policies of the Rouge North Management Plan as a
guide to explore opportunities to achieve the Plan's vision wherever possible. However, the
achievement of the Plan's intent may be limited by the current approved planning policies.
Report prepared by: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date: April 18, 2001
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
RES.#D25/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lorna Bissell
Dick O'Brien
THAT the Committee move into closed session to discuss item 7.21 - Village Securities
OMB Appeal (Morningside Heights), City of Toronto.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE OF THE WriOLE
RES.#D26/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Jim McMaster
THAT the Committee arise from closed session.
RES.#D27/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
ENVIRON"MENTAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The Government of Ontario commissioned an independent review of
best practices for environmental management. The review, completed
by F.:xecutive Resource Group, sets out a comprehensive framework for a
major restructuring and refocusing of environmental management in
On~ario.
Ian Sinclair
Ar {hr.my Ketchum
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority advise the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of the
Environment of Authority support for the proposed directions recommended in"
Managing the Environment - A Review of Best Practices";
67
THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority particularly <!ncourages the
Province of Ontario to establish watersheds as the most appropriate framework for
managing the protection and regeneration of many aspects of the physical environment;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to seek opportunities for dialogue with provincial
officials to advance mutual objectives particularly in the areas of groundwater and
surface water interactions, water taking permits, monitoring of environmental health as
part of a comprehensive set of sustainability indicators, strategic management of
cumulative loadings, research needs, watershed report cards, sustainability education
and proactive approaches to improving the quality of urban runoff.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Province of Ontario commissioned a major review of environmental management of best
practices in other jurisdictions. The results of the review, undertaken by the Executive
Resource Group and other consulting firms were presented to the government in January
2001. The report makes many observations and recommendations concerning the status of
environmental management in Ontario relative to other jurisdictions. Of particular note to
Conservation Authorities, the report states, "Our research indicates a consensus that
watersheds are an appropriate basic organizing principle for place-based environmental
management".
The report outlines a number of strategic shifts which need to take place as summarized in the
following chart:
From a Traditional Regulator Towards a Strategic Approach to
Managing the Environment.
1. One ministry having sole responsibility for A high-level, government-wide vision and
environmental protection. goals with implementation shared across
different departments.
2. A primary emphasis on ensuring A new and broader emphasis on
compliance with minimum standards for strategies to promote continuous
large stationary facilities. improvement in environmental outcomes
and accountability across all sources of
pollution.
3. Traditional program delivery according to' A place-based approach with
municipal or ministry/department area or boundaries that mpke environmental
region boundaries. planning sense al1d facilitate a total
cross-media, cumulative approach (such
as watershed management).
4. A primary reliance on traditional A more comprehensive, flexible set of
investigation, enforcement, and regulatory and non-regulatory
abatement tools. compliance tools and incentives.
5. A reliance on government to do it all. An approach based on shared
responsibilities with the regulated
community, NGOs, the public, and the
scientific/technical community
68
Copies of the Executive Summary of the Report will be available for members at the meeting.
The complete report is available on the Ministry of Environment section of the Provincial
Government's Web site at:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/ergreport.
This is a very good report which Authority staff hope the province will move expeditiously to
implement. While the report is not quite up to date with the current thrusts in TRCA's
watershed strategies, it does recognize the role of individuals, communities and all parts of
government in the quest for better environmental management. It seems to suggest that there
needs to be a provincial role within. partnerships to deliver better environmental management,
measured in some cases on a watershed basis. There is a lot to build on in this report.
Dialogue between TRCA and the Ministry of Environment has been increasing over the last .
year and regular meetings with District Managers will commence in May. There are still serious
resource issues to address but we believe this report is very helpful in setting out the role of the
province and a suitable framework for a renewed commitment for better environmental
management in Ontario.
For Information contact: Brian Denney, extension 6290
Date: April 18, 2001
NEW BUSINESS
RES.#D28/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Lorna Bissell
THAT staff be directed to prepare a report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board
outlining the existing legislative framework related to spills management, including
information on fine structure, the. history of fine collection and related compliance issues.
CARRIED
RES.#D29/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Anthony Ketchum
THAT staff, at a subsequent Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting provide a
briefing ~n the Authority's policies and practices related to the protection and
management of intermittent streams.
CARRIED
69
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :50 a.m., on April 20, 2001.
Irene Jones
Chair
J. Craig Mather
Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
70
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/01
June 15, 2001
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/01, was held in the Humber
Room, Head Office, on Friday, June 15,2001. The Chair Irene Jones, called the meeting
to order at 10:03 a.m.
PRESENT
Bas Balkissoon
lIa Bossons
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
Pam McConnell
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
Ian Sinclair
Frank Scarpitti
Tanny Wells
Member
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell
Vice Chair
RES.#D30/01 -
MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Bas Balkissoon
Pam McConnell
THAT the'Minutes of Meeting #1/01, held on April 20, 2001, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Gord MacPherson, Coordinator, Coastal Ecology, in regards to
Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program, Toronto Harbour Northern Pike Habitat
Utilization Study.
71
RES.#D31/01 -
PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Bas Balkissoon
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D32/01 -
PORT UNION WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Highland Creek to Rouge River. To receive a status report on the
approved Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project (Highland Creek to
Rouge River) and the Terms and Conditions set out in this report under
the Environmental Assessment Act and to secure direction to proceed
towards implementation of the Project.
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed expeditiously in
obtaining the outstanding regulatory approvals required for implementation;
THAT staff be directed to investigate'the merits and alternatives of proceeding with the
implementation of the Pedestrian Node at the foot of Port Union Road to support other
City of Toronto initiatives in advance of finalization of the funding partnership;
THAT the Federal Government, Provincial Government and City of Toronto partners be
advised through the Interim Waterfront Agency of the Port Union Waterfront Project E.A.
approval and that the TRCA and its partners including the community groups are ready to
implement the project as part of Toronto's Waterfront Revitalization Initiative;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority acknowledge the significant support and assistance
in formulating the Port Union Concept Plan and achieving approval under the
Environmental Assessment Act by the Port Union Waterfront Working Committee.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #5/98 held on June 26, 1998, Resolution #A 126/98 was adopted:
"THAT the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan be endorsed and
submitted to the Minister of Environment for approval under the Environmental
Assessment Act;
THA T staff be directed to prepare a "Project" based on the Concept Plan and including a
funding partnership for approval by the Authority and the City of Toronto;
72
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue with acquisition efforts to achieve the objectives of
the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan. II
The Authority initiated the Port Union Waterfront project with the establishment of the Port
Union Waterfront Working Committee with representatives from all three Community
organizations, including the City Councillor, the provincial member and the federal member in
1997.
On January 21, 1999, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TI=lCA) submitted an
Environmental Assessment seeking approval for the implementation of waterfront
improvements along the shoreline of Lake Ontario between the Highland Creek and the Rouge
River. This Environmental Assessment underwent a concurrent public and government agency
review. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) prepared a Government Review document
summarizing all public and agency comments as well as the TRCA response to the comments.
The Government Review evaluated the Environmental Assessment (EA) submitted by the TRCA
and has determined that the EA has fulfilled the requirements of the Environmental Assessment
Act and the Terms of Reference for this EA, which was approved June 9, 1998.
On May 2, 2001, the Minister of Environment issued a Notice of Approval to Proceed with the
Port Union Waterfront Improvements Project. The Notice of Approval includes the reasons for
the decision and the conditions of approval (see attached). The approved undertaking is the
development and implementation of a plan for waterfront improvements in an area adjacent to
Lake Ontario, between Highland Creek and the Rouge River - 3.6 km. The waterfront
improvements would include lakefilling for a waterfront corridor to accommodate two
pedestrian tunnels, while providing safe public access to the waterfront for the surrounding
community and future regional users. The configuration of the shoreline would include two
series of headland beach systems, a larger headland to function as a pedestrian node south of
the CN Railway lines as an extension to the Port Union Village Common and two existing
dynamic beaches at the western and eastern ends of the project.
The E.A. proposed the.t tl"'e Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project be implemented.in two
components: Phase I frOl n Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores which will be constructed
first, and Phase II from Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River. Phase I will focus on property
acquisition, land creation and erosion protection for 1.44 km, the creation of the Port Union
pedestrian node and its connection to Chesterton Shores, the Village Common underpass,
and fisheries compensation activities. The waterfront trail from Highland Creek to Chesterton
Shores will also be completed and landscaped.
Phase II will focus on the section of shoreline from Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River. This
will involve: land acquisition; the creation of the land base east of Chesterton Shores for 2.36
km; improvements to the Chesterton Shores shoreline to make it safe and aesthetically
pleasing for the public; fisheries compensation activities at the mouth of Adams Creek which
include the creation of a wetland; and the establishment of a lookout and interpretive centre on
the Port Union node. The construction of the waterfront trail between Chesterton Shores and
the Rouge River, the completion of landscape elements along the trail, and the establishment
of a pier feature on the Port Union node will also be undertaken as part of Phase II.
73
The timing for the completion of each phase will depend upon when the shoreline properties
are acquired and when funding is secured from each partner. It should be noted that all lands
required for Phase I have been secured.
Conditions of Approval
There are four specific Conditions of Approval that are of particular importance to the TRCA.
They are a commitment to a monitoring and contingency plan for the coastal processes and
fisheries compensation requirements; the Amendment Procedure for Modifications to the
Concept Plan; a commitment to provide to the City of Toronto a statement on parking
availability; and a commitment to reporting to the Ministry of Environment how the TRCA has
complied with the Environmental Assessment and the Conditions of Approval.
1. Monitoring and Contingency Plan:
Condition 4.0 ensures that the Authority meet it's commitments made to undertaking a
shoreline monitoring plan, monitoring program for the constructed works, and a
contingency plan to address potential changes to the dynamic beaches at Rouge
Beach and the Highland Creek.
2. Amendment Procedure for Modifications to the Concept Plan:
During the implementation period, we anticipate modifications will be required due to
detailed design requirements or a shift in some fish compensation features as we move
through the Federal approval process. These modifications may change the details
. within the Concept Plan but will not alter the main Plan components for the waterfront.
The process to be followed for modifications to the illustrated design (Concept Plan) will
depend upon the significance of the change as determined by the Authority.
Modifications are broken down into two categories, each of which will proceed in a
different manner. Condition 7.0 of the Conditions of Approval clearly outlines the
process the Authority will go through to make any modifications to the approved
Concept Plan.
Minor Modification
-This type of modification will not have a net difference on the impacts to the
environment as presented in the Port Union Waterfront Improvement
Project/Environmental Assessment.
- This type of modification may originate from a refinement during the detailed design
stage to the original design such as a minor shift in the road alignment, pathways, etc.
- These minor modifications will be documented for the public record with the Ministry
of Environment (MOE), but should not require approval from the MOE.
Significant or Major Modification
- These modifications have an influence on the local environment and affects an area of
the project, such as a new park.facility or use from that illustrated in the Concept Plan.
- Affected agencies, concerned citizens and interest groups will be consulted to
negotiate a resolution to the concept plan issue.
74
3. Parking Requir8'I' 5nts: .
Condition 8.0 ensures that the Authority provide to the City of Toronto a statement as to
how automobile parking demand generated by the waterfront improvements will be
satisfied as each of the four stages of the undertaking proceeds. The statement will
outline additional parking spaces that have been arranged and are expected to be
arranged, the status of existing parking spaces, an explanation as to why these
numbers of parking spaces is considered sufficient. The TRCA and the City of
Toronto will undertake monitoring after each stage of the undertaking is complete to
determine if additional parking is required at that time.
4. Compliance with Conditions of Approval:
Condition 10.0 requires the Authority to advise the Director of the Environmental
Assessment and Approvals Branch how the TRCA has complied with the Environmental
Assessment itself and the Conditions of Approval. This reporting would occur after
completion of each phase of the project.
In addition to approval under the Environmental Assessment Act this project also requires
approvals under Section 35 (2) of the Federal Fisheries Act, Sections 5(1} and 5(2} of the
federal Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and the provincial Public Lands Act. It is also
necessary for a cultural heritage resource study to be prepared prior to any construction being
undertaken, and submitted to the provincial Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for
approval. '.
RATIONALE
The Port Union Working Committee was established to guide the public consultation and E.A.
process. The Committee's commitment and benefit is evident in the level of public support for
the final concept plan and receipt of Environmental Assessment approval in May, 2001. The
Authority acknowledges the Committee's support and assistance in realizing the vision for this
sector of Toronto's waterfront.
In March 2000, the Watecfront Revitalization Task Force released it's report Our Toronto
Waterfront: Gateway to the new Canada, an action plan to revitalize the Toronto waterfront. On
August 1, 2000, City Council endorsed in principle the concept plan. On October 20, 2000, the
government leaders of the City, Provincial and Federal Governments announced their support
for the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative and their joint commitment of $1.5 billion to
be shared equally by the three governments.
The Waterfront Revitalization Initiative will reconnect the Eastern and Western Waterfronts to
the new Central Waterfront. The Fung report recognizes the opportunities and constraints in
the eastern waterfront ar~,a, and specifically addresses the need to promote linkages across
the waterfront and to retain the largely passive function of the waterfront in this area of the City.
It is suggested that oppo'tllnities should be.sought that will.help.achieve continuous public
access across the entire 29 mile Toronto waterfront.
The City's report on Our Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum supported these principles
and initiatives in the western and eastern waterfronts. At its meeting #11/00, held on January
5, 2001, the Authority in addressing the City's report (Building Momentum) passed Resolution
#268/00 which states in part:
75
"THA T the Authority support the western and eastern waterfront initiatives proceeding in
their own time frames along with a commitment of funding from the overall waterfront
governing body."
All efforts are required to pursue a funding partnership on a 1/3 federal, 1/3 provincial and 1/3
municipal basis as outlined in ,the.El')vironmental Assessment to realize implementation of the
project and assist in the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative.
Having received E.A. approval, it is imperative that all options are investigated to support the
City's investment in the Village Common and Pedestrian Tunnel (constructed in 2000) and to
maintain the momentum in implementing this project as part of the Toronto's Waterfront
Revitalization Initiative.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. investigate the merits of proceeding with the implementation of the Pedestrian Node in
advance of the finalization of the funding partnership;
. seek approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Coast Guard) and the Fisheries
Act (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), including the completion of a fisheries
compensation agreement;
. seek approval under the Public Lands Act (Ministry of Natural Resources);
. continue to negotiate for the acquisition of private lands (lands required for Phase I are in
hand, 7 properties are required for Phase II);
. continue to negotiate an agreement with GO Transit to utilize their parking lots during off
peak hours (i.e. weekends and evenings);
. confirmation of a partnership agreement between the Federal Government, Province of
Ontario, City of Toronto through the Interim Waterfront Agency and The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority tanh€! implementation of the Port Union Waterfront
Improvement Project;
. preparation of detailed designs for Phase I - Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores; and,
. investigate the merits and alternatives of proceeding with the Pedestrian Node with City
money in advance of finalizing the project funding partnership to ensure the public benefits
of the City's investment in the Village Common and Pedestrian Tunnel (constructed 2000).
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Total costs for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan have been
estimated at approximately $12,000,000, in 1998 dollars, to be applied toward the completion
of land creation and protection, landscaping, fisheries compensation, a pedestrian underpass,
and trail construction. The estimated costs will be further refined when detailed designs of the
waterfront corridor have been produced and during the preparation of the "Project" document
and funding partnership.
The studies and work-to-date has been.funded out of the unconditional $1,000,000 of City
money for this project. Further details on the status of funding will be outlined in a subsequent
report.
For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 and Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: May 28, 2001
Attachments: 1
76
Attachment 1
~
Order in Council
Oecret
&-.uw CGuneI
c___
On the recommendation of the undersigned, the
Ueutenanl Governor, by and with the advICe and
concurrence of the executive Councll, orders that:
Sur Ia recommandation du sousslgne,le
Jleutenant-gouverneur, sur I'avls et aYe<:: Ie con.
sentemenl du Conseil des mlnistres, d4cf'6te ce
qui sull :
WHEREAS section 9 of the Environmental Assessment Act provides that the Minister of
the Environment, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Councll, may give approval to
proceed.with an undertaking, give approval to proceed with an undertaking ~bJect to such
canditio/1$ as the Minister considers necessary, or refuse to give' approval to proceed wtth the
undertaking;
WHEREAS a Notice of Completion of as Review for the Environmental Assessment for
the undertaking, which is the subject of the attached notice, was published on August 22, 2000, Bnd
8 submissions were recelve~.
WHEREAS no notices requesting a hearing were received by the Minister of the
Environment after the publl(;\l!1on of the Notice of Completion af the Review: and
WHEREAS, having considered the purpose of the Act, the approved tenns
of reference, environmental assessment of the undertaking, which Is the subject of the attached
notice, the ministry review of the environmental assessment and the submissions reeelved, the
undersigned Minister of the Environment considers that a f\earlng Is unnecessary and is of the
opinion that the undertaking should be given approval to proceed. subject to the conditions specified
in the attached nollee.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act. the
undertaking which is the subject of the attached notice, be given approval to proceed subject to the
said condltiol1$.
Recommended
Concurred
'.
Approved
and Ordered "
MAY ~ - 2001
Dile
~
O:C./06<:rot 1 0.6 Oi 2001
." .ojjied to be a tru, py . _ " .
t;!:llA!i.f:d~
77
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
SECTION 9
NOTICE OF APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE UNDERTAKING
RE: An Environmental Assessment for Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project -
Highland Creek to the Rouge River
Proponent: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
EA File No.: CA-MT -02
TAKE NOTICE that the period for requiring a hearing, provided for in the Notice of Completion
of the Review for the above noted undertaking, expired on September 21, 2000. I received
three submissions before the expiration date. No submissions requested a hearing by the
Environmental Review Tribunal.
I do not consider it advisable or necessary to hold a hearing. Having considered the purpose
of the Act, the Environmental Assessment, the Review and submissions, including an
additional five submissions received after September 21 I 2000, I hereby give approval to
proceed with the undertaking, subject to conditions set out below.
REASONS:
My reasons for giving approval are:
'. . .
1. On the basis of the proponent's Environmental Assessment and the Review, the
proponent's conclusion that, on balance, the advantages of this undertaking outweigh
its disadvantages, appears to be valid.
2. No other beneficial alternative method of implementing the undertaking was identified.
3. On the basis of the proponent's Environmental Assessment, the Review and the
conditions of ~pproval, the construction, operation and maintenance of the undertaking
will be consistent with the purpose of the Act (section 2).
4. The Government Review Team has indicated no outstanding concerns that can not be
addressed through conditions of approval or further approvals required under the
federal Fisheries Act, the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act, or the provincial
Public Lands Act. The public review of the Environmental. Assessment did not identify
any outstanding concerns which can not be addressed through these conditions of
approval or the required approvals.
5. The submissions received after the Notice of Completion of the Review was published
have been adequately dealt with. I am not aware of any outstanding issues with respect
to this undertaking which suggest that a hearing should be required.
78
CONDITIONS:
1.0 Definitions:
1.1 "Director" means the Director of the EAAB.
1.2 "EM" means the Environmental Assessment Act.
1.3 "EMB" means Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.
1.4 "MOE" means the Ministry of the Environment.
1.5 "Proponent" means the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
2.0 The Proponent shall comply with the provisions of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
all of which are incorporated herein by reference, except as provided in these
conditions or as provided by any other approvals, authorizations or permits required for
the undertaking. '
3.0 The Proponent shall implement the commitments made by the Proponent and recorded
in appendices two and three of the Review, labelled as "Summary of Public Comments
and TRCA's Responses" and "Summary of Government Agency Comments and TRCA's
Responses", except as required to comply with condition 4.0. and except as provided
for in these condi.:rms or as provided by other approvals, autho:i'!ations or permits
required for the u~ Idertaking.
4.0 The Proponent shall implement its commitments and carry out the work specified in the
report Requirements Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act except as may
be required by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada -Fish Habitat Management
(DFO-FHM), Environment Canada (EC), or the Fisheries and Oceans Canada
-Canadian Coast Guard (DFO-CCG) and the Proponent shall implement any further
requirements of DFO-FHM, EC and DFO-CCG and undertakings given to them as a
result of further discussions between the Proponent and any of DFO-FHM, EC and
DFO-CCG.
5.0 These conditions do not prevent more restricti~e conditions being imposed under other
statutes.
6.0 In carrying out the undertaking, the Proponent shall ensure, by appropriate. means,
including carrying out a sampling, analysis and monitoring procedure developed
through further discussions with the Toronto District Office of MOE and agreed to by
the Toronto District Office of MOE, that contractors.and sub- contractors: meet
applicable (including environmental) regulatory standards and these conditions; adhere
to commitments made in the EA and any supporting documentation in respect of
construction, ope,':;:tion and maintenance of the undertaking; and obtain all necessary
approvals. This includes ensuring all works comply with:
1. The TRCA's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Construction,
Apri11994.
79
2. The MOE's draft Fill Quality Guidelines for Lakefilling in Ontario, December 1997.
3. The TRCA's Lakefill Quality Control Program (Appendix a) in the Port Union
Waterfront Improvement Project -Fill Technical Report, July 1998.
7.0 Section 8.6- "Amendment Procedure" Environmental Assessment is deleted and
replaced by conditions 7.1 to 7.17. In Section 8.6, TRCA stated that
"The following describes the procedure to be followed to accommodate any modifications to
the Concept Plan for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project. The Project will be
implemented in two phases over 5 to 10 years as outlined in Chapter 8.2. During the
implementation period, we anticipate modifications will be required due to detailed design
requirements or a shift in some fish compensation features as we move through the Federal
approval process. These modifications may change the details within the Concept Plan but will
not alter the main Plan components for the waterfront.
There are a number of reasons modifications to the Concept Plan may be required. The
planned length of time may be exceeded due to several factors. The lakefilling schedule which
relies on the availability of fill from construction sites could alter phasing of the Plan. The
property acquisition strategy for the project may be delayed as negotiations for the lands are
often difficult and time consuming. If funding is not provided at the required levels, the
implementation of the Concept Plan will be extended."
MINOR MODIFICATIONS
7.1 A minor modification to the Concept Plan and the undertaking is a modification:
i} where the environmental effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be
expected to be caused to the environment, taking into account mitigation and
remedial actions, and the advantages and. disadvantages to the environment of
the undertaking, will be equally or more advantageous to the environment than
the environmental effects, advantages and disadvantages as described in the
EA (as changed by any previous modifications);
ii} which the Proponent determines should not be processed as a significant or
major modification;
iii} for which the Proponent is able to obtain the confirmations referred to in
condition 7.3; and,
iv} where there is no unresolved written request under condition 7.4 at the time
when the decision-making body of the TRCA (which body is referred to below as
the "Authority") gives the approval-referred to in subcondition 7. 5 (iv).
Such modifications may originate from a refinement to the original Con'::ept Plan and the
undertaking of the project during the detailed design stage or from late: proposed
modifications.
80
7.2 Where a minor IT -:'7lification is proposed, the Proponent shall n./:fy, by regular mail, any
agency who has ~J. mandate for any matter affected by the proposed minor modification
and any property .:-.wner whose land is directly abu~ing. the proposed modification.
7.3 The Proponent shall obtain written confirmation from every person and agency notified
under 7.2 that they do not object to the proposed modification. If the Proponent cannot
obtain such confirmation, the Proponent shall follow the process set out in conditions
7.9 to 7.17 for significant or major modifications.
7.4 Any person may request the Proponent to process a proposed modification under the
process set out for significant or major modification in conditions 7.9 to 7.17. The
Proponent and the person making the request may subsequently agree that the
modification may proceed as a minor modification. In the event there is not such an
agreement, and the person making the request has submitted, prior to the Authority
giving the approval referred to in subcondition 7.5 (iv), a request in writing setting out
the reasons why the proposal should be processed as a significant or major
modification and the proposed modification shall be processed under the procedure set
out in conditions 7.9 to 7.17.
7.5 Once the Proponent obtains the confirmations required by condition 7.3, the Proponent
may, subject to conditions 7.4 and 7.7, proceed with the minor modification provided
that the Propone';t jirst ensures that the minor modification:
i} is presencv-i to the Port Union Working Committee or a successor to it for review
and comment, or if the Committee or its successor ceases to exist and function,
notice of the minor modification is provided to the community groups previously
sitting on the Committee or its successor at least 14 days prior to the
consideration by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board meeting referred to
in subcondition 7.5 (iii).
ii} has been reviewed by the City 'of Toronto and comments provided to the TRCA.
jii} is considered by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board (or its successor or,
if no successor, the Authority) along with the comments provided under
subconditions 7.5 (i) and 7.5 {ii} and any other comments received, at a meeting
which allows public participation, and a recommendation made to the Authority.
iv) is approved by the Authority.
7.6 The Proponent shall submit a report on the minor modification to the EMB for inclusion
in the Public Record. The report shall include an explanation of the modification; a
description of chc-.iiges that the modification will. have to..the.env.irunmental effects and
the advantages a~.d disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as described
in the EA (as chc>rged by any previous mod!fication~); copies of the notices given and
the written confirmations received, the Port Union Working Committee and the City of
Toronto comments, any other comments received, TRCA reports, and TRCA Watershed
Management Committee and Authority meeting minutes including recommendations
and approvals'; and a description and summary of all the documents for which copies
are required.
81
7.7 The Proponent shall not proceed with the minor modification ull~.i1 the report required by
7.6 is submitted to the EMS for inclusion in the Public Record.
SIGNIFICANT AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS
7.8 A significant or major modification to the Concept Plan and the undertaking is a
modification which has an influence on the local environment and where the
environmental effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be
caused to the environment taking into account mitigation and remedial actions, and the
advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, will be more
disadvantageous to the environment than the environmental effects and the advantages
and disadvantages as described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications)
or which otherwise does not meet the requirements of condition 7.1 for minor
modifications.
7.9 Where a significant or major modification is proposed the Proponent shall:
i} prepare documentation, in consultation, where appropriate, with affected
agencies, concerned citizens and interest groups, which documentation shall
identify the proposed modification, the reason for the modification; the
alternatives, if any, to the modification; proposed mitiga1:on and remedial
actions; and a description of changes that the modificakm, taking into account
mitigation and remedial action, will have to the environmental effects and the
advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as
described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications).
ii} prepare documentation, in consultation, where appropriate, with affected
agencies, concerned citizens and interest groups, which documentation shall
identify the proposed modification, the reason for the modification; the
alternatives, if any, to the modification; proposed mitigation and remedial
actions; and a description of changes that the modification, taking into account
mitigation and remedial action, will have to the environmental effects and the
advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as
described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications).
iii} give notice by regular mail of the proposed significal')t or major modification and
the public meeting to any community group which participates or participated
on the Port Union Working Committee or its successor, the EMS, any other
government agency which commented on the EA, or is affected by the
modification, persons who submitted comments under :;;ubsection 6.4 {2} of the
EM, any propertY owner whose land is directly abutting "he proposed
modification, and any other person-that the Director of tha EMS requires the
Proponent to notify.
iv} give notice of the proposed significant or major modification and the public
meeting by advertisement in a newspaper with general circulation in the area of
the undertaking; and
82
v} include in the notices of the proposed modification and public meeting a
statement that anyone may submit to the Proponent, within 30 calendar days of
the holding of the public meeting to discuss the proposed modification, a
Statement of Concern which must include reasons for the concern and that
failure to do so may result in the modification proceeding without further notice.
7.10 If no Statement of Concern is received by the Proponent within 30 calendar days of the
public meeting, the Proponent may proceed with the significant or major modification
provided that the Proponent first ensures the modification:
i} is presented to the Port Union Working Committee or a successor to it for review
and comment, or if the Committee or its successor ceases to exist and function,
notice of the modification is provided to the community groups previously sitting
on the Committee or its successor at least 14 days prior to the consideration by
the TRCA's Watershed Management Board referred to in subcondition 7.10 (iii) .
ii} is considered by City of Toronto Council and a resolution supporting the
modification is passed by the Council and is forwarded, along with any other
documentation deemed relevant, to the TRCA.
iii} is conside~ed by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board (or its successor or,
if no successor, the decision-making body of the TRCA, which body is referred
to below as the "Authority") along with the comments provided under
subconditions 7.1 a (i) and 7.1 a (ii) and any other comments received, at a
meeting which allows public participation, and a recommendation made to the
Authority .
iv) is approved by the Authority.
7.11 If any Statement of Concern is received by the Proponent within 30 calendar days of the
public meeting ref9rred to in subcondition 7.9 (ii) the Proponent shall:
i} provide thE:: EMS with a copy of any Statement of Concern; and,
ii} attempt to resolve the concerns through alternative dispute resolution such as
meetings, negotiation, mediation.
7.12 If the Proponent resolves the concerns raised in the Statements of Concern and the
concerns are withdrawn and the withdrawal and resolution of the concerns is confirmed
in writing by each party which submitted a Statement of Concern, the Proponent can
proceed with the proposed significant or major modification, including any changes to
that modification arising outof. the resolution of any concerns, provided the Proponent
first ensures that the steps set out in subconditions 7.1 0 (i) -(iv) are followed and the
approval set out in subcondition 7.1 0 (iv) is obtained, and provided the following steps
are followed, if applicable:
83
i} If the change in the modification that facilitated the withdrawal of the Statement
of Concern will increase the magnitude of the modification or substantially alter
the nature of the modification, the Proponent shall ensure that the steps set out
in subconditions 7.9 (i) -(iv) are followed, along with whichever of conditions 7.1
a and 7.11 is applicable.
ii} The portion of the documentation providing a description of changes that the
modification will have to the environmental effects and the advantages and
disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as described in the EA (as
changed by the documentation for any previous modifications) is amended to
reflect the change to the modification.
7.13 If the Proponent cannot resolve the concerns through alternative dispute resolution and
the Proponent considers that an appropriate amount of effort and time has been spent
attempting to resolve the cOr"!~ern, the Proponent, if it wishes to proceed with the
significant or major modification, shall provide written notice to the party that submitted
the Statement of Concern and any other party that the Director may require, that the
Proponent intends to proceed with the significant or major modification process by
following the steps set out in subconditions 7.1 0 (i) -(iv) and obtaining the approval set
out in subcondition 7.10 (iv). This notice shall outline the procedure for the written
request which may be submitted under condition 7.14.
7.14 A party which submitted a Statement of Concern who receives or should have received
a notice under 7.13 may within 30 days of receipt of such notice make a written request
to the Director of the EMB, with a copy sent to the Proponent, that the Director of the
EMB give notice to the Proponent that it cannot proceed with the significant or major
modification unless the Proponent submits a new application for approval under Part II
of the EM and receives approval for the change.
7.15 The Proponent, subject to 7.17, may proceed with the proposed significant or major
modification if the Director of the EMB provides a notice that a new EA approval will not
be required or if, within 30 calendar days of receiving the request under condition 7.14
the Director has not provided the notice referred to 'in that condition.
7.16 The Proponent shall submit to the EAAB a report on the significant or major
modification for inclusion in the Public Record. The report shall include: a description
of: the modification; the public and agency consultation process and the results of that
process, including any Statements of Concern; the manner in which concerns were
addressed or not and if they were not addressed, the reason for this; the
documentation required under subcondition 7.9 (i); copies of the notices given and the
written confirmations received, the Port Union Working Committee comments, the City
of Toronto Council resolution ar-ld any- other City documentation deemed relevant, any
other comments received including Statements of Concern and withdrawals of
Statements of Concern, and TRCA Watershed Management Committee and Authority
meeting minutes including recommendations and approvals; and a description and
summary of all the documents for which copies are required.
7.17 The Proponent shall not proceed with the significant or major modification until the
report required by 7.16 is submitted to the EAAB for inclusion in the Public Record.
84
8.0 Before proceeding with the undertaking, TRCA shall provide to the satisfaction of the
City of Toronto a statement as to how automobile parking demand anticipated to be
generated by the waterfront improvements will be satisfied aft,er each of the Highland
Creek to Chesterton Shores and Chesterton Shores to Rouge River implementation
phases of the undertaking. This statement shall outline additional parking spaces that
have been arranged and are expected to be arranged, the status of existing parking
spaces, an assessment as to the sufficiency of this parking, and monitoring planned by
TRCA and the City after the two implementation phases of the undertaking are
completed to determine if additional parking is required at those times. A copy of the
statement is required for the Public Record.
9.0 The Proponent shall follow the recommendations of Environment Canada in developing
the plan for monitoring the fish habitat to be created in Cell 1 of Tommy Thompson
Park, which will be based upon the results of the monitoring of the Triangle Pond
wetland creation at Tommy Thompson park, and shall provide Environment Canada
with the analyzed rdsults of the Cell 1 monitoring plan at the interval(s} set out in the
Cell 1 monitorinC) I')lan.
10.0 The Proponent shall advise the Director in writing how it has complied with the
environmental assessment and these conditions:
(i) immediately prior to commencing construction of the first phase of the
undertaking as outlined in the environmental assessment;
(ii) immediately prior to commencing construction of the second phase of the
undertaking as outlined in the environmental assessment;
(Hi) upon completion of the construction of the undertaking; and
(iv) upon completion of any other activity required to complete the undertaking.
85
11.0 Where a document is required for the Public Record, it shall be provided by TRCA to
the Director of the EMS for filing with the Public Record maintained for this undertaking.
Additional copies of such documents will be provided by the Proponent for public
access to:
the Director of Central Region of the MOE;
the Clerk's office of the City of Toronto;
TRCA's Head Office; and,
TRCA's Eastville office.
Dated the 1..nc\ day of
MaJ-' 2901 at TORONTO.
Minister of
135 51. Cia
12th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1 P5
\pproved by O.C. No
\Oboj2001
86
RES.#D33/01 -
TORONTO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2000-2004
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:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Pam McConnell
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 2001 of $900,000;
THAT the Toronto Port Authority be requested to continue maintenance dredging of the
Keating Channel in 2001 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 Commis~ioners) dredged
Keating Channel from the time of its construction in the 1920's to about 1974. As the dredging
became more expensivp <md disposal of the dredged l)1aterial more difficult, the TPA sought
partners in the work. Trai IspOrt Canada initially agreed to 'part'icip.~te on the basis that if the
Channel was not dredged, eventually the delta would spread i":lto 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 i.e. 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 nine years of maintenance dredging (1992 - 2000), the TPA, City of Toronto
and the TRCA participated in the cost sharing.
87
.. >
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 {TTP}. There are costs associated with the construction of the
proposed cap which were not part of the original funding for the dredg!'lg project. It was
C!-nticipated 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. 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.
Subject to receiving the final approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Capping
of Cell One will commence in 2001. Details of the construction and implementation of the Cell
One Capping will be co-ordinated between the TPA, TRCA and City of -roronto 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
TRCA jurisdiction has lost approximately 31 percent of the original 2,044 acres of functioning
wetland area.
Within the TTP 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 creatior:l 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.
88
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of the Keating Channel dredging for 2001 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 2001 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 has confirmed its' $150,000 share.
Funding for the Cell One Capping will need to be confirmed by TPA ($150,OOO). The City's
portion ($150,OOO) was previously raised and is available.
The Authority has budgeted a total of $300,000 for 2001 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 (lh) of the TRCA contribution was raised in prior year's and is available.
For information contact: Jim Berry 416-392-9721
Date: June 5, 2001
RES.#D34/01 -
DEVELOPMENT OF A TERRESTRIAL NATURAL HERITAGE
STRATEGY FOR THE TRCA JURISDICTION
Progress report of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy for the TRCA
jurisdiction.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the development of the
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy for the TRCA jurisdiction be endorsed;
89
THAT staff from the Authority proceed with the workplan and continue to work on this
program in partnership with the Regions of York, Peel and Durham, and the City of
Toronto, and in consultation with stakeholders;
THAT staff use the tools and methodologies in Authority activities and comments in its
plan input and review, and permitting roles;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority with a status update on Strategy
development and stakeholder consultation (late fall 2001 or early winter 2002).
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since the early 1990s our terrestrial inventory work has highlighted some disturbing findings in
the distribution of natural cover and species within the Authority's jurisdiction. Numerous
species of fauna and flora are no longer found in urban areas even when apparently suitable
habitat is available.
The loss of natural cover and species diversity across the TRCA jurisdiction was brought about
cumulatively from using a site-based, short-term approach to natural systems protection
through land use planning. This cumulative loss of natural cover and biodiversity was the
.impetus for the development of a terrestrial natural heritage strategy. The intent of the
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy is to raise the issues of land use change and its
implication at both the regional and site scales together. The main tool will be natural systems
targets for long-term ecosystem health.
The development of the Strategy is based on several requirements. First and foremost, it
needs to be based on strong ecological information. Secondly, to m~imize our service to the
community, the methodology has to be transparent, accessible, and standardized. Thirdly, it
has to be applicable at all scales from site to watershed, municipality, and the TRCA region.
Finally, it has to be versatile enough to serVe the Authority in its many roles in managing
watersheds while still facilitating efficient use of our limited resources.
Previous Authority Resolution
In 1999 staff reported to the Authority (Res. #A 163/99) on one of the tools that is fundamental
in the development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy. This tool (then called the
Conservation Priorities Project) involved the development of ranking criteria (and scoring
methodology) for species, vegetation communities and habitat patches. This tool has already
been used in our plan input and review comments, and in our field data collection within the
TRCA jurisdiction. We have progressed into other aspects of the methodology development
and consultation since then.
The Natural System
The Strategy defines a terrestrial natural heritage system by the total natural cover in the TRCA
jurisdiction (45,000 hectares of forest and wetland) on all public and private lands. It evaluates
the function of each individual patch and of the whole system. In the next year of the Strategy
development, staff will produce the modelling of various scenarios of natural, agricultural and
urban land cover. The natural system in each modelled scenario will be evaluated to arrive at a
targeted natural system, based on strong science, detailed local knowledge, and experience
90
with land use planning. . 'his targeted natural system will not necessarily be restricted to the"
existing" natural cover bul will look at what kind of system should be found in the TRCA
jurisdiction for the region to be considered "healthy".
Integration
A natural system provides a green infrastructure which benefits not only terrestrial biodiversity
but also aquatic biodiversity, water quality and quantity management, aesthetics, recreational
and educational opportunities, air quality, and natural resources. The terrestrial component will
be overlayed with the aquatic and water management components of the Natural Heritage
Program to provide an integrated and mutually supportive approach to decision-making.
Consultation
The Strategy for reaching the target will be developed in conjunction with our partners and
stakeholders. Education and dialogue will be integral to our Gombined success. In particular,
consultation with the Regional Municipalities of York, Durham and Peel as well as the City of
Toronto, will be emphasized throughout the Strategy development. We will continue to work
closely with broader initiatives including the Province, the Nature Conservancy of Canada,
Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition to find the
compatibility between ou" methodologies. We will continue to pr~sent our approach at
conferences and workshop locally and abroad, for example, the FON's Woods Talk in June
2001.
To date we have received overwhelming positive feedback on our intent and methodology from
planning staff from the Regional Municipalities listed above and from numerous local
municipalities, watershed councils and alliances, biologists from government agencies,
university professors, NGOs, environmental consultants, and other Conservation Authorities.
The Living City
Staff have actively researched other natural heritage works in the province and internationally.
No other methodology has shown this level of emphasis on tools for bringing strong science
into public education and land use planning. This methodology provides an opportunity for
world class, metropolitan city regions to boast a unprecedented green infrastructure.
The Conservation Foundation has received financial support for the Terrestrial Natural Heritage
Strategy from corporate funders in the environmental field.
Deliverables
The products of the Strategy will include tbe methodology, a regional report card, a policy
framework, an impleme'1t:ltion framework, a monitoring program, and a consultation process.
More details are found below.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The development of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy is a three year initiative which
includes three main project phases:
91
. The establishment of baseline data and evaluation for flora, fauna, vegetation
communities, and landscape elements (2001);
. Generating modeled scenarios for ecological health and setting ecological targets (2002);
. Strategy development with key partners (2003).
The deliverable are as follow:
Documented, tested, scientific methodology to identify and model scenario for natural
heritage system.
The identification and creation of a
Natural Heritage System Map for greater Toronto and detailed analysis for 10,000
habitat patches
Natural Heritage Strategic Framework for Greater Toronto
Regional Monitoring Policy Natural Heritage Community Education
and Evaluation Program Recommendations for Strategy for TRCA's
various levels of Watershed
government Management Programs
for the nine river systems
in Toronto Region
Volunteer Participation Local Modeling Land Securement and Local Community
and Methodology which Protection Stewardship Programs
integrates regional and
local decisions
The following workplan for the years 2001-2003 sets out the achievements in three aspects
leading up to the completion of the Strategy. Work in each phase will begin in year 2001 but
the deadline for delivery is the year indicated below.
92
WORK PLAN
2001 to 2003
Years
Year Jan. - Apr. May - July Aug. - Sept. Oct. - Dec.
2001 · 2001 field · finalize analysis/ · formalize
Phase: inventories reporting stakeholder
Baseline (6000 ha) methodology committee
. initiated modeling (including peer . regional report
for target setting review) card
. communication
to TRCA Board
re: TNHS update
and direction
2002 · stakeholder input · 2002 field · finalize targets · stakeholder info
Phase: to target setting inventories (6000 (regional, Regional
Targets . contributions into ha) watersheds) Strategy to
watershed · stakeholder input · communications Strategy and
strategies/report to policy to TRCA Board Components
care"", development / . refine monitoring
· devE:!lop volunteer implementation protocols
monitoring kits framework
. finalize target
setting
methodology -
(statistical
correlations,
productive
modeling,
evaluation)
2003 · stakeholder · 2003 field · stakeholder input . finalize strategy
Phase: committee input inventories (6000 to regional . communication
Strategy to monitoring ha) strategy to TRCA Board
. develop · develop · finalize Approach
implementation public/media
methodology education
(incremental framework
targets)
Upon completion the methodology will be contained in a single document entitled The TRCA
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy
Report prepared by: Lionel Normand, extension 5327
Date: June 07, 2001
93
RES.#D35/01 -
SUSTAINING BIODIVERSITY
A Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Plants in Southern Ontario
Endorsement of "Sustaining Biodiversity: A Strategic Plan for Managing
Invasive Plants in Southern Ontario.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report titled "Sustaining
Biodiversity: a Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Plants in Southern Ontario" be
received and endorsed;
THAT staff be directed to continue their involvement in the Ontario Invasive Plants
Working Group;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to consider the strategies put forward in the report
in their ongoing work related to natural heritage, Authority projects, and Authority land
management.
AMENDMENT
RES.#D36/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Tanny Wells
THAT the following be inserted as the last paragraph of the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT staff provide the municipalities within TRCA jurisdiction a list of
plant species that should not be planted and why, along with a list of native plant species
which TRCA recommend be planted, in accordance with the strategic plan.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ontario Invasive Plants Working Group was initiated by the Office' of the City Forester at
the City of Toronto in 1999. TRCA staff participated in the Group. The mission of the group
was "to develop and support the implementation of a strategic plan for managing invasive
plants in southern Ontario." This plan was completed and published in booklet form under the
title "Sustaining Biodiversity: A Strategy for Managing Invasive Plants in Southern Ontario." The
plan is a call for action to prevent the broad-scale loss of native biodiversity resulting from the
spread of invasive plants and to aid in the restoration of ecological health. It includes an eight
step strategy and a series of appendices summarizing plant priorities and control options. The
Working Group, which is now being coordinated by the Ontario chapter of the Society for
Ecological Restoration, is seeking endorsement of the plan in an effort to build momentum
around this issue, and to encourage action at all levels. A copy of the report is attachea.
94
RATIONALE
Next to direct habitat loss, the spread of invasive exotic species is considered by some
conservation biologists to be the greatest single threat to biodiversity. Invasive exotic species
are organisms that have been deliberately or accidentally introduced to regions beyond their
natural range, and which, in the absence of natural controls such as predators or disease, or
because of aggressive behaviours, spread rapidly enough to displace native species. Invasive
plants, in particular, should be of concern to the TRCA.
Up to 40 percent of the p:ant species found in the settled landscape of southern Ontario are
exotic, but not all of these can be labelled "invasive," One of the best known of the invasive
plants is purple 100sestri1a, which is thought to have been introduced from Europe both
accidentally, and deliberately as a garden ornamental. This plant has become a dominant
species in wetlands throughout eastern and central North America, displacing native plants
and wildlife habitat. Less well known are plant invaders of forests such as dog-strangling vine,
garlic mustard and common buckthorn. Dog-strangling vine may be of special concern to the
Authority because the Greater Toronto Area is one of the major invasion fronts in North
America, and it is rapidly spreading into sensitive areas such as the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Garlic mustard spreads very rapidly, and can not only displace native forest wildflowers, it can
form a mat so dense that even tree seedlings are prevented from becoming established. Thus
the entire forest may be placed in jeopardy. Buckthorn is an extremely hardy shrub that is
spread over wide areas by birds which consume its fruits and disperse the seeds. Numerous
other species could be cited. The end result of serious plant invasions is simplified, if not
homogenized ecosystems that can no longer support many wildlife species, and are less
productive, less healthy and less appealing aesthetically.
Before tackling the issue of invasive plant control head on it is important to recognize that the
problem is in part a symptom of habitat fragmentation and ecologically unsound land use.
Urban development, in particular, is a major cause of plant invasions because it not only
contributes to the disturbE'd conditions that favour invasion, it leads to an increase in
recreational use. The seeds of many exotic plant species - in particular garlic mustard - are
spread by hikers, moun'.flll bikers, and dog walkers. Dumpir;Jg of refuse that contains soil or
seeds is also a major factor in the spread of exotic plants.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Implementation of the TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage Approach will address some of the
underlying issues that contribute to plant invasions. Increasing forest cover and maintaining
and improving habitat quality will help mitigate against invasions. As long the landscape
remains fragmented and habitats suffer from disturbance, plant invasions will continue to
threaten biodiversity. Therefore some action will be required to deal with this issue.
As part of the regional Natural Heritage Strategy, such action will include the following:
a} identify priority species for control
b} identify circumstances under which control should be attempted
c} identify appropriate control methods
95
Control, where it is considered appropriate, will likely include the application of chemical
herbicides. Modifications or exemptions to the management of natural areas due to the current
movement to reduce or ban the use of chemicals may have to be considered. Most
environmental organizations would support chemical control of exotic plants where it can be
demonstrated that this is a last resort or the best solution. Promoting public education and
outreach about the issue of exotic plants and their control is important.
Report prepared by: Ken Towle, extension 5205
For Information contact: Ken Towle, extension 5205 or Dena Lewis, extension 5225
Date: June 06, 2001
RES.#D37/01 -
TRCA LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT PLAN
Development of a Low Flow Management Plan for watersheds within the
TRCA.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the development of
a Low Flow Management Plan be accepted for information, and that the Authority
continue to collect the data necessary to accomplish the development and
implementation of the Plan.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
During the past decade, the role of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has
evolved from Managers of strictly Flood Control to one of Watershed Managers based more on
an ecosystem approach. To completely fulfil this role, issues related to all aspects of the flow
regime within our rivers and streams and the interconnections to all aspects of the hydrologic
cycle need to be understood and included in the development of our watershed management
strategies and policies.
The traditional role and strategies of the Authority for dealing with high flow extremes is well
entrenched, understooq by our client groups and well respected in terms of the benefits of
compliance. To be in a position to manage other flow aspects of the hydrologic cycle, the
Authority needs to develop a strategy to understand and deal with low flows which represent a
significant percentage of total stream discharge. The low flows or base flows within a
watercourse represent the flow that is maintained by the introduction of ground water inputs
along with flow which is stored and released slowly from wetland features within the
watershed. Understanding the distribution of these flows within our watersheds and the factors
which place stress on these flows or their sources will be necessary for the effective
management of our total water resources.
96
With the concerns related to recent events such as extreme low flow periods (droughts),
impacts of water takings and the advent of climate change, issues related to low flows within
our watercourses will require better understanding and management. To be in a position to
develop strategies related to managing these resources and develop the level of client
understanding and compliance we have related to the flood issues, will require a significant
level of effort.
The Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed strategy development is proposed to be
used as the platform for developing the framework and pilot project for our Low Flow
Management Plan.
To assist in the development of an Authority Low Flow Management Plan, staff have developed
a draft framework which identifies the roles, needs and procedures needed to develop and
implement such a plan. A copy of this Draft Plan is attached.
The Authority has already begun to develop some of the key data bases and products that are
necessary in the development of the management plan. Low Flow data was collected by
Authority staff on the Carruthers, Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks during the summer months of
2000. This data will be combined with data collected by staff from the Geologic Survey of
Canada on the Duffins Creek and Humber River to begin to map and understand how the base
flows are distributed within these watersheds. An understanding of this information will be key
in determining the areas within each watershed where special policies or strategies may be
required to protect the base flows and the aquatic ecosystems which rely upon them. On the
Duffins and Carruthers Creeks, data on known water takings anc;f the development of a Water
Budget model are also currently underway. Staff have also had discussions with MOE staff
regarding the Water Taking Permit process in terms of defining a process related to
establishing protocols for new water takings using a golf course on the Humber River as an
initial case.
While the Duffins and Carruthers Creeks watersheds are being used as the platform for the
development of the initial Low Flow Management Plan, data will continue to be collected this
summer on our remaininJ watersheds as well as on portions of these creeks.
RATIONALE
The continued monitoring of low flows will be used to establish a comprehensive
understanding of the ground water to surface water interconnections which exist along our
watersheds and are fundamental to the health of our watersheds. The information and
strategies developed will be used to assist municipalities in making wise land use planning
decisions.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
A draft outline of the proposed Low Flow Management Plan is attached.
Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 5226
Date: June 05, 2001
Attachments: 1
97
Attachment 1
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT OF A LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
T.R.C.A
July 5, 1999
98
LOW FLOW MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
During the past decade, the role of the Authority has evolved from Managers of Flood Control
within our watersheds to one of Watershed Managers based more on ar. ecosystem approach.
To fulfil this role, issues related to all aspects of the flow regime within our rivers and streams
and the interconnections to all aspects of the hydrologic cycle need to be included in the
development of our watershed management strategies and policies.
The traditional role and strategies of the Authority for dealing with high flow extremes is well
entrenched, understood by our client groups and well respected in terms of compliance from
them. We need to develop a strategy to deal with the flows related to the bulk of total stream
discharge and the extremes related to these flows to be in a position to fully manage our water
resources. With the concerns related to recent extreme low flow periods within our
watercourses and the advent of climate change, we will be further drawn into the issues related
to low flow concerns within our watercourses. To be in position to develop strategies related to
managing these resources and develop the level of client understanding and compliance we
have related to the flood issues, will require a significant level of effort.
To develop this strategy, we must initially define the areas where we need to centre our efforts.
1) DEFINE OUR ROLE/INTEREST
The Authority needs to very clearly identify our interests (Le. base flow management of
watercourses to ensure continued aquatic, terrestrial and social aspect~. of our streams and
rivers) along with how Wf? fit into the management process with other partners.
2) DEFINE THE AREAS OF CONCERN WHERE POLICIES/STRATEGIES ARE NEEDED
. recharge/discharge of ground water
. water takings
. water budget analysis
· drought management (Le. future water needs assessment)
. water temperature management
. water quality management
. water quantity management.
3) DEVELOP DRAFT STRATEGIES/POLICIES/PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH THE
DEFINED AREAS OF CONCERN
3.1} RECHARGE/DISCHARGE OF GROUND WATER
· identify key discharge areas by watershed (eg: wetlands, seeps etc.)
· identify key recharge areas by watershed (watershed geology/soils)
· investigate options related to protection of or management of these areas (Le. land
use planning, acquisition, stewardship etc.).
99
3.2) WATER TAKINGS
. develop a GIS data base of all known water takings (MOE and other)
. investigate the impacts and issues related to the cumulative impacts related to water
takings (integrate with drought management issues)
. develop an aquatic ecosystem based procedure to define minimum flow rates for
water takings.
. develop a methodology for retrofit or elimination of existing permits.
3.3) WATER BUDGET ANALYSIS
. adopt a water budget procedure to be implemented on each watershed
. define sensitivities and management issues requiring detailed analysis based on
water budget.
3.4)
DROUGHT MANAGEMENT
.
.
review and define potential Climate Change issues
develop with partners, emergency drought management procedures (i.e.
restricting/reducing water takings
develop a comprehensive monitoring system (RAP).
.
3.5)
TEMPERATURE MANAGEMENT
.
.
investigate and develop temperature management procedures for runoff
integrate temperature management initiatives into storm drainage.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
3.6)
3.7)
WATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT
.
develop water quantity protection and enhancement procedures.
100
RES.#D38/01 -
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON PROCEDURES TO
ADDRESS DELEGATION OF HAZARD PROVINCIAL POLICIES
Endorsement of a MOU on procedures to address Conservation
Authority delegated responsibilities with Conservation Ontario, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY the endorsement of a "Memorandum of
Understanding on Procedures to Address Conservation Authority Delegated
Responsibilities" with Conservation Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of the staff report be forwarded for information to the
planning staff of the Cit~ of Toronto, Region of Peel, York and Durham and municipal
planning offices within the Authority jurisdiction.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1983, Conservation Authorities were delegated commenting responsibility on floodplain
management matters. This responsibility was followed in 1988 with similar delegation of
commenting on matters related to flooding, erosion and dynamic beaches along the shorelines
of the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River system. Then in 1995, the Ministry of Natural Resources
provided a further delegation of the commenting responsibilities related to riverine erosion,
slope and soil instability, such as in areas of high water tables, organic or peat soils, and leda
or sensitive marine clay soils. The responsibility for hazard management policies and
programs continues to be undertaken by MNR in order to provide leadership, policy direction
and advisory assistance to Conservation Authorities.
Since the late 1990's the Province implemented the One-Window approach which requires that
all provincial comments be directed to MMAH, who would in turn provide the provincial
comment on all planning matters. Subsequent to the One-Window approach, the Province
then transferred the Provincial plan review function to regional and area municipalities as well
as the delegation of the approval of many types of planning approvals.
In response to the transf~r of the Provincial plan review function, TRCA have Partnership
Memorandums with most of the Regional and area municipalities.' Our Partnership
Memorandums formalize our role with our member and area municipalities in providing
comments on Natural Heritage, Water and Hazard Management.
Given above mentioned changes to the role of various partner in providing plan review
comm~nts and approval authority, the need for a MOU which clarifies the role of Conservation
Authorities in the Provincial One-Window process was requested by the Province.
RATIONALE
In context of the delegated responsibilities, the MOU sets out the following roles and
responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
and the Conservation Authorities. In general, CAs will continue to review policy documents
and planning applications to ensure that they have "regard to" the Section 3.1 (Hazards) of the
101
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). In this role, the CAs, at the request of the Province will
consult and facilitate discussions related to Section 3.1 of the PPS. Appeals to the OMB may
be filed by MMAH or the CAs with appropriate prior consultation taking place. MNR will
continue to be responsible for the development of policies, programs and standards related to
flooding, erosion and hazard land management. A copy of the MOU is attached to this report
as Schedule A.
In addition, to the CAs role in commenting on their delegation responsibilities, the MOU sets
out the further roles of CAs in the plan input, plan review and appeals. Those role are
summarized as follows:
1. Watershed Based Resource Management Aoency - these roles relate to the development of
watershed plans, and natural management plans which recommend specific approaches to
land use and resource planning and management as defined by the Conservation
Authorities Act.
2. Plannino Advisory Service to Municipalities - these relate to the CAs role in providing
technical advise to its member and area municipalities which reflect the full range of
watershed and resource management issues and providing comments on the interpretation
of all the PPS policies.
3. CAs as Landowners - within this capacity CAs may become involved in planning issues,
outside of the context of our advisory role to municipalities
4. Regulatory Responsibilities - both in terms of the CA Act Regulations and other delegated
regulatory/approval responsibilities CAs have an opportunity to flag other requirements
dur,ing the planning review process and work to eliminate unnecessary delay or duplications
within the process.
This MOU is important to clarifying the various roles and responsibilities of Conservation
Authorities in the planning process, both in tE}rms of providing clear roles as well as eliminating
any duplication in comments from both the TRCA and the Province. To a great extent the MOU
formalizes a process which has been informally in place, therefore staff ,recommend that the
Authority endorse the attached MOU.
For Information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date: June 06, 2001
Attachments: 1
102
Attachment 1
,
CONSERVAtiON ONTARIO,
MINISTRY OF:NATURAL RESOURCES &
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSrANDING ON PROCEDURES TO
ADDRESS CQNSERVATION AUTHORITY
DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITY
" ,
PURPOSE OF THE MOU
The MOU defines the roles and r'elationsh'lps between Conservation Authorities (CAs), the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(MMAH) In planning for Implementf3tlon of CA delegated responsibilities under the
Provincial One Window Planning System:
i. .
,I' . .
BENEFITS TO SIGNATORY PARTIES
It Is beneficial for all j.)3rties to enter into this agreement because it clarifies the roles of '
CAs and the unique status af CAs in'relatlonship to the Provincial One Window
Planning System
DELEGATED RESPONSIBILI1Y FOR NATURAL HAZARDS
CAs were delegated natural hazard responsibilities by the Minister of Natural Resources.
A copy of the delegation letter is attached. This letter (dated April 1'995) went to all CAs
and summarizes delegations from the MNR including flood plain management, hazardous
slopes. Great Lakes shorelines. ~nstabl~ soils and erosion which are now encompassed
by Section 3.1 "Natural Hazards" of the f;'rovinclal Policy Slatement (1997). In this
delegated role, the CA Is responsible for' representing the .Provincial Interest" on these
matters In planning exercises where the 'Province is not Involved.
. . I .
This role does not extend to other portio~s of the PPS unless specifically delegated or
assigned in writing by the Province.
, I
. ,
. I
j
103
,
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Ministry of Natural Resources
, , .
a) MNR retains the provincial responsibility for the development of flood. erosion and
hazard land management PQIi~ies. programs and standards on behalf of the province
pursuant to the Ministry of N~t!l'al Re~ources Act.
. .
b) Where no conservation auth'oritlel? exist, MNR provides technical support to the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs arid Housing on matters related to Section 3.1 of the
Provincial Policy Statement in:accordance with the "Protocol Framework - One
Window Plan Input, Review :a~d ApPE;lals". ' ,
c) MNR, In conjunction with MMJ,\H, co-ordinates the provincial review of applications for
Special Policy Area approv~1 ~nder S~ction 3.1 of the PPS.
I
I .
Ministry of Municioal Affairs and H,?usirici
a) MMAH coordinates provincial input, review and approval of policy documents. and
development proposals and dppeals1to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with
the "Protocol Framework On~ Window Plan Input Review and Appeals",
, I : '
b)' Where appropriate" MMAH':~II CPns~lt conservation authorities as part oUts review of
policy documents and develo:pment propo!>als to seek input on whether there was
"regard to" Section 3.1 of the;PPS. :
,
i '"
c) Where there may be a potential conflict regarding a Conservation Authority's .
comments on a planning app,licatior{ with respect to Section 3.1 of the PPS and
comments from provincial mihistries;regarding other Sections of the PPS, the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and H~u$ing wil! facilitate discussions amongst the affected
ministries and the Conservaljon Authority so that a single integrated position can be
reached. j' ' ' i
d>' Where appropriate, MMAH J.,iIIlnitiate or support appeals to the OMS on planning
matters where there is an Is~ue ,as tp whether there was "regard to': Section 3.1 of the
PPS. I
I
: ,
e) MMAH, in conjunction wit~ ty,lNR. coordinates the provincial review of application for
Special Polley Area approvall under,Sectlon 3.1 of the PPS.
, i
-I
104
Conservation Authorities (CAs)
a) The CAs will review policy documents ~nd development proposals processed under
the Planning Act to eAsure that!the application has appropriate regard to Section 3.1 of
the PPS. ':
, ,
i ' ;
b) Upon request from MMAH. CAs will provide comments directly to MMAH on planning
matters related to Section 3.1 of tlie PPS as part of the provincial one window review
process. .' .
: '
. i :
c) Where there may be a potenti~J c9nflict regarding a Conservation Authority's
comments on a planning application with respect to Section 3.1 of the PPS and
comments from provincial mln(stries regarding other Sections of the PPS. the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and HousiRg will facilitate discussions amongst the affected
ministries and the C6nservatioh Authority so that a single integrated positIon can be
reached.' ;
, i
d) CAs will apprise N1MAH of planning ~atters where there is an issue as to whether
there has been Hregard to" Section 3.1 of the PPS to determine whether or not direct
involvement by the province' is requj~. : ,
. '
e) Where appropriate. CAs wili 16itiate a'n appeal to the OMS to address planning matters
where there Is an issue as to whether there has been Hregard to" Section 3.1 of the
PPS is at iss~e. CAs may request MMAH to support the appeal.
Ii.
f) CAs will participate in p~vj.ricial ~evi~w of applications for Special Policy Area approval.
g) CAs will work with MMAH, to :develop screening and streamlining procedures that
eliminate unnecessary delay!? arid duplication of effort.
I ,
-1-,-,>-+
: .. t
105
I
FURTHER CA ROLES IN Pl!'~ I~PUT, rUN REVIEW AND APPEALS
. I '
CAs also undertake further roles in planning under which they may provide plan input or
plan review comments or make appeals. i '
. : !
1. Watershed Based Resource :M,anagement AQenc~
, ' ~ i
CAs are corporate bodies crea~ed. by ; the province at the request of two or more
municipalities in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation Authorities Act (eA
Act). Section 20 of the CA Act provide~ the mandate for an Authority to offer a broad
resources managem~nt program.' Sectio;n 21 of the CA Act provides the mandate to have
watershed-based resource management programs and/or policies that are approved by
.the Board of Directors. ':: 1
. ,
CAs operating under the authorify of th~ CA Act, and in conjunction with municipalities,
develop business plans, watershed plans and natural resource management plans within
their jurisdictions (watersheds). These plans may recommend specific approaches to land .
use and resource planning and management that should be .incorporated Into municipal
planning documents and related: ~evelopment appljcations in order to ~e implemented.
CAs may become involved in th~ r~vie~ of municipal, planning documents (e.g., Official
Plans (OPs). zoning by-laws) alJd development applications under the Planning Act to
ensure that program interests de~elqpe~ and defined under Section 20 and 21 of the CA
Act are addressed in land use decisions made by municipal'planning authorities. In this
role, the CA is responsible to repre~ent~its program and policy interests as a watersh,ed-
. based resource management ag~ncy. ::.. ',.'
2. Plannina Advisory Service to:Munici6alities ,
. ~.
-.'
The provision of planning advisbry:serYices to municlpalitle~,is implem~nted through a
service agreement with particlp,atlng' m~nicipalitles or as part of a CAs approved program
activity (Le., service provided tlirough e~istlng levy). 'Under a 'service agreement, a Board.
approved fee schedule is used 'and these fee schedules are coordinated between CAs
. I . .
that "share" a participa~ing municipality., The "Po\icies and Procedures for the Charging of
CA Fees" (MNR, June 13, 1991) identifies ~plan review",activitles as being eligible for
""charg"'ing-"CA'scfmlnistffitivereesJ---:-- '.,...._:__n_-:___ --- ._.___
:.. . I
! ,"
The CA is essentially set up as a ,tect.lOical ~dvlsor to municipalities. The agreements
cover the Authority's areas of , technical expertise. e.g., natural hazards and other resource
management programs. The provision of planning advisory services for the review of
Planning Act applications is a mea~s of implementing a comprehensive resource
management program on a wat~rstied basis.
,
In this role. the CA is responsible to prbvide 'advice on the Interpretation of the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) unde~ the terr1ts of its planning advisory service agreement with
the municipality. Beyond t~o~ for, ~ection 3.1 "Natural Hazards" where CAs, have
106
: I
delegated responsibility, these: comme~ts should not be construed by any party as
representing the provincial position.
3. CAs as Landowner
,
I
, ,
, .
CAs are landowners and as such, may. become involved in the planning process as a
proponent or adjacent landown!3r. Planning Service Agreements with municipalities have
anticipated that this may lead to a conflict with our advisory role and this is addres!3ed by
establishing a mechanism for either partY to identify a conflict and Implement an alternative
review mechanism., : ;, :
! . I '
4. ReQulatory Responsibilities
a} CA Act Regulations
In participating in the review of.develop~ent applications under the Planning Act, CAs will
(i) ensure that the applicant and :mul:1ici~al planning authority are aware of the Section 28
regulations and requirements 'under the CA Act, and, (ii) assist In the coordination of
applications under the Planning Act and the CA Act to 'eliminate unnecessary delay or
duplication in the process. " ! '
b) Other Delegated or Assignect, Regulatory/Approval Responsibility
. I .
i ~ . I . ..
Federal and provincial ministries' and mUnicipalities often enter agreements to transfer
regulatorylapprov-"\ responslbi!ities to individual CAs (e.g.. Section 35 fisherie,$ AcVDFO;
Ontario Building Code/~ep~ic tan,k approyal~), I,n Garrying out these. responsibilities and In
participating in the review of d~v~lopme:nt applications under the Planning Acf: CAs will (I)
ensure that the ap~licpnt and ml4niclpality are aware of the requirements under, these
other pieces of legislation and how they. may affect the application; and, (i1) as,~ist in the
coordination of applications under the Planning Act and those other Acts to eliminate
unnecessary delays or duplication in the process. ' , '7
, ' ,
, ,
: '
,
CANCELLATION OR, REVIEW ,OF, THJ: MOU
: ~ . .
The terms and conditions of this MOU can be cancelled within 90 days upon written notice
from any of the signing parties. In any event, this document should be reviewed at least
once every two years to assess'lts effei::tiv~ness, its relevance and its appropriateness in
the context the needs of the a,ffe~ted p~rtles. MEd. Note: 90 days is to provide time for the.
parties to reach a resolution other than'cancellation".
.! .
107
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERstANDING ON PRoceOURES TO AODRESS
CONSERVATION A~HORllY OELEGA!EO RESPONStBILITY
c '
I hereby agree to support the provisions :contained In this Memorandum of
Understandlng as an appropri~l.e statement of the roles and responsibilities of relevant
MJnlsttfes and Conservation Au~rIt{es ~ the implementatIon of the Provinclal Polley
Statement. '.
r&'" eI ~ L ·
vld de Launay ;/
DIrector ,
Landa and Waters aranch
Ministry af Natural Resources
/'1-::;;tI~7 2a:!J/
Date .
iI'.''''~ ~.-. ~ :.:'~<:'~_v no. \
. ..": ...,'"')..,.. ,':~~l
/" '/. ,,' ~ '~,. i.J!I.-';!!' ,- ~ ,.. .,-'
AuOrev'I 'l3ennsti
A1DJrector .. t
Provlnclal Planning and Environmental Services BllInch
Ministry of Municipal ~ffatrs ~~ ~OUSI~ . ~'-
. . ........ . r .a . :::: "i"1 ...~.It~'r- ~
,;;.,~. " ,. , ,.... "
....(".~t""~.~., /..;. ;'~li,~-I
.. Oate:'. . :.
. ..;,.~ ...::..~..:...:.;..~"
.,..... "
-. it ..
':.'!i:..;~~
~~~
. \....u'\-:.J : " "
unter . "., .'.. : ::
GeneralMenager' ". . ' 1':':-
Conservation Ontaiio ' ,. ;'
CJ t J 0 ('/r;~ $:'
Date I
~ .~
.y~~ ~.. ~
y.... . .
,~..
.;~
,.
" .
.'
. ~...
108
RES.#D39/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DUFFINS AND CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED TASK FORCES
Minutes of Meeting #1/01. The minutes of Duffins and Carruthers Creek
Watershed Task Forces meeting #1/01 held on May 2.2001, are
provided for information.
lIa Bossons
Bas Balkisoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minute~ of the Duffins and
Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Forces meeting #1/01, 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:
"Section 4.5 Reporting Relationships
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: Valerie Gust, 5330
For Information contact: Gary Bowen, 5385
Date: June 04, 2001
RES.#D40/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
no:\! WATERSHED REGENERATION COU~CIL
Min~tes of Meeting #1/01, May 8, 2001. The Minutes of Meeting #1/01
held on May 8, 2001 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is
provided for information.
lIa Bossons
Bas Balkissoon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #1/01 held on May 8, 2001 be received.
CARRIED
109
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.
Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5283
Date: June 05, 2001
RES.#D41/01 -
DEVELOPMENT OF A GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR YORK, PEEL, AND DURHAM REGIONS
Completion of Phase 1 of the York, Peel, and Durham Region
Groundwater Management Strategy Study and initiation of the
development of a groundwater management program for the three
Regions.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Tri-Region Groundwater
Strategy as outlined in the attached Steering Committee report entitled Development of a
Groundwater Management Program for York, Peel, and Durham Regions be adopted;
THAT a copy of the Steering Committee Report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing for their information and comment as they proceed with provincial
initiatives under the Oak Ridges Moraine Act, 2001 ;
AND FURTHER THAT staff from the Authority proceed with the workplan outlined in
Development of a Groundwater Management Program for York, Peel, and Durham
Regions and continue to work in partnership with the Regions of York, Peel and Durham,
City of Toronto, Credit Valley Conservation, Central Lake Ontario Conservation,
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority,
and Kawartha Region Conservation Authority;
AMENDMENT
RES.#D42/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Bas Balkissoon
THAT the following be inserted as the last paragraph of the main motion:
110
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the 10-year capital budget projections of the
Regions for the strategy and the implementation of the Phase II Study.
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At meeting #11/99 by RES.#B21 0/99, the Executive Committee authorized the hire of AGRA
Earth & Environmental Limited to conduct Phase 1 of the Groundwater Management Strategy
for York and Peel Regions at a total cost of $25,000. At meeting #3/00 by RES#B45/00, the
Executive Committee authorized the expansion of the study area to include Durham Region
and an associated increase in the consulting contract of $15,000.
As per the Executive Committee direction, Authority staff contracted AGRA Earth &
Environmental Limited and formed a Steering Committee comprised of staff representatives
from each of the three Regions and six Conservation Authorities within the study area. The
Phase 1 study involved the compilation of existing information, preliminary' assessment of
issues, and recommended a strategic approach for further work in Phase 2. The Final Report
from Phase 1 was completed in May 2001 (see attached Executive Summary).
Based on the findings of the Phase 1 Study, the Steering Committee has prepared a report
Development of a Grouncl'Nater Management Program for York, Peel, and Durham Regions
(Draft, June 5, 2001) (see attached). The report outlines the rationale and strategic directions
for groundwater mana~~".'i lent in the tri-region area and recommends a series of actions toward
the development of a groundwater management program. The Steering Committee report
provides more detailed information about the 2001 workplan and deliverables.
The Phase 1 study and Steering Committee report provided the basis for the hydrogeological
component of the Discussion Paper The Oak Ridges Moraine - Proposals for the Protection and
Management of a Unique Landscape, prepared by the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Partnership
and released in May 2001 by the Regional Councils of York, Peel, and Durham for public
comment. The York, Peel and Durham Region Groundwater Management Program is being
developed for the entire jurisdiction of the three Regions, including the Oak Ridges Moraine
area. Work will continue to be coordinated with the ORM Partnership in order to fulfill their
needs for the protection and management of groundwater systems associated with the ORM
and ensure compatibility with other aspects of their initiative.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Authority staff will revise the Steering Committee Report with input from Steering Committee
members. No further substantive comments are anticipated. On behalf of the Steering
Committee, Authority staff will circulate the Report to key_ public groups, area municipalities,
and agencies for comment. As noted above, the strategic directions for groundwater
management in the tri-region area formed the hydrogeological component of the ORM
Partnership's Proposals d"lcument, which is currently the subject of a broad public consultation
program. Staff will coordinate with the ORM Partnership to'avqid duplication.
111
Authority staff will continue to lead the development of the groundwater management program,
in cooperation with a Steering Committee made up of representatives from each of the other
study partners. The deliverables associated with the workplan, described in the Steering
Committee Report, can be summarized as follows:
. Model Policies
. Interim Development Screening Guidelines
. Hydrogeologic Vulnerability/Screening Map
. Data Collection and Management Standards
. Generic Terms of Reference for Core Technical Studies
. Land Securement Guidelines
. Model Education and Stewardship Program
. Base Monitoring Network
. Public Consultation Program for the Phase 2 Project
. Budget for a 5 year work plan.
Authority staff will review the priority groundwater management actions identified for TRCA in
the Phase 1 study report, and recommend a work program for addressing these priorities.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has secured a total of $400,000 in its 2001
budget to support continued work on the development of the York, Peel, and Durham Region
groundwater management program, on behalf of the study partners. This total budget is made
up of contributions of $100,000 from each of the Regions of Peel, York and Durham and the
City of Toronto.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: June 07, 2001
Attachments: 2
112
Attachment 1
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
YORK, PEEL AND DURHAM REGIONS
PHASE 1 FINAL REPORT - MAY 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Study Objectives
Groundwater within the Regional Municipalities of York, Peel, and Durham is recognized as a
resource that requires careful management. Although many previous studies and strategic
planning initiatives have been carried out, the Regions and Conservation Authorities have
identified a need for a coordinated groundwater management program to be put in place. In
2000, the Regions of York, Peel, and Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
Credit Valley Conservation, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Ganaraska Region.
Conservation Authority, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority, and the Lake Simcoe Region
Conservation Authority initiated the first of a two phase study aimed at developing a
coordinated groundwater management strategy for the three Regions. The Phase 1 work
outlined in this report has involved a preliminary assessment of issues and the development of
an approach for further work in Phase 2. Phase 2 would involve the actual development of the
strategy.
On behalf of the Regions and the conservation authorities, the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority retained AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited (AMEC) , formerly AGRA
Earth & Environmental Limited (AGRA) and Totten Sims Hubicki Associates to carry out the
Phase 1 study. A steering committee that comprised of representatives from the Regional
Municipalities, the Municipalities and Conservation Authorities provided overall study guidance.
The study area encompassed all lands within the three regions.
The Phase 1 study objectives included:
1. Compilation of existing information;
2. Limited int~rpretation of existing information to identify primary issues with
respect to.groundwater management;
3. Development of a data management methodology;
4. Development of overall planning goals and objectives for the strategy; and
5. Development of an approach for further work in the Phase 2 study.
113
Study Approach
The study approach provided a methodology to meet the overall objectives set. This included,
in general, input from stakeholders and the review of background information to identify
concerns and identify objectives for a groundwater management strategy. The background
information included past studies and reports that pertained to the study area to assist in the
development of issues and management objectives. The approach used in other jurisdictions
was reviewed to provide examples of current strategies. The background review and input
from the stakeholders and steering committee was used in the development of a basis for the
work plan approach for Phase 2.
The study employed the following methods:
Questionnaire/Survey (Section 3.1)
A questionnaire was issued to 76 stakeholders throughout the study area, including federal
and provincial government agencies, local municipalities, non-government organizations, and
the study partners themselves. The purpose of the questionnaire was to seek input on the
stakeholder=s perception of key issues, goals and objectives for the strategy and the
availability of data/information that may be useful for Phase 2. There was a 32% response rate
with the majority of responses coming from York and Peel Regions.
A secondary questionnaire was issued to the Regional and Conservation Authority partners.
This questionnaire was designed to assess current data management systems.
Literature Review (Section 3.2)
Significant, previous technical studies and strategic planning initiatives within the study area
were reviewed in order to identify the extent of past work, data/information gaps, key
groundwater issues, and recommended approaches to further work.
Review of Data sources and Current Data Management - (Section 3.3).
The current data sources were reviewed as well as how this data is being managed on recently
proposed changes to data management. This provided a basis for ide: ltifying data gaps and
data management needs.
Review of Experience in Other Jurisdictions (Section 3.4)
Groundwater management and protection initiatives in the Regions of Peel, Halton, and
Waterloo were reviewed to identify alternative approaches and learn from past experiences.
These Regions are renowned as being leaders in Ontario in the development of municipal
groundwater management programs. Specific efforts were also taken to identify other
jurisdictions whose groundwater management programs have addressed ground-surface water
interactions.
114
Groundwater Sensitivity .4ssessment (Section 3.5)
The study area was divided into 40 watershed units so that a more detailed assessment of
groundwater management issues could be undertaken ancf m'ore specific recommendations
could be made for further work. Each watershed was ranked in terms of its priority for further
groundwater management action, according to: 1) the significance of groundwater conditions;
2) the presence of significant stresses/threats; and 3) the significance of data gaps. A detailed
set of measures were developed for each criterion. Information was recorded on a separate
data sheet for each watershed, and results were presented in an overall summary table and set
of maps.
Study Highlights
Previous Studies
There are two general sets of studies that are necessary to provide a foundation for protecting
groundwater and its associated natural features and uses. The first set of studies provide a
basic understanding, or inventory, of the geological and hydrogeological features, groundwater
uses, potential sources of contamination, and terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The focus of
work to date in the study area has largely been (;In these types of studies.
In the 1990s, the Province of Ontario completed a broad hydrogeologic review of the Oak
Ridges Moraine and potential sources of contamination and impacts from land use. The
federal government, lea I.JY the Geological Survey of Canada, has carried out complementary
studies to develop a more detailed definition of the Morain's internal structure in order to
provide a better understanding of elements which control groundwater recharge, flow and
discharge. The University of Toronto has developed techniques for integrating groundwater
and surface water hydrologic data at site and watershed scales. Earlier watershed based
studies of hydrogeological resources were completed by the Province in the 1970s for selected
basins draining the Moraine. The Province, conservation authorities and municipalities have
conducted inventories of terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
The second set of studies carry out more detailed analyses of the inventoried information, in
order to develop recommendations for the long term management of groundwater resources.
Wellhead protection plans, aquifer management plans, water budgets, and integrated
watershed plans are examples of these studies. Municipalities and conservation authorities
have begun to carry out these studies, which provide the basis for making informed decisions
about land use activities and rates of resource use.
Many different agencies and groups have an interest in groundwater, particularly on the Oak
Ridges Moraine, and have in some way have contributed to the development of a basic
understanding of the resvurce. However, there has.been little effort to,ddte in evaluating the
potential cumulative impacts of land use activities and developing comprehensive
management plans.
115
Experience of Other Jurisdictions
A review of the groundwater management programs in the Regions of Peel, Halton, and
Waterloo revealed that successful groundwater management initiatives contain the following
components:
hydrogeological mapping of the water resource;
identification of the sensitive features and areas requiring protection and or
management;
ongoing monitoring to confirm compliance and assess trends;
use of both regulatory and non-regulatory methods to protect groundwater;
ongoing public awareness initiatives and public education; and
co-operation from all parties involved.
A common thread in the three programs was the importance of developing policies and
guidelines based on scientifically sound principles. Developing a groundwater management
strategy for the York, Peel, and Durham areas using this approach from inception will ensure
that the resultant policies are technically justified and can be supported if and when peer
reviewed.
It was found that the initial focus of these three Regional programs was on the protection of
water supply, often associated with deeper aquifer systems, although efforts are now underway
to develop stronger links with the management of ground-surface water interactions. A
number of jurisdictions are beginning to look at urban stormwater management needs in terms
of their role in protecting groundwater.
Key Issues
Groundwater management issues in York, Peel and Durham Regions can be described
according to four types:
Sensitive groundwater conditions
Certain areas contain hydrogeologic features and functions which support valued
groundwater resource uses. These conditions present the following management
, issues:
degree of recharge potential
maintenance of stream baseflows or lake levels
connection with aquatic/terrestrial habitat and related protection / enhancement
needs
provision of assimilative capacity in streams receiving sewage treatment plant
effluent
source of water supply for domestic or other uses
areas of known groundwater contamination
116
Stresses and threats
Land use activities and groundwater withdrawals represent potential stresses/threats on
the quality and quantity of groundwater resources. Key stresses/threats include:
urban development pressure
potential for contamination from urban stormwater
demand for groundwater as a source of domestic supply, agriculture and other uses
potential for contamination from septic systems, landfills/ disposal sites crop
farming, feedlots
dewatering activities for landfills, municipal servicing, and aggregate extraction
demand for groundwater use for golf courses, private ponds, etc.
estate residential development
peat extraction
sewage treatment plant effluent
Data and information gaps
A lack of hydrogeologic and data and information limits the extent to which an effective
groundwater management strategy can be implemented. Key data and information
gaps include:
incomplete records of groundwater use
limited inventories of potential sources of contamination
limited streamflow data, particularly for headwater streams
groundwater monitoring data (chemistry and static water levels)
watershed based analysis of water budgets and natural heritage linkages
- . watershed based groundwater flow modelling
aquifer management studies
wellhead protection studies
Administrative and institutional issues
The following administrative and institutional issues have, to date, hindered the
implementation 0t I';!ffective groundwater management:
fragmentation of responsibility for groundwater management
lack of coordination among agencies
incomplete datasets and standard evaluative tools
inconsistent policies and practices across jurisdictional boundaries
lack of public and political awareness of groundwater issues.
Priorities for Groundwater Manage11Jent
The study area was divided into 40 watershed units, based upon drainage areas and condition
uniformity (ie. areas with similar groundwater conditions, stresses and physiography) (See
Figure 10).
117
A review of groundwater issues was undertaken in each of the 40 watershed units within the
study area, and the findings provide a basis for recommending relative management priorities.
Each watershed was ranked in terms of its priority for further groundwater management action,
according to: 1) the significance of groundwater conditions; 2) the presence of significant
stresses/threats; and 3) the significance of data gaps.
Seven out of 40 watersheds were ranked as having "high" overall priority for groundwater
management (See Figure 14). They include: the upper Credit River, upper Main Humber River,
East Humber River, Main Rouge River, Oshawa Creek, East Holland River, and Uxbridge
Brook. An additional 13 watersheds were ranked as having "medium-high" priority. These
most sensitive watersheds tend to have a significant portion of their area on the Oak Ridges
Moraine and are under pressure for urban growth. Although some degree of hydrogeological
study has been carried out in most of the high priority watersheds, only about half of them
have been extensively studied. Even for those watersheds that have a greater level of
information in place, the findings have not been used to develop specific groundwater
management policies.
Strategy Goals and Objectives
A groundwater management strategy for York, Peel, and Durham Regions should achieve the
following goal and objectives:
Goal
Provide a management.c:tpproach that will consider all of the interrelationships between
land use, groundwater use, and the natural heritage and hydrogeologic setting and
ensure the overall maintenance of hydrogeological functions, such that valued
groundwater and related resources are protected.
Obiectives
Objective 1 : Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources used for water
supply, and manage the rate of groundwater use in such a way as to ensure the long
term sustainability of water supplies and the protection of other natural heritage
systems that are reliant on groundwater.
Objective 2: Ensure the protection of base flow and groundwater processes that
support hydrologic stream conditions, stream form and aquatic habitat.
Objective 3: Ensure the protection of groundwater processes that support the
terrestrial habitat system.
Objective 4: Ensure the protection of baseflow and groundwater processes that
maintain the assimilative capacity of watercourses receiving pollutant inputs.
Objective 5: Protect the existing investment in infrastructure and servicing that is
designed to accommodate groundwater regime conditions.
118
Objective 6: Restore groundwater function in affected areas to mitigate past impacts
or enhance resource potential.
Strategy Framework (A~pendix G)
A number of components that are necessary for a strategy have been identified and
considered in this phase. These are illustrated in Figure G-1 and are outlined in the following:
Policy Framework
Data Collection and Management
Technical Analysis/Studies
Implementation Framework
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting.
Policy Framework
Policy development must be standardized and developed to ensure that a uniform approach is
used at each level (ie. Regional, Municipal, Conservation Authority) as well as to define
responsibilities of each level, to avoid overlap. The policies should evolve from a management
strategy to ensure that the groundwater management objectives are met, issues are dealt with
and that the policies are founded on sound technical information. They should provide the
guidance for the use of groundwater as a resource that will also provide for protection and
enhancement. The curre('lt policies provide the necessary framework, however consideration
must be given to the p'Jlic y structure as well as format to ensure that the management strategy
needs are met. (An exam;:>le of this would include new SWM policies to ensure the
maintenance of infiltration rates to protect groundwater quantity resources yet protect,
groundwater quality as well, ie. limit certain land uses that have a high potential for
groundwater contamination or require pretreatment of surface water prior to infiltration).
Data Collection and Management
A number of data gaps exist that have been identified to provide the necessary information for
development of a management strategy. The roles and responsibilities of the various agencies
needs to be clarified and defined to streamline the data collection and management process.
Data standards need to be defined to facilitate data sharing.
Technical Analysis / Studies (Appendix G)
A significant amount of technical information and studies exist providing substantial information
for starting the second phase of the strategy development. Some gaps exist both in data as
well as the analysis / studies. A framework has been developed for compiling this information
and filling the existing gaps as outlined in Appendix G.
Implementation Framework
An implementation framework allows for the strategy, particularly the policies to be put into
place. The implementation approach includes monitoring requirements as well to allow for the
evaluation of the strategy to ensure that it meets the objectives set.
119
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting
The monitoring to be carried out provides for both the collection of data for analysis as well as
monitoring to ensure that the management strategy is meeting the objectives set. This is part
of an Adaptive Management approach. A monitoring strategy is to 'be developed which
includes key indicators that are tied to the strategy objectives. The indicators require targets,
also linked to the objectives. If the targets are not met either the strategy approach requires a
change or the objectives need to be redefined.
Conclusions
1. A number of groundwater management issues were identified throughout the study
area, and particularly in association with the Oak Ridges Moraine.
2. A substantial amount of information about groundwater management issues is already
known in the study area, particularly for the Oak Ridges Moraine area. However there
are still significant gaps and much of the knowledge that does exist is still not in a
readily useable form for decision-makers.
3. A bibliography of available references has been developed that will complement and
update a comprehensive bibliography completed in 1996.
4. A variety of hydrogeolo9.i~ally, related data are currently being collected by the study
partners. The develop'ment of data collection and managemenL standards is necessary
as a first step in data sharing and coordination. .
5. Although many studies and strategic planning initiatives have been carried out to date,
no coordinated groundwater management program is in place in the tri-region area.
Goals and objectives for such a program have been identified.
6. An outline and workplan for the development of a tri-region groundwater management
strategy has been proposed, along with recommendations for the acceleration of high
priority groundwater management actions.
A variety of hydrogeologic related data are currently being collected by study partners using
different protocol, and storage methods. The development of data collection and management
standards is necessary as a first step in data sharing and coordination.
Recommendations
1. The Regions of Peel, York, and Durham and the six conservation authorities should
continue working in partnership and proceed with the development of a tri-region
groundwater management strategy. The strategy should define the framework for a
long term, coordinated program that will ensure the protection cf valued
hydrogeological features and functions throughout the tri-region area and ensure
consistency in approaches, policies and practices among the three Regions and the six
conservation authorities.
120
2. Adequate levels of consultation and involvement with representatives from the
provincial government, federal government, local municipalities, and local stakeholder
groups should be provided for during the development and implementation of the
strategy.
3. Development of the tri-region groundwater management strategy (i.e. the Phase 2
study) should be carried out such that the product can fulfil the .requirements of the
hydrogeological <;:omponent of the Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy, being developed by
the Oak Ridges Moraine Partnership.
4. The tri-region groundwater management strategy should be developed in consultation
with municipalities outside the three Regions, who share the Oak Ridges Moraine, such
that coordination and consistency can be promoted wherever possible.
5. Individual Regional Municipalities and conservation authorities should explore
opp-ortunities for addressing priority actions that they could advance, within the context
of the overall strategy, while the strategy is being developed.
121
Attachment 2
Development of a Groundwater Management Program
for York, Peel, and Durham Regions
June 5, 2001
Prepared by the Steering Committee of the
York, Peel and Durham Region
Groundwater Mangement Strategy - Phase 1 Study
122
Development of a Groundwater Management Pro~ram
for York, Peel, and Durham Regions
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Need for a Groundwater Management Program
1.2 Phase 1 Study
2.0 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR YORK, PEEL, AND DURHAM
REGIONS
2.1 Goals and Objectives
2.2 Strategic Directions
2.2.1 Policy
2.2.2 Da.ta Collection and Management
2.2.3 Technical Analysis/Studies
2.2.4 Il"r,r.l~mentation Framework
2.2.5 Monitoring, Evaluation and Program Refinement
3.0 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
3.1 Year 1 Workplan and Deliverables
3.2 Five Year Workplan
123
Development of a Groundwater Management Program
for York, Peel, and Durham Regions
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Need for a Groundwater Manaqement Program
Groundwater within the Regional Municipalities of York, Peel, and Durham has been'long
recognized as a resource that requires focused and careful management by all levels of
government. Groundwater provides a source of water supply within parts of all three Regions,
and plays a role in supporting valued aquatic and terrestrial ecological functions. Land
development, land use activities, groundwater withdrawals and anticip~ted impacts from global
climate change represent potential threats to the quality and quantity of groundwater resources
and to the integrity of groundwater related systems. Of particular concern is the Oak Ridges
Moraine area, which constitutes a significant portion of the study area and whose
characteristics pose potentially greater concerns for woundwater management.
In order to protect groundwater and manage land use activities effectively, an adequate
information base and coordinated policies and practices are necessary. Many studies and
strategic planning initiatives have been carried out by a variety of agencies and groups, such
that a substantial amount of information is already known in the study area, particularly for the
Oak Ridges Moraine area. However there are still significant data gaps. With knowledge of
these gaps, the Regions and conservation authorities must practice due diligence by initiating
a program to address the deficiencies, so that the risk of future problems, such as those that
occured in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, can be reduced. By
establishing a coordinated program that can fill the gaps, the Regions and conservation
authorities can provide for informed decision-making.
Groundwater and surface water systems are interconnected and both transcend municipal
boundaries. The importance of considering the effects of actions beyond municipal
boundaries is increasingly being recognized. By taking a collaborative approach, the Regions
of Peel, York and Durham can ensure consistency in program delivery. As these Regions
largely lie at the headwaters of many of the Greater Toronto Area watercourses, an improved
groundwater manageme':lt program within the three Regions will also have benefits to
downstream municipalities. I
1.2 Phase 1 Study
In 2000, the Regions of York, Peel, and Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, Credit Valley ConsenJation, Central Lake.Ontario Conservation Authority, Ganaraska
Region Conservation Authority, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority, and the Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation Authority initiated the first phase of a two phase study aimed at
developing a coordinated groundwater management strategy for the three Regions. The study
area encompassed all lands within the three regions. The Phase 1 study was completed in
May 2001 and involved the compilation of existing information, preliminary assessment of
issues, and the development of a strategic approach for further work in Phase 2. Phase 2 will
involve the actual development of the groundwater management program.
124'
Based on the findings of the Phase 1 study, the Steering Committee has prepared the following
report outlining strategic directions for groundwater management in the tri-region area and
recommending a series of actions toward the development of a groundwater management
program.
2.0 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR YORK, PEEL AND DURHAM
REGIONS
The overall intent of the strategy is to ensure coordination and consistency in approaches,
policies and practices among the three Regions and the six conservation authorities, such that
common groundwater management goals and objectives can be met. The following sections
outline a set of guiding goals and objectives and provide a framework for a long term
groundwater management program.
2.1 Goals and Obiectives
The goal of the groundwater management program is to:
Provide a management approach that will consider all of the interrelationships between
land use, groundwater use, and the natural heritage and hydrogeologic setting and
- ensure the overall maintenance of hydrogeological functions, such that valued
groundwater and related resources are protected or enhanced.
A series of objectives have been developed, as follows:
Objective 1: Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources used for water
supply, and manage the rate of groundwater use in such a way as to
ensure the long term sustainability of water supplies and the protection
of other natural heritage systems that are reliant on groundwater.
Objective 2: En~ ure the protection of base flow and groundwa(;~r processes that
support stream form and aquatic habitat.
Objective 3: Ensure the protection of groundwater. processes that support the
terrestrial habitat system and protect terrestrial habitat features that
contribute to the maintenance of hydrogeologic functions.
Objective 4: Ensure the protection of baseflow and groundwater processes that
maintain the assimilative capacity of watercourses and waterbodies
receiving treated sewage effluent, stormwater, or other pollutant inputs.
Objective 5: Protect the existing investment in infrastructure and servicing that is
designed according to a given. groundwater regime.
Objective 6: Restore groundwater function and quality in affected areas to mitigate
past impacts or enhance resource potential.
125
2.2 StrateQic Directions
The groundwater management program for York, Peel and Durham Regions should
consist of the following components:
Policy
Data Collection and Management
Technical Analysis/Studies
Implementation Framework
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Program Refinement.
Strategic directions and the scope of work involved in each component are described
below.
2.2.1 Policv
Strategic Directions
. Use the land use planning process and regulatory framework to ensure that land
use and related activities proceed in a manner that will protect and/or enhance
current environmental and groundwater resource conditions.
. Develop model policies based on defined groundwater management objectives
that provide consistency across the three Regions.
. Develop detailed implementation policies and decision criteria on the basis of
watershed management plans, aquifer management plans, and wellhead protection
plans. These plans will be developed in an integrated manner according to the
groundwater management objectives and associated indicators, measures and
targets, such that the resulting policy directions are scientifically defensible and the
effectiveness of policy implementation can be measured.
. Develop interim development screening guidelines as a short term action to provide
consistency while the longer term policies and supportive studies are being
developed
Scope of Work
This strategy component will refine the working goals and objectives for groundwater
management and use them as the basis for policy development. There are two parts
in the development-of policies: setting the-overall framework and the development of
specific policies related to groundwater management.
126
Policy Framework
Groundwater management is an on-going initiative and a number of policies within all
agencies are currently in place that are linked to groundwater management. These
range from land use policies (official plans) to groundwater protection strategies (ie.
wellhead protection). Given that this initiative is broad ranging and is intended to link
the various issues as well as policies from a groundwater standpoint it is important that
the existing policy framework be evaluated.
The initial step in this process is to develop a policy framework according to the defined
groundwater management goals and objectives. The following components or themes
should be included: -
- Identification, mapping, and protection of recharge areas
- Set infiltration targets tailored to local conditions
- Identification, mapping, and protection of discharge arE'as
- Protecti~., of local groundwater systems (including flow paths)
- Identify al1d protect groundwater connections to stream system (groundwater
riparian 2.one)
- Maintenance of overall water balance
- Identify and set up wellhead protection measures
- Protection of groundwater quality in wellhead zones
- Support for the results of water balance studies.
The policy framework should be used to identify gaps and limitations in the existing
policies. This analysis should consider policies at the Regional, Municipal, and
Conservation Authority level.
Specific Policy Development
Drawing from the policy framework, model policy sets and study requirements will be
developed and tailored for inclusion within appropriate policy instruments and.
programs. The suggested group of policy instruments and programs includes:
- Official plan
- Secondary plan
- Draft anc:: :-;ite plan conditions
- Site plan'. review
- Engineer:ng standards
- Servicing standards
- SWM policies
- Design standards
- EIS/EIR requirements
- Aggregate extraction and pit rehabilitation
- Peat extraction policies
- Topsoil bylaws
- Agricultural land use policies
- Aquaculture
- Wellhead protection
127
- Aquifer management
- Forestry management tree removal
- Water taking.
The recommended policy sets will include those policies that will meet the needs of the
policy framework (ie. .components or themes) and allow for the protection of areas and
resources as well as setting of targets. The policies may be based on existing typical
policies, but these may require modifications or restructuring. Additional policies could
be developed or added. They will serve as models for adoption by individual Regions,
Municipalities and Conservation Authorities. Policy development will have to consider
the responsibilities and legislative authority of agencies involved and related provincial
and federal policies and legislation. ' .
Interim Development Screening Guidelines
Urban development represents one of the most prevalent and pressing issues with
respect to groundwater management in the study area. Therefore, Interim Development
Screening Guidelines will be prepared within a short timeframe as a means of providing
some consistency for the preparation and review of planning and development
applications, while the lo,:!ger term groundwater management policy is being
formulated, and until such time as detailed policies and criteria arise from the
completion of integrated watershed plans, water budgets, aquifer management plans
and/or wellhead protection studies.
Provincial initiatives arising from the Oak Ridges Moraine Act, 2001 could significantly
affect these Guidelines, however the implications are unknown at this time.
Communication with provincial government representatives will be essential to ensure
coordination and compatibility between the two initiatives.
2.2.2 Data Collection and ManaQement
Strategic Directions
. Develop common standards for data collection
. Establish a coordinated system for data management and data sharing.
Scope of Work
This component will specify the data collection responsibilities and data management
standards associated with the databases required for conducting the necessary
technical studies and analyses. Some of the data sets are collected by other groups,
such as the MOE (e.g. well records, PTTW) or the geotechnical industry for client
groups (e.g. borehole studies). Coordination and data sharing with these groups will
be established.
Many of the datasets will have been collected by the study partners. Raw data
collection and management components that will be within the responsibility of the
tri-region group include:
128
- Borehole well network including exploratory boreholes, monitoring wells,
production wells
- Streamflow network
- Streambed peizometers
- Groundwater level data
- Groundwater quality data
- Meterological data
- Terrestrial resource data
- Aquatic resource data
- Bibliographic data.
It is expected that these databases will be updated on an ongoing basis as further
monitoring information becomes available, therefore procedures for database
maintenance will also be specified.' Currently, these databases are not complete across
the tri-region area, nor have the data been collected or stored to a uniform standard.
This strategy component will also develop standardized, relational database
management structures for regional and conservation authority data managers, with
respect to hydrogeological data. The development of this product will consider and
integrate with any existing data management systems of the respective partners and will
ensure that data sharing objectives are met.
This component will also establish data sharing arrangements among the study
partners for hydrogeological related data.
In summary, the key tasks for the tri-region group for the data collection and
management component involve identification of:
- Development of common data standards
- Identification of required data sets
- Respons:rJilities for collection
- Respons"ibilities for data set maintenance
- Database structure and format
- Data sharing arrangements.
2.2.3 Technical Analysis/Studies
Strategic Directions
. Develop an understanding of significant hydrogeological features and functions,
connections, and interdependencies.
. Define standard protocols for c~rrying out the technical analyses/studies necessary
to supporf the development of detailed implementation policies and decision
criteria.
. Prepare a tri-region scale groundwater vulnerability map.
129
Scope of Work
Ultimately, full implementation of the groundwater management strategy will rely on the
establishment of a sound understanding of hydrogeological functions and their
interrelationships with land use, groundwater resource use, and the natural heritage
system.
Detailed policies and implementation criteria/targets will be defined on the basis of
recommendations from regional, watershed, or other localized scale studies. This
program component wil,l, therefore, establish generic terms of reference for the
minimum technical studies that must be undertaken at various scales to provide the
basis for developing these implementation policies/criteria. Lead responsibilities will be
recommended. Given that certain studies will lead to the formulation of detailed
policies, the public consultation requirements will also be noted.
It is envisioned that there will be two sets of studies that will be necessary:
1. Inventories and Analyses
These studies provide a basic understanding of the resources and issues, and
address the following:
a) Geologic and hydrogeologic conditions
b) Groundwater resource use
c) Sources of contamination
d) Terrestrial features and indicators of linkages with groundwater functions
e) Aquatic conditions and indicators of linkages wit~ groundwater functions.
2. Management Plans
These studies carry out a more complex analysis of the inventoried information,
by addressing interactions among features, defining hydrogeological functions,
evaluating impacts, and assessing the effectiveness of alternative management
strategies. Examples of these plans include:
a) Watershed Analyses and Management Plans.
b) Aquifer and Wellhead Management Plans.
These technical studies have been carried out to varying degrees throughout
the study area.
Technical studies to be carried out by private sector proponents, as part of
subdivision, site, or permit level applications, will be specified as part of the
strategy/policy development process.
Tri-Region Scale Vulnerability/Screening Maps
130
In order to comm'lJnicate the overall intent of the strategy and begin the process of
program impleme>ntation, there is a need for consistent map coverage that illustrates
sensitive hydrogeological features and functions (e.g. potential recharge areas,
discharge areas, groundwater related habitats, etc.) across the three regions. Although
detailed implementation policies/criteria will be determined on the basis of localized
technical studies, described above, there will be a need for a certain level of information
across the three regions that can provide the basis for applying interim policies (e.g.
Interim Development Screening Guidelines) in the absence of or until such time as the
local studies can be completed.
This map(s) would:
serve as a guide for the application of various policy requirements
including the interim development screening guidelines;
provide a broader regional context for the possible coordination and
initiation of technical studies; and
help guide the initial implementation of other aspects of the strategy,
such as education, stewardship, and land securement programs.
The map(s) woulo be prepared within roughly the same timeframe as the program
development process. Considering the timeframe available and the general quality of
available information, the map would be developed using the best currently available
information. Key data include: surficial geology, topography (OEM), land use,
terrestrial and aquatic features, stream flow, contaminant source data, water takings,
and previous interpreted data from watershed studies, etc.. The provincial, federal and
University of Toronto hydrogeological investigations for the Oak Ridges Moraine
contain much of the required data and interpreted mapping for the ORM area.
Partnerships with the Geological Survey of Canada, in particular, will be advantageous
in completing this work and avoiding duplication with past efforts. Completed
watershed studies will contribute information for some of the remaining areas. There
will be gaps, and primary data sets may have to be accessed to provide a basic level of
interpretation for those areas. Decisions will have to be made as to the level of effort
required in these areas.
It is expected that this tri-regional scale map(s) will be updated and refined as new
information becomes available through the local studies, therefore a procedure will
have to be specified for regular mapping updates.
2.2.4 Implementation Framework
Strategic DirecUuns
. Ensure consistent policies and practices are used in land use planning, regulations,
and municipal water and wastewater planning and operations.
. Bring sensitive hydrogeological lands into public ownership or under the provision
of other land securement mechanisms for long term protection.
131
. Develop an educational program and foster stewardship to meet the overall
groundwater use objectives.
. Define responsibilities.
Scope of Work
The implem'entation framework is comprised of the following categories:
Land Use Planning
· Planning policies
· Terrestrial resource areas and management requirements
· Recharge areas and targets
· Stream hydrogeologic riparian zone.
Regulations
· Municipal servicing requirements
· Wellhead protection regulations
· Hazardous material regulations
· Site remediation
· Water takings.
Water and Wastewater Planning
· Wellhead protection
· Aquifer management
· Effluent discharge guidelines.
Land Securement
· Policies for land dedication (development policies)
· Terrestrial preservation -land acquisition targets
Stewardship/Remediation
· Community involvement programs
· Stewardship education
· Remediation plans
Awareness/Education
· Education programs
· Communication plans
132
2.2.5 MonitorinQ, Evaluation, and ProQram Refinement
Strategic Directions
. Provide a uniform and consistent approach to monitoring that is based on the
needs for the analysis of conditions and reporting on program effectiveness and
refine the groundwater management program as required.
Scope of Work
The monitoring network will be designed to provide adequate data for evaluating the
effectiveness of the groundwater management program. Given that the program
involves a number of agencies, each having defined roles and responsibilities, the
monitoring program will also be multi-jurisdictional. Coordination will be required,
however for both data collection and, in particular, evaluation.
The evaluation process should be part of an adaptive environmental management
approach, in that it will provide for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the
management strategy, as well as facilitate the adjustment of the strategy/program if the
targets and related objectives are not met.
An indicator set must be developed that is both representative of the hydrogeologic
objectives and provide for a realistic monitoring program. A recommended indicator set
includes:
_ Groundwater levels at representative points
_ Location of groundwater discharge/seeps
_ Streamflow (baseflow)
Terrestrid conditions (area of vegetation communities)
_ Grour..Jw3.ter quality
_ StreamT!uw temperature.
This program must be coordinated with both the data- collection component for
technical analysis as well as other data collection initiatives:
MOE well records and data
_ Ongoing CA streamflow and other data
_ Regional wellhead/water taking data.
3.0 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION: DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROUNDWATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
133
3.1 Year 1 Workplan and Deliverables
Continued collaboration of the three Regions and the six Conservation Authorities is
required to oversee development of the coordinated groundwater management
program. A Steering Committee will be re-established and will comprise staff
representating each of the Regions and Conservation Authorities. The Steering
Committee will provide overall direction, while tasks will be carried out by a project
manager, work groups drawn from staff within the Regions or CAs, and/or specified
consulting services.
A public and agency consultation program will be developed to ensure adequate and
appropriate involvement of key stakeholders (e.g. GSC, MNR, MOE, MMAH, OMAFRA,
area municipalities, adjacent or downstream municipalities, UDI, APAO, STORM,
watershed task forces, etc.).
Work will be coordinated with other related initiatives to ensure compatibility and avoid
duplication. Examples of ongoing initiatives include: the provincial Oak Ridges Moraine
Act 2001, the tri-Region led Oak Ridges Moraine Partnership Oak Ridges Moraine
Strategy, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation led groundwater work program
within Durham Region.
Oeliverables
The primary deliverables from the tri-region initiative in Year 1 form the groundwater
management program and include:
. Model Policies
. Interim Development Screening Guidelines
. Hydrogeologic Vulnerability/Screening Map
. Data Collection and Management Standards
. Generic Terms of Reference for Core Technical Studies
. Land Securement Guidelines
. Model Education and Stewardship Program
. Base Monitoring Network
. Public Consultation Program for the Phase 2 Project
. Budget for a 5 year work plan.
Schedule and Budget
The groundwater management program is to be developed with!n a one year
timeframe, extending from June 2001 to June 2002.
A budget of $400,000 has been secured to support this work.
134
3.2 Five Year Workr:. i~,"
Groundwater mC:l.l.flgement will become an ongoing program of the Regions and
Conservation Authorities. Once the coordinated, tri-region groundwater management
program is developed, there will be an ongoing role for a tri-region group to continue to
ensure coordination and information sharing among the partners on a periodic basis.
The anticipated ongoing responsibilities of the involved agencies are outlined as
follows:
Regional Municipalities
To carry out tasks within their administrative mandate, for example:
. OPAs to incorporate model policies
· wellhead protection studies, aquifer management plans, contaminant
inventories, etc. and associated data collection and management
· ongoing implementation through planning, water and wastewater
O&M activities
. education/awareness
. monitoring.
Conserv?Ji9n Authorities
To carry out tasks within their administrative mandate, for example:
. incorporation of model policies
· watershed plans, aquatic and terrestrial inventories, groundwater use
inventories and associated data collection and management
· ongoing implementation through planning and operations
. education/awareness
. land securement
. monitoring.
Area Municipalities
To carry out tasks within their mandate, particularly for policies related to land
use and engineering, for example:
· OPAs to incorporate policies and results of wellhead protection
plans, aquifer management plans, and watershed plans
. _ Stormwater management policies.
135
Priority Actions
The Phase 1 study clearly identified a number of priority data and information gaps in
watersheds having sensitive groundwater conditions and which are experiencing
significant stresses or threats to the groundwater system. With knowledge of these
data gaps, the Regions and Conservation Authorities must practice due diligence by
initiating a program to address the deficiencies, so that the risk of future problems, such
as those that occured in Walkerton and North Battleford, can be reduced. Work on
addressing these data gaps could and should proceed even while the groundwater
management program is being developed.
For the purpose of initiating action on priority areas, it is recommended that the
Regional municipalities continue to take the lead in the development of wellhead and
aquifer management plans and associated inventories. Conservation Authorities
should take the lead in the completion of watershed studies and associated aquatic,
terrestrial and groundwater use inventories. The Phase 1 study report provides an
outline of priority tasks for each Region and Conservation Authority, based on a review
of available information. In some cases, these tasks are already part of a planned work
program or could be accomplished through some enhancements to ongoing, funded
work. Staff from each Region and Conservation Authority is in the process of reviewing
the results of the Phase 1 study in relation to ongoing activities, in order to recommend
an approach for addressing the priority actions.
136
RES.#D43/01 -
PROVINCIAL SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE
Provide comments on the Provincial Smart Growth initiative.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Tanny Wells
WHEREAS the TRCA has consistently advocated and pursued policies, strategies,
stewardship and regulation that protects, manages and restores our natural environment
as typified in its Watershed Plan 1980 and 1984, Greenspace Strategy 1990, Valley and
Stream Corridor Management Program 1994, development of strategies and report cards
for the individual watersheds and the waterfront and involvement with regional, local and
subwatershed planning;
WHEREAS the TRCA has adopted the Living City program which provides a vision for a
healthy environment, high quality of life and a sustainable future for GTA residents;
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, in recognition of the issues affecting the economy,
community and environment, has initiated "Ontario Smart Growth" and requested
comments on their goals and principles by June 25;
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the following comments,
summarized below, and outlin47d in this report be forwarded to "Ontario Smart Growth";
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) strongly supports the Provincial
Smart Growth initiative as a vision and mechanism with the potential to achieve
sustainable communities. We provide the following recommendations and supporting
report for consideration:
1) The Provincial Smart Growth initiative must include an overall co-ordinated VISION
for the future of the Province, and in particular for the GTA region. This vision must
take an "environment first" approach that identifies the natural heritage and water
resources, rural/agricultural and recreational amenities, around which development
areas can be strategically planned. With this framework in place, urban development
nodes and public transportation links can be identified at a broad scale. Community
planning and alternative development standards can be applied within these
development areas. Through this vision, certainty is provided to all sectors of the
economy so that development, regulation and planning of infrastructure can be
coordinated and focused on the implementation of this framework.
2) An "ENVIRONMENT FIRST" approach is the fundamental basis for planning
sustainable communities that ensures protection of our environment, a strong
economy and vibrarlt communities. An Environment First approach must be
supported by watershed and subwatershed planning and natural heritage strategies
in order to gain an understanding of the interrelationships within a healthy
ecosystem.
Ultimate protection of our natural heritage and water resources must recognize the
limitations of science to provide "proof' and err on the side of caution when dealing
with dynamic and complex systems.
137
3) An IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY is key to the success of any smart growth initiative.
For some time Official Plans have recognized the link between economy, environment
and community, and yet implementation through regulation and policy has been
inadequate. All levels of government, Federal, Provincial, Regional and Municipal,
must develop a full range of policy, regulation and financial incentives that make
smart growth work. Smart growth is a long term vision that requires short term
initiatives and long term behavioral changes to achieve healthy watersheds,
supporting the strong economy and vibrant communities.
4) The Provincial goals and principles should be amended as follows:
Replace "Promote a healthy environment" with "Ensure a healthy environment";
Replace "Protect natural areas" with "Protect natural heritage systems, including all
natural areas";
Add "Restoration of the Environment" as a principles within the Environment goal;
Add "Reward innovative design and individual choices which promote sustainability"
to the environmental goal.
THAT the TRCA offer assistance to the Province in defining the vision through Natural
Heritage strategies, water management expertise and information through participation
in round table and stakeholder discussions;
AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated to the City of Toronto, Regions of Peel,
Durham, York, Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, the Greater Toronto
Services Board and to Conservation Ontario and the 38 Conservation Authorities within
Ontario for their endorsement.
CARRIED
For Information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date: June 07, 2001
RES.#D44/01 -
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL RESOLUTION-
PROVINCIAL SMART GROWTH INITIATIVE
Provide comments on the Provincial Smart Growth .initiative.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tanny Wells
Dave Ryan
THAT the attached recommendation from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be
received for information.
CARRIED
138
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #2/01, held on June 14, 2001, the Don Council approved the following resolution:
THAT the Members of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be advised that
the Don Council strongly supports Smart Growth as an approach to future planning for
City Regions within Ontario;
THAT the Don Council recognizes that the first step in Smart Growth for the GTA will be
establishing a long term vision which clearly defines urban and rural areas and the
protection of the natural heritage system;
THA T the Don Council recognizes that fundamental principles of smart growth are:
- protect the natural environment as the inviolable green template for determining
suitable directions for growth and as part of a permanent countryside;
- encourage future growth in the existing urban area where hard and soft services are
alreadyavailablb:
- support intensification through mixed use, mixed density developments on brownfie/ds
sites and in selected locations served by public transit;
- strengthen these urban areas with investments to upgrade services; and
- provide public funds for infrastructure only in designated Smart Growth Areas and
tightly restricting aeve/opment in rural areas.
THA T the Don Council recognizes that strong implementation measures must be put in
place for all levels of government for Smart Growth to succeed;
AND FURTHER THAT a detailed submission on the Provincial Smart Growth Initiative
prepared in conjunction with TRCA's other watershed groups will be provided to the
Province.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: June 15, 2001
RES.#D45/01 -
AMENDMENT OF TERMS-OF REFEREN.CE FOR THE DON
WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
The amendment of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council's Terms of
Reference to allow for the election of two Vice-Chairs.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO TH,E AUTHORITY THAT Section 3.8 of the Terms of
Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be amended to allow for the
election of two vice-chairs.
.CARRIED
139
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #11/01 held on January 5,2001, the Authority approved in part:
Res. #A267/00
"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;"
Section 3.8 of the Terms of Reference states that:
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.
The Council has requested that they be allowed to elect two Vice-Chairs for the Don Council in
order to share the full workload and to provide key representation on major issues within the
Don watershed.
Report prepared by: Jennifer Bamford, extension 5305
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: June 15, 2001
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :41 a.m., on June 15, 2001.
Irene Jones
Chair
J. Craig Mather
Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
140
ITEM 1
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/01
September 14, 2001
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/01, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 14, 2001. The Chair Irene
Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. .
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell
lIa Bossons
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
Pam McConnell
Jim McMaster
Dick O'Brien
Dave Ryan
Ian Sinclair
Tanny Wells
Vice Chair
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Chair, Authority
Member
Member
Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon
Frank Scarpitti
Member
Member
RES.#D46/01 -
MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Anthony Ketchum
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/01, held on June 15, 2001, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Dr. Richard Gerber, a Hydrogeological Consultant, in regards to an
outline of the hydrogeology of the Ouffins Creek Watershed and how the conceptual
model of groundwater flow for this area fits into the regional GTA groundwater flow
system.
141
RES.#D47/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PRESENTATlbNSi ..: ~ -
lIa Bossons
Tanny Wells
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
RES.#D48/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT: FIVE YEAR REVIEW
'The Province of Ontario is conducting a five year review of the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS). The TRCA has been asked to comment on the
PPS in two ways: 1) comments on section 3.1 (Hazards) will be
forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and 2) comments
on all other sections will be forwarded to Conservation Ontario. The
MNR and Conservation Ontario will provide comprehensive comments of
all CAs to the Province.
Ian Sinclair
Anthony Ketchum
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to work with
Conservation Ontario to formulate consolidated Conservation Authority comments on the
five year review of the Provincial Policy Statement and report back to the Authority on
September 28 when these comments have been finalized for submition to the Province.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Provincial Policy Statement is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. The PPS "
provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and
development." Under the PPS, land use planning decisions "shall have regard to" policy
statements issued under the Act. The three main policy areas of the PPS are: 1) Efficient,
Cost-effective Development and Land Use Patterns, 2) Resources, and 3) Public Health and
Safety .
Every five years the Provincial government is required to review and update the PPS.
Reviewing the PPS will help the government determine whether Ontario's land use planning
policies are consistent with Smart Growth: the government's strategy for promoting and
managing growth in ways that sustain a strong economy; build strong communities; and
promote a healthy environment. The government is asking for feedback on the PPS from
individuals, organizations and municipalities with an interest in land use planning.
The Planning Sub-Committee of the Policy and Issues Strategic Committee (PISC) of
Conservation Ontario (CO) has been asked to consult Conservation Authorities and prepare
information for submission to the CO PISC and CO Council. The TRCA's (and all other CAs)
participation in the process needs to represent both our role as the delegated authority on
natural hazards (Section 3.1 of the PPS) and our "other" more encompassing community
based watershed management agency role. Under the Memorandum of Understanding for
142
Planning Responsibilities signed recently with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(MMAH), the MNR retains the provincial responsibility for the development of flood, erosion
and hazard land management policies and, CAs retain the delegated responsibility for the
implementation of the policies. In this regard, our comments on Section 3.1 of the PPS will be
provided through to MNR to MMAH. Our comments related to other PPS issues will be
submitted to the Province by ConseNation Ontario.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The timing of our comments on Section 3.1 has been set by MNR. In order to make their
internal early September approvals deadline, comments were taken to the CO PISC meeting
on August 24. The broader consultation comments are due on October 12th. To achieve CO
endorsement, however, the position must be prepared for the September 24 Council Meeting.
For GTA region CAs, comments will be forwarded to Jane Clohecy (PISC committee member)
by September 12th, summarized and shared with all PISC committee members on September
14th, and presented to CO on September 18th. Conservation Ontario will submit comments on
all sections of the PPS to the Province on October 12th.
Report prepared by: Alena Grunwald, extension 5268
For Information contact: Jane Clohecy, extension 5214
Date: August 27, 2001
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D49/01 -
OAK RIDGES MORAINE: CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES MORAINE
COALITION INVOLVEMENT IN THE TRI-REGIONAL AND
PROVINCIAL INITIATIVES
An update of the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition participation
in and comments on the two Oak Ridges Moraine initiatives currently
being undertaken by the Regions of York, Peel and Durham and the
Province of Ontario.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT this report be received for
information.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Tri Reaion Initiative
The three regional municipalities of York, Peel and Durham released their draft document titled
"The Oak Ridges Moraine - Proposals for the Protection and Management of a Unique
Landscape" in early May, 2000. That report identified strategic directions to be undertaken for
the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) under four work streams: Groundwater
Management, Natural Heritage Data Management, Policy and Land Securement. Throughout
the month of June a series of six public meetings across the Regions and one Symposium was
143
held to gather public input on the proposals and strategic directions. Conservation Authority
Moraine Coalition (CAMC) members and staff were fully involved in both the formulation of the
"Unique Landscapes" document and the public consultation sessions. Several CAMC
members participated on the project steering committee with the three Regional Planning
Commissioners. Both staff and members participated on or co-chaired the subcommittees that
formulated the strategic directions for each of the four work streams as well as facilitated the
break out sessions at the public meetings and symposium.
A number of key messages resulted from the public consultation sessions including:
. The recognition that the ORM needs to be treated as an interconnected ecosystem;
. The clear definition, identification and protection in perpetuity of natural Core Areas, buffers
and linkages;
. The requirement for addressing the ORM in a coordinated fashion that provides a vision for
the moraine within the context of a growth management framework for south central
Ontario; and
. A key role for the Province in setting policy and coordinating and funding a comprehensive
land securement strategy.
The CAMC agreed with these messages and provided further detailed comments to the
tri-region initiative in a letter dated July 19, 2001 (Appendix 1). Subsequently, Coalition
members and staff continued working with the three Regions to compile the public comments,
revise and provide further detail to the earlier draft strategic directions contained in "Unique
Landscapes". The three Regions have recently submitted to their respective Councils the
results of the public consultation sessions and a recommendation that these be forwarded as
input to the Provincial ORM initiative.
Provincial Initiative
Within weeks of the three Regions releasing their "Unique Landscapes" document, the
Province of Ontario, on May 17, 2001 passed legislation "The Oak Ridges Moraine Protection
Act, 2001" which placed a six month moratorium on most Planning Act applications for
development on the ORM. The Province then announced the creation of two committees to
formulate a long term strategy for the protection of the ORM - an inter-ministry consultation
team of senior provincial staff and an advisory panel representing environmentalists,
municipalities, developers, conservation authorities, aggregate interests and others. The goal
of the Advisory Panel was to formulate a long-term action plan for the ORM such that "Areas
that need to be protected will be protected. Areas that need further study will be studied and
development applications in areas that clearly need no special protection will be able to
proceed according to clear, understandable rules."
Dick O'Brien, Chair of the TRCA, was invited to sit on the Advisory Panel as the conservation
authority representative with Russ Powell (CAO of Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority)
as his alternate. Coalition staff has been reviewing the Advisory panel "work in progress" and
providing briefing notes to the conservation authority representatives. Additionally, CAMC
members have been meeting with representatives from municipalities in the eastern portions of
the ORM to advise them of both the tri-region and provincial initiatives and to assist them in
formulating their responses to both initiatives.
144
The Advisory Panel met approximately one dozen times throughout July and August and
produced their recommendations in a document titled "Share Your Vision for the Oak Ridges
Moraine", which was released for public comment on August 14, 2001. A series of stakeholder
workshops and public meetings were (and are still being) held to gather public input to the
proposals contained in the "Share Your Vision" document. Coalition staff has reviewed the
document and prepared a general outline of comments on the document to assist TRCA
watershed groups in preparing their comments for the submission deadline of September 14.
Separate CAMC comments are also being formulated for the submission deadline and will be
distributed to Water Management Advisory Board Members at the meeting of September 14.
The plan recommended by the Advisory Panel includes four land use designations and
identifies proposed land uses for each designation. Natural Core Areas (NCA) represent
approximately 37% of ORM lands. Natural Linkage Areas (NLA) account for 16% with
Countryside Areas at 38% and Settlement Areas at 9%. Permitted new land uses are
recommended to have the highest level of development restrictions in the NCA with increasing
permissiveness at each subsequent designation, allowing full urban uses in Settlement Areas,
subject to proposed ecological constraints to development and development criteria. Some of
the general elements of the plan that the CAMC supports include:
. that the plan will be an ecologically based plan;
. that specific legislation is being proposed to govern the future of the moraine;
. that there is a recommendation for increasing the amount of publicly owned lands on the
ORM;
. that an ORM Legacy Trust is recommended to be created and funded by the Province;
. that growth is proposed to be concentrated in well-defined settlement areas; and
. a recognition that a number of issues not dealt with by the Advisory Panel will need to be
addressed through ongoing discussions on topics such as establishing sustainable water
management approaches and policies, developing performance measures and creating
implementation guidelines for development proposed under the new legislation.
Several issues that the CAMC will raise in their response to the province include the
recommendation to permit new aggregate extraction in NLA, clarification of the Countryside
Area permitted uses of "rural commercial, institutional and industrial uses" and a greater
emphasis on the need for watershed studies prior to any further development taking place on
the ORM.
The provincial inter-ministerial team will take the results of the public consultation and any
further recommendations of the Advisory Panel to formulate provincial legislation to govern
land uses on the ORM. This legislation is anticipated to be effective on November 17, 2001 as
the six month moratorium expires. Staff will report back after that date with an update on the
Provincial action plan and legislation.
Report prepared by: David Burnett, extension 5361
For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361
Date: September 06, 2001
Attachments: 1
145
Attachment 1
~.
C~l'~~~n!~~~nn nutliQri~ies
f,::~m~"'~~ f.(I)~I~tio:"t
\\.
~
Credit Valley Conservation
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Toronto and Region Conservation
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Central Lake Ontar10 Conservation
Kawartha Conservation
Ganaraska Region Conservation
Otonabee Conservation
Lower Trent Conservation
July 19, 2001
Mr. Bryan Tuck~y
Commissioner of Planning
The Regional Municipality of York
17250 Yonge St.
P.O. Box 147
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 6Z1
CFN 30738
Dear Mr. Tuckey:
Re: The Oak Ridges Moraine: Proposals for the Protection and Management of a
Uniaue Landscape
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. The Conservation
Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC) is pleased to have been part of the ongoing work in the
preparation of and consulting the public on the strategic directions to protect the Oak Ridges
Moraine (ORM). We understand that the next phase of this work is to refine the subject
document to be used as input to the Provincial ORM initiative that is currently under way. Our
comments have been formulated with that objective in mind and are organized by
chapter/topic, highlighting the areas of support and where we feel strengthening is needed.
Chapter 1 Introduction
CAMC supports the principles that:
· The ORM is one inter-related natural heritage system that is an integral part of the quality of
life of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
. The consistent approach to be formulated should be for Protection and Enhancement.
· The strategic directions identified for the protection of the natural environment on the ORM
should apply to all natural heritage areas in Ontario.
146
Areas that should be strengthened:
. The document should put forward an overall vision for the future of the ORM. There should
be a clear statement of the desired end product/goal for the ORM lands within the 3
Regions and for the connections and linkages, both on and off the moraine, beyond the
Regions. There should be a clear relationship of this vision to the Policy section of the
document.
Chaoter 2 Groundwater Manaaement
CAMC supports the strategic directions which recognize that:
. Groundwater is linked with surface water and terrestrial systems.
. Model policies must be based on scientifically defensible data collection so that the
effectiveness of their implementation can be measured.
. The 3 Regions and Conservation Authorities should establish a hydrogeology coordinating
committee to lead the required studies, comprised of staff hydrogeologists. To this end,
significant efficiencies and streamlining can be achieved by ensuring the steering
committees for the York/Peel/Durham (YPD) Groundwater Strategy and 3 Region ORM
groundwater strategies are one and the same.
Areas that should be strengthened:
. Recognition that source protection and prevention of impacts are key elements of a ground
water protection strategy.
. Performance standards should include a requirement for studies to demonstrate the
sustainable levels and cumulative impacts of ground water withdrawals from ORM
connected aquifers. .
. The Goal is too process oriented. It should incorporate the PPS concept of "protect and
enhance" as the end result and ensure consistency with the "YPD" program goal.
. Recognition that base line water management data sets are needed for all watersheds, not
just the priority ones.
Chaoter 3 Natural Heritaae Data Manaaement
CAMC supports the strategic directions which recognize that:
. Natural heritage data should be standardized and readily accessible to all interested
groups via a "hybrid" Internet based data management system.
. Conservation authorities and municipalities should develop an analytical and predictive
modeling tool to assess the sustainability of natural heritage systems and the most effective
addition of lands and linkages.
Areas that should be strengthened:
. It should be made clear that appropriate funding needs to be available to collect data as
well as to implement a data system, and that other data sets such as wildlife and fisheries
data will be required in addition to ELC data sets.
147
. It should be clarified that the data management system can be used as an analytical or
decision support tool for not only policy development but also for securement, stewardship
and enhancement opportunities.
Chapter 4 Policv
CAMC supports the strategic directions which recognize that:
. The PPS needs to be strengthened for the ORM as well as for all environmental features
and functions regardless of their location.
. The Planning Act should be changed to require that municipalities, OMB, etc. "be
consistent with" PPS (as opposed to have regard to).
. Ecological corridors, linkages, buffers, landform conservation, sensitive hydrogeological
features and tableland woodlots need a higher degree of protection.
. A consistent policy of "no development" for core natural heritage features should be
adopted.
. Environmental impact statements should have cumulative impacts analysis as a required
component.
Areas that should be strengthened:
. The natural connections with lands outside of the GTA and with lands adjacent to the
moraine need to be addressed through both a clear vision for the future of the ORM and
through a strong commitment to a natural "systems approach" to ensure the protection of
the moraine is addressed in a holistic manner.
. The proposed policies for ORM lands within the GTA need to consider the potential impacts
on municipalities outside the GTA. Those municipalities have concerns that the policies are
being formulated to address the pressures of rapid urban development and that duplicating
those policies in rural areas of the moraine, where development pressure is very low, may
not be appropriate. While we want to avoid having two standards on the ORM, one for the
GT A and one for the remaining areas, there needs to be recognition of the differing
development pressures facing the urban and rural municipalities on the moraine. A
balanced and flexible policy approach that can be easily adaptable to non-GTA
municipalities should be considered. Again, a clear vision for the moraine would provide
guidance in this regard.
. That a functional science-based rationale is required to defend buffers beyond the
minimum established in the policy and that the appropriate studies should be required of
development proponents. We recognize that a minimum buffer is a valued policy approach
from a municipal perspective, however, our experience shows that once a minimum buffer
is set, a greater buffer is not considered by the proponent. The inclusion of specific criteria
to define where and when greater buffers and supporting studies are required would be
beneficial to the implementation of this policy. We support the policy approach calling for
the minimum buffer widths but caution that conservation authorities would only be able to
defend buffers that were determined scientifically.
. There needs to be greater clarity as to what are the Core Natural Heritage features and
functions to which a consistent "no development" policy will apply. The policies should at
the minimum be harmonized to the greatest number of feature types protected.
148
. Given the recent provincial initiative on the ORM, consideration should be given to
provincial measures other than modifications to PPS, such as enacting an Oak Ridges
Moraine Plan under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, to provide broader
protection measures for the moraine.
ChaDter 5 Securement
CAMC supports the strategic directions which recognize that:
. Significant funding needs to be made available for a variety of securement opportunities
and ongoing management and operational costs.
Areas that should be strengthened:
. The background section focuses on forested lands - there needs to be recognition that
other sensitive features/functions may also need to be secured i.e. wetlands, ground water
recharge areas, ESAs, etc.
. Greater recognition is al1:1o required that the less sensitive lands (such as buffers, old fields)
may be priorities for securement since they are least likely to be obtained through the
development approvals process.
. There should be criteria included for prioritizing lands for securement.
. The chart on page 35 identifying public lands should be updated immediately to reflect the
new information provided through the ongoing process.
. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for coordination of land securement should be
established immediately.
. Better integration of the Groundwater Management and Natural Heritage Data Management
sections with the Policy and Land Securement sections. As the science and understanding
of groundwater and natural heritage systems is improved, this should/will have a direct
impact on the policies and priorities for land securement.
. Since land use planning and policy is identified as the "first line of defense" in the
protection of natural heritage lands on the ORM, those policies must be strong,
implementable and enforceable.
. Section 5.3.6 Acquisition requires some technical corrections with respect to the various
property rights that can be acquired and the different way to acquire these rights. For
example, one can purchase a conservation easement, covenant or full ownership (fee
simple) or they can be donated or acquired through the development approval process for
a nominal sum.
ChaDter 6 Next SteDs
CAMC supports the intent to:
. Prepare an annual "State of the Moraine" report to review progress made in protecting the
ORM.
Areas that should be strengthened:
. The document should contain specific implementation timetables.
149
. The document should identify what minimum strategy requirements can be put in place
immediately to ensure protection of the ORM until a complete strategy is implemented.
Priority core areas should be defined immediately for protection. Also, recognition of
corridors and linkages between core areas needs to be reflected in order to promote a
vision for a continuous green corridor on the ORM.
General Comments
The strategy to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine needs to be framed within a broader growth
management context for southern Ontario. It should include a vision for the role and function of
the ORM within the Greater Toronto bioregion. It should relate to the provincial "Smart Growth"
initiative and the long term protection of prime agricultural lands.
The importance of a long term funding base for data collection, securement and the ongoing
management of secured lands can not be stressed enough.
If you require clarification or would like to discuss these comments, please call David Burnett at
(416) 661-6600, extension 5361.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
David Burnett
Senior Planner/Coordinator
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition
Cc N. Tunnacliffe, Region of Peel
A. Georgieff, Region of Durham
Coalition Members
150
RES.#D50/01 -
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES MORAINE COALITION
Comments to the Province on the Advisory Panel's document entitled
"Share Your Vision for the Oak Ridges Moraine".
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
Ian Sinclair
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Conservation Authorities
Moraine Coalition (CAMC) correspondence dated September 14, 2001 be received;
THAT staff prepare additional comments for the Advisory Panel's document entitled
"Share Your Vision for the Oak Ridges Moraine", based on comments by the Watershed
Management Advisory Board, for consideration by the Full Authority at its meeting to be
held on September 28, 2001;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority request the province to hold public hearings prior to
adoption of the report and that the Authority prepare a submission to be presented at any
such hearing.
CARRIED
Attachments: 1
151
Attachment 1
~:
(,:;:::~',~ ~~ c~~:~:'! !1:ut5~Gi:k~!:
:;:~N'\\b~ (o{li~~iCln
~~
'\.
Credit Valley Conservation
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation
Toronto and Region Conservation
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Central Lake Ontar10 Conservation
Kawartha Conservation
Ganaraska Region Conservation
Otonabee Conservation
Lower Trent Conservat1on
September 14, 2001
Oak Ridges Mo_raine Consultations
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Faxed to
(416) 585-4245
Dear Minister Hodgson:
RE: Share Your Vision for the Oak RidQes Moraine
The Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMe) is pleased to respond to the
recommendations of the provincially appointed Advisory Panel, as contained in the document
titled Share Your Vision for the Oak Ridges Moraine. The CAMC was formed in early 2000 by
the nine Conservation Authorities with watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Its mission is to
advance the science and understanding of the Oak Ridges Moraine and to work towards
government, agency and community support for the conservation and protection of the form,
function and linkages of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM).
Since its inception the Coalition has hired a senior planner to coordinate its administrative and
planning/policy activities and a senior hydrogeologist to lead the groundwater management
strategy being undertaken on behalf of the Regional Municipalities of York, Peel and Durham.
CAMC members (general managers/CAOs of the individual authorities) and staff have been
fully involved in and supportive of the Tri-Region initiative to protect the ORM. The Coalition's
broader geographic base has also allowed it to engage municipalities in the eastern and
northern sections of the ORM in discussions of policy directions and scientific studies required
to protect the moraine. Several meetings have been held with municipal staff and politicians in
this regard in the Counties of Peterborough, Northumberland, Simcoe and the City of Kawartha
Lakes. In summary, we believe the Coalition's broad geographic but local and science-based
watershed management approaches bring a valuable and unique perspective to our
comments on the subject document.
In general the CAMC is supportive of the overall direction of the plan and optimistic that a
number of clarifications and refinements we are proposing to the document will form the basis
for a long term strategy to strongly protect the Oak Ridges Moraine.
The CAMC is supportive of the following general elements of the Plan:
152
. That the plan will be an ecologically based plan.
. That specific legislation is being proposed to govern the future of the moraine.
. The commitment to increasing the amount of publicly owned lands on the ORM.
. Provincial creation and funding of an ORM Legacy Trust.
. Concentrating growth in well-defined settlement areas.
. Recognition that a number of issues not dealt with by the Advisory Panel need to be
addressed through ongoing discussions i.e. establishing sustainable water management
approaches and policies, developing performance measures and creating implementation
guidelines to help provide certainty to the planning process.
The CAMC recommends strengthening the plan in the following areas:
. A greater emphasis on the protection of water resources, the functions necessary to sustain
them and the requirements for and funding of watershed studies.
. The incorporation of a holistic vision, goals and objectives for each designation to elevate
the recommended land use plan to a long term strategy.
. Greater clarity and detail in issues of implementation.
. Recognition of the role conservation authorities and municipalities will play through the land
use planning process in delivering the science, standards and means of refining the
boundaries for the moraine and for the designations proposed within the moraine.
We provide the following detailed comments for your consideration to strengthen or clarify the
initial recommendations of the Advisory Panel.
Page 3
Smart Growth and ORM
The three pillars of Smart Growth are identified as "sustain a strong economy, build strong
communities and promote a healthy environment." The language ("promote") reflects less of a
commitment to the environment than to the economy or communities and should be
strengthened. We also believe that a healthy environment should not be one of three pillars,
but rather the foundation required to support strong communities and a strong economy.
Further, the Smart Growth concepts of intensification and redevelopment of brownfield lands in
existing urban areas needs to be recognized as one of the primary means to control urban
sprawl on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Pg.4
Role of Linkages
The first paragraph identifying the ORM's role in linking greenlands systems within
south-central Ontario does not capture the true significance of the ORM in this regard. Its role
in linking green lands is much broader than south-central Ontario. It functions as a provincial
scale corridor to maintain biodiversity through connections with the Niagara Escarpment in the
west and a proposed "A to A" (Algonquin to Adirondack) linkage in the east. There needs to be
greater recognition of the moraine's potential as an inter-regional large scale east-west
biological corridor and its importance for biodiversity conservation.
153
Conversely, it needs to be recognized that the Core Areas and Linkages shown at the"
landscape scale" on the map centerfold, are not the only core areas or linkages on the ORM.
Numerous locally significant features and functions throughout the Countryside and Settlement
Area designations are not shown on the map but do exist and function as core areas and
linkages and require recognition and protection of their values and functions.
Pg.5
Vision and Goals
While generally supportive of the Vision and Goals for the moraine as a whole, the Vision is
incomplete as it lacks a tie-in with provincial Smart Growth objectives. A vision of the ORM
functioning as a provincial scale corridor for biodiversity conservation and as an urban
separator of "south slope communities" (urbanization on the Lake Ontario shores) from "north
slope communities" (the Guelph to Peterborough band of communities noted on page 3)
should be considered.
Consideration should be given to adding a new goal to "advance the science and
understanding of the moraine through public agency, private sector and community support
for the conservation and enhancement of the form, function and linkages of the Oak Ridges
Moraine" .
Additionally, the Goals should be re-ordered and prioritized such that water resources
protection is the primary goal for the ORM.
Draft Strategy for Community Growth and Natural Protection
The ordering of the strategy components in the title is reversed considering this is supposed to
be an ecologically based land use plan. The document should take an "Environment First"
approach and should thus be re-titled as a draft strategy for Natural Areas Protection and
Community Growth (or Natural Areas Protection and Sustainable Communities).
Land Use Designations
The CAMC suggests that each of the four land use designations should have its own Vision
and Goals/Objectives, similar to municipal official plans, which generally have distinct goals
and objectives in addition to distinct policies for each topic area dealt with in the official plan.
This will help to guide decisions on permitted uses and proposed policies to govern specific
land uses, as detailed on page 8, and serve as a guide for monitoring programs and the
establishing of performance indicators.
One of the goals for the ORM is to maintain or enhance its ecological functions, yet the two
protective land use designations (Cores and Linkages) are features based and not defined
functionally, as per the goal. This should be rectified with a stronger emphasis on the
protection and restoration of environmental functions.
We are pleased that a recommendation has been made to roughly double the amount of
publicly owned lands on the ORM to 12% and suggest that this figure should represent the
minimum amount of land that should be in public ownership.
154
Portions of the western end of the moraine overlap with the Niagara Escarpment. The issue of
overlapping, dual or conflicting designations should be discussed and verified with the
appropriate agencies.
Permitted Uses
1) Natural Core Areas (NCA)
As stated above, a specific vision, goals and objectives for these lands should be formulated.
One example of a science based objective for the NCA should be to minimize the edge effect
from these lands in order to maximize their value as primary wildlife habitats and population
sources.
We generally agree with the uses proposed subject to the following.
. Agricultural uses should not be singled out specifically as a permitted use. Existing
agricultural uses are captured by the first bullet and so need not be mentioned again
specificall~ If its inclusion refers to "new" agricultural uses in Natural Core Areas, this could
mean the clearing of forested land for grazing or crops or the establishment of intensive
agricultural operations (such as hog barns) in sensitive recharge areas. This would be
unacceptable and so the specific reference to agricultural uses should be removed or
clarified.
. Several active Conservation Areas are included within the Natural Core Areas designation.
Small scale resource-based educational and accessory facilities should also be included as
an example of a permitted use included within "minor recreation".
Page 8
2) Natural Linkage Areas (NLA)
As stated above, we suggest a new vision be formulated for these lands which should be to
enhance and restore them to Natural Core Areas over time. Goals and objectives could
therefore be to focus efforts in these areas for enhancement, restoration and securement.
We agree that all uses as proposed for Natural Core Areas (as amended) can be permitted in
Natural Linkage Areas. The CAMC, however, disagrees with the "carte blanche" provisions for
new aggregate extraction in the NLA. We agree that existing operations can continue. We
agree that contiguous expansions to existing operations could be considered subject to
performance criteria (which still need to be defined). We submit that in general, no new
aggregate operations should be permitted in NLA (in accordance with a new vision and goals
for this section) unless subject to strict criteria (See page 6, Mineral Aggregates). Wayside pits
should also not be permitted in NLA as there should be no need for them due to the "general
prohibition" of roads and public utilities in natural areas (pg. 9 of "Share Your Vision").
3) Countryside Areas
Again, a vision, goals and objectives for this designation needs to be formulated to assist in
determining appropriate permitted uses in this designation. We understand that the Advisory
Panel has since clarified its position on several of the proposed permitted uses and provide our
response accordingly.
155
We agree that rural residential subdivisions should not be a permitted use in this designation.
We agree that new and expanded aggregate operations and wayside pits should be a
permitted use as should major recreation provided that it is resource based and in keeping
with the character of the rural countryside.
We understand that "rural commercial, institutional and industrial" uses has since been clarified
by the Advisory Panel to mean accessory or related uses to permitted rural uses such as
agriculture, forestry and aggregate extraction. Since the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
provides that rural areas are to be the "focus of resource activity, resource based recreational
activity and other rural uses", we agree with this clarification provided sufficient regulations are
in place with respect to performance standards related to the protection of water resources and
adequate buffering from terrestrial environmental features and functions.
We note that several Regional or County official plans designate some lands within the
proposed Countryside Areas designation as Prime Agricultural Areas (PM), pursuant to the
PPS. These lands contribute to the amount of pervious land surface within the various
watersheds on the ORM and are significant contributors to ensuring adequate recharge to
groundwater aquifers which supply base flow to streams. The protection policies for PM
currently found in municipal official plans must not be superceded by the provincial plan where
the level of protection in the provincial plan is less than that currently found in municipal plans.
Hamlets and villages do not seem to be accounted for in the Plan. They represent a significant
countryside resource and rural character that should be maintained. It should be determined if
hamlets and villages should be categorized within the Countryside or Settlement Area
designation, or a separate designation of their own, and appropriate specific policies and
development criteria should be formulated. Hamlets and villages should be identified and
mapped at the appropriate scale and firm boundaries established.
Another type of use often found in the countryside has also not been dealt with in the Advisory
Panel recommendations: adult lifestyle/retirement communities and resort recreational (golf
course) communities. These types of uses should be considered as rural residential and not
permitted. Additionally, no guidance has been provided on how to deal with the lake front strip
development that has been occurring along Rice Lake.
The greater range and intensity of uses permitted in this designation should require that
comprehensive subwatershed studies and planning be undertaken prior to any significant
development or resource use occurring.
4) Settlement Areas
CAMC agrees that the full range of uses permitted within urban areas is acceptable provided
comprehensive subwatershed studies and planning has been undertaken and appropriate
performance standards formulated.
Proposed Policies to Govern Specific Land Uses
Existing Land Uses - there needs to be specific performance measures in place and sufficient
baseline data collected to determine negative effects to the moraine's ecological integrity.
156
Water - the "direction of flow" is an issue that also needs to be addressed.
This section should reference the watershed/subwatersheds as the management unit for
studying and protecting water resources.
We agree that a long term monitoring program should be established as the basis for informing
future land use decisions. There needs to be clear direction as to the intended purpose of the
monitoring and the targets to achieve so that adaptive measures can be implemented based
on the monitoring results.
CAMC agrees with the proposed "cap" on issuing of new water taking permits until such time
as water budget studies have been completed for individual watersheds.
Mineral Aggregates - policies should conform to a new vision and goals for Natural
Core/Linkage Areas i.e. existing operations in Core Areas/Linkages should be worked out and
rehabilitated to a naturalized state in a timely manner; no new extraction in Core areas; a
preference for no new extraction in Linkage areas but strict conditions if it is to be permitted,
such as: active- areas must not exceed 25% of the width of the linkage based on. progressive
rehabilitation occurring; no permanent dewatering should be permitted; upon completion lands
should be re-naturalized and revert to public ownership; a higher and graduated system of
royalties should be applied.
There should be a requirement to complete subwatershed studies prior to any new aggregate
extraction taking place in any designation on the ORM.
A separate subsection with examples of proposed permitted uses is required for Rural.
Commercial. Institutional and Industrial uses to clearly define what is appropriate for the
Countryside designation.
Maior Recreation and Settlement Areas - since a long term monitoring program is proposed to
be established as the basis for informing future land use decisions by local and regional
governments, no expansions to existing settlement boundaries and no new major recreational
uses should be permitted until such time as an extensive database of baseline water resources
information has been collected. This should be undertaken as part of a comprehensive
subwatershed planning exercise.
Page 9
Ecological Constraints to Development
While we agree with the list of significant features where no development would be permitted,
the concept of protecting valuable ecological terrestrial FUNCTIONS needs to be
strengthened.
"Adjacent lands" also needs to be defined or redefined. If the PPS definition is proposed, it
again is features based and not functions based.
More specific performance standards need to be developed, especially as they relate to water.
Proposed Development Criteria
Water and Sewage Servicing - the area-wide water resources studies referred to should be
termed "watershed or subwatershed studies" and should be fundable through development
charges or the Legacy Trust in a timely manner. Direction is required with respect to communal
services.
157
Storm Water Servicing - to "strive" to protect water quality, prevent flooding, etc. is not strong
enough. This should be required. CAMC does not support engineered infiltration of storm
water to support urbanization on the ORM nor do we support the use of dry valleys or
intermittent streams to receive storm water management flows.
Roads and Public Utilities - the "natural areas" referred to should be specifically referred to as
the Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas.
In this age of privatization and deregulation this prohibition should also be extended to cover
new privately owned roads and utilities.
400-series Highways - we agree that if the goal of the plan is to limit population growth and
settlements on the ORM, there should be limited need for interchanges on the ORM.
Municipal Policies - "Where municipal official plans, zoning or regulatory by-laws conflict with
the provincial policy, the provincial policy would apply." It needs to be made clear that
municipalities may have policies in their official plans which go beyond the level of protection
envisioned by the provincial plan. This should be done in such a way as to prevent continuous
appeals to the OMS.
Urban Expansion - We support the recommendation that the Province retain approval authority
for expansions into the Countryside designation and that this would have to be accomplished
through an amendment to the provincial legislation. We reiterate, however, that the principles
of the plan should discourage new settlement areas on the ORM, in conjunction with a
provincial smart growth strategy. The build out of lands currently approved for development
within existing settlement boundaries should be based on completed subwatershed plans. This
provision should apply to villages and hamlets as well as the mapped settlement areas.
Buffers - specific direction with respect to buffering of natural features and functions from
development should be provided. The proposal from the Tri-Region initiative, such as
establishing a minimum buffer (Le. 30m) with the inclusion of specific criteria to define where
and when functionally greater buffers and supporting studies are required, should be
considered. This is especially necessary where mapped major river valleys (shown on the map
as "connecting lands" seem to loose any status once they enter within the boundary of the
ORM.
Page 10
Implementing a Moraine Strategy
We support the creation of an ORM Legacy Trust, its rationale and functions. We suggest,
however, that a long term comprehensive monitoring program should be a key element for
funding by the trust as it is necessary to provide the baseline data to establish thresholds and
inform future decision making, assess negative impacts, cumulative effects and structure
appropriate performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the Plan.
With respect to funding research, monitoring and data acquisition, the funding of a timely and
accessible means of distributing the data to municipalities, agencies and the public should also
be included.
158
It should be clarified that the Conservation Authorities' role in a financial partnership would be
as a recipient of funds to manage lands, to carry out studies and monitoring and to undertake
educational, securement and stewardship initiatives. The funding structure of Conservation
Authorities does not enable them to contribute money to the Legacy Trust.
The CAMC supports environmental levies on moraine-based developments as only a minor
funding source for the Legacy Trust with the caution that this be structured as a disincentive to
develop on the ORM and not as an encouragement to develop to provide funding for the Trust.
In addition, this type of levy could also be assessed to aggregate extraction operations on a
graduated scale such that increases to the existing level of royalties paid on a per tonne basis
would be relative to whether the resource is being extracted from Countryside, Linkage or Core
lands.
We agree that incentives should be provided to landowners to properly manage their
environmentally sensitive lands. We caution, however, that property tax reductions could be
problematic for municipalities in the eastern sections of the ORM due to their existing low levels
of development and assessment revenues.
Page 11
Roles and Responsibilities
We generally agree with the assigned roles and responsibilities, especially for conservation
authorities, subject to the following comments.
The provincial role in providing and managing a natural heritage and water resources data
warehouse service must also include the responsibility and capability to distribute or make
accessible to stakeholders the information in a timely manner. Alternatively, this is an area
where one of the three Regions may assume this responsibility for the GT A portion of the
moraine and coordinate with the Province for the eastern/northern portion of the ORM.
It needs to be emphasized that the Conservation Authorities proposed roles for securing and
managing key lands, carrying out studies and monitoring and supporting stewardship
activities, etc. needs to be supported with an ongoing and consistent source of funding.
Page 12
Issues Pending Further Discussion
We agree with the list of issues proposed for further discussion and look forward to
participating as these issues are addressed. Additional issues to discuss include:
. a process for amending the mapping as new information becomes available to fill data
gaps.
. The lack of development pressures in the municipalities of the eastern ORM and how the
proposed land use designations may affect them.
. How Hamlets and Villages will be accounted for in the Plan.
. The need to assign responsibility for an overall "Plan Keeper" to assess compliance,
successes, failures and initiate improvements. An ORM secretariat within the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing has been suggested and we agree with this.
. A means of transition from the previous planning regime to the new regime such that
applications in progress at the time of the moratorium do not undermine the intent of the
new plan.
159
. Provision should be made in the new provincial plan such that existing approved municipal
policy at a higher level of protection than the new provincial plan, is deemed to be
grandfathered and not subject to future OMS challenges to reduce its standards to the
lower level which may be contained in the provincial plan.
Mapping
The scale of the mapping is too small to be able to determine the accuracy of the lines
depicting the separate proposed designations and what features or functions may be included
within them. Conservation Authorities would appreciate receiving larger scale maps or the
digital data and criteria for defining the lines to enable this assessment and judge potential
impacts or errors.
The locations and per cent of settlement areas shown on the map is misleading as this does
not include hamlets and villages such as Kettleby, Pottageville, Albion, Palgrave and others.
Including some of the large estate enclaves such as the lands designated for the Palgrave
estates would put the settlement areas at greater than 9% of ORM lands. This should be
corrected.
The provincial plan should depict the boundary lines at the general scale they are currently
shown. Provision should be made in the legislation for fine tuning of the lines, according to
consistent standards, in municipal planning documents based on local studies and data as
provided to municipalities by conservation authorities.
Where the river valleys shown as "connecting lands" enter within the ORM boundary they are
reduced to a thin black line. They should be designated either as Natural Core Area/Natural
Linkage Area and shown in the appropriate colour or be shown with the "buffering green" of
the Connecting Lands designation.
Summary
Conservation Authorities are the largest land owners on the Oak Ridges Moraine. It is
appropriate that we playa significant role in the acquisition, stewardship, study, monitoring
and management of additional lands on the ORM, as envisioned in the recommended plan.
Conservation Authorities have the watershed based programs and policies and experienced
scientific and technical staff to undertake this work. With proper funding of and support from
the proposed Legacy Trust, Conservation Authorities are prepared and eager to play their part
in the long term protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine. We look forward to further opportunities
for consultation as the plan progresses through to legislation.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Linda Laliberte
General Manager, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Chair, Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition
Cc Bryan Tuckey, Region of York
Alex Georgieff, Region of Durham
Nick Tunnacliffe, Region of Peel
Coalition members
160
RES.#D51/01 -
CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
146-152 Humbervale Boulevard and 835 Royal York Road Erosion
Control Projects, Mimico Creek Watershed, City of Toronto. Construction
of the erosion control works at the rear of 146-152 Humbervale
Boulevard and 835 Royal York Road, City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Dick O'Brien
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with the
construction of the erosion control works at the rear of 146-152 Humbervale Boulevard
and 835 Royal York Road, City of Toronto, under the "City of Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total budget of $150,000 subject to
receipt of all necessary approvals.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In the 1970's serious erosion was occurring atthe rears of the homes at 146-164 Humbervale
Boulevard and 835 Royal York Road City of Etobicoke. In 1982 the Conservation Authority,
under the Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto 1982-1984,
constructed a wire gabion basket retaining wall to address the erosion issue. The gabion
baskets were specifically constructed to stop the undercutting from water flow during storm
events. When the walls were constructed the eight benefitting property owners contributed
money towards the cost of the wall and provided a permanent easement to the parcel of land
on which the remedial work was carried out. In May 2000, during a major storm event, a
section of the gabion baskets failed and toppled into the watercourse. The section of gabion
baskets failed due to the progressive deterioration of the wire holding the lower tier of baskets
together. As the baskets failed, the gabion stone was progressively lost allowing the force of
water flow in the creek to undermine the overall wall. At present the coincident valley slope is
being eroded by the water flow in Mimico Creek during each storm event and staff is of the
opinion that some of the homes are at imminent risk and require remedial works to be carried
out.
In the spring of this year, Aquafor Beech were instructed to carry out the design of the remedial
works at the rears of 146-164 Humbervale Boulevard and 835 Royal York Road and assess the
condition of the remaining standing gabion basket retaining wall. The design followed the
Class Environmental Assessment process for erosion and flood control works. An open
house/public meeting was held in May at which time the consultants presented an overview of
their study findings and alternatives for remedial works. Public input from this meeting, in
addition to questionnaires that were returned by individuals who attended the meeting,
assisted the consultants in the assessment of the preferred option. Input on the project was
requested from representatives from the approval/commenting agencies. These included the
Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Toronto Parks Department, and the Federal Department
of Fisheries and Oceans. The preferred option is the construction of an arm our stone retaining
wall at the base of the existing slope.
161
RATIONALE
The 146-152 Humbervale Boulevard, 835 Royal York Road site has been identified in the "City
of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project" as a priority based on the information
gathered through the Authority's ongoing erosion monitoring program.
The Authority's goal through this project is to:
"Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley
walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the valley and
lakefront settings"
Several of the key objectives outlined in the Authority's Erosion Control and Lake Ontario
Shoreline Program are:
(1) to implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public
and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion;
(2) to implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect
the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats
adversely affected by the erosion;
(3) to design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach
for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access
adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and
enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources;
(4) to acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of
remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property;
(5) to secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and
where the lands are valuable additions to the green space systems;
(6) to protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated
terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and
(7) to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other
environmental protection legislation.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The remedial works consist of constructing an arm our stone retaining wall which includes
fisheries enhancement structures and extensive planting above the wall. Attached are the
design drawings for the projects,
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Aquafor Beech Limited, in conjunction with staff, developed a cost estimate of $150,000 for the
proposed armour stone remedial works.
162
Since the owners of 146-152 Humbervale Boulevard and 835 Royal York Road contributed
towards the original project in 1982, the owners will not be required to contributed to
replacement of the remedial works.
Account No. 167-01 has been set up for this project and funds are available from the City of
Toronto within the Authority's approved capital budget.
For Information contact: Jim Tucker, extension 5247
Date: August 30, 2001
Attachments: 3
163
,0 I
r
,I a ! I z?: :3
l!!
~;I z D I' 015
f ! Ii 11 G", r:,~
U: ........
I 0::> ....%
"1 I Q< 5~
". Zz
m -<~ -<
ON
f2~ u:J
f;- ;fiD
I,i~ 150: :i~
"'Ill III
UH~ gz
,.
,.
...
,
\
,
p'. ..---
000 Q
o
~.-). \..~ 0 0
.~><~ .,--\ . .,.. \ ~
_,._ "': ., 0 /'
164
Attachment 2
\,,\.\t\l~ht\\
, \ \ \\ ~ \\ ~ '\ ~ 'i ~1 ~l ~ t
\ "\,~' \ \\ 1\' \ \q\\ \ \
. \\ \ t'~. ~,~ ". . ~.
~~ ~\ Il,ta IJ ~t6 f~ h\
I .l\.\\\\\\\\\\i\\\ I
~ ~ ~\\.. ~ ~. .,., . .,
~
a,
, \\t
,,;, \,a
,~,
\\~
~1~
-"
ill' f W
, \. l: i'
~ ~ ,~ \\ ~n t\ ~
I \~ ~% · \
i \1 \~
1~I~X
,
.
~U\\
"'-,
...... ..." P"-:':'
,~ !;:~..
~.. ....
,.,:~~ ~~.',:l.
"':". .
'.-~ ':\
, .'
"
.'
...~
......
, .'
'.
'\65
Attachment 3
,111!!b;r!il!d~1 Ii
I hi ~! i I~ ,~i Ii i fr III ~ I i
; i!! I~ni;ij:: iil~li R~. ~ ~k
IhI11i1.! 1:j1:IIC.ihl!': ~I ~
I ~~~!~~!~~~~~~ ~U I
~~... .... ..... ,.,,....(,..-~ .~-..-:,.
166
(t
,-
~il
II'
,:1
II:
I!i,
I,!I:
811I
. .; :..... ...~ ---.::-, .
;: J-; ! I I" . i I I I f I f J i J:;. I
"... "i"T'r-j'T~:'lT".i:""'Tr,T-"'IIM ....
- ': lll' ; i : I ! ' ' IJ I : . ! II ' : , 'Ij , : ' .!
"ll.III,' ,l,t fIlii dll'l'" ,
" . I, I, I . I . I .
1-' r' . r' I.. - . j ,-, 'I~- I. I"''"' .
. "I' ~ : I" I, 11,1' II: II l'l'i '.
- '. I" ;,' 'I 1'1 "" B ": '
'-, i-; II ifj~l-rl-~~lll: I d I~ d '.JI'~ ~ q
"' I' II . ' , fl' I ,I .', I" ~ "
. ! i:, :':I:~~II ,:ll:I~.lt ;':, ~
(1IrL.~. . _\. It ,. I... ....- ~
" . '. . " to.
, - .t
i
'"
I
...
RES.#D52/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
EARTH CHARTER
The Earth Charter is a helpful framework to further explore sustainability
in relation to the Living City Campaign and the TRCA. The Earth Charter
recognizes that humanity's environmental, economic, social, and spiritual
challenges are interrelated and require holistic thinking and integrated
problem solving. It provides a much-needed fresh, broad conception of a
sustainable way of life and of sustainable development. The Earth
Charter Secretariat is seeking endorsements from individuals and
organizations to secure endorsement of the Charter by the United
Nations General Assembly at the World Summit for Sustainable
Development (Rio+ 1 0) in 2002.
Pam McConnell
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to explore the
Earth Charter as a framework for sustainability, including discussions with the Authority's
municipal partners and constituents as appropriate, and report back to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board by December 2001.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Efforts to develop a set of principles for ecological security began at the United Nations
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. Since then many groups and
coalitions have made valuable contributions to the articulation of principles and values needed
for sustainable development. In 1987, The Brundtland Commission called for a new charter "to
consolidate and extend relevant legal principles to guide State behaviour in the transition to
sustainable development."
The Earth Charter was one of the expected outcomes of the Earth Summit, held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. It was to have formed the ethical foundation upon which Agenda 21 and the
other Rio documents were to have been based. The call for such a document caught the
imagination of individuals and organizations around the world, as well as some governments.
During the two years leading up to and including the Earth Summit, NGOs and government
delegations from around the world worked on elements of the Charter. Still, governments could
not reach agreement on an Earth Charter and instead adopted the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, which valuable as it was, did not meet the expectations of a
Charter.
Following the Earth Summit, two international NGOs, the Earth Council and Green Cross
International, with the support of the Dutch Government, joined forces with others to pursue the
development of an Earth Charter. In May 1995, they co-sponsored a meeting in The Hague
where some 60 representatives, from various groups and countries, met and proposed a broad
consultation process, which would lead to a universally acceptable Charter. This meeting also
addressed the main elements such a Charter should have. Following recommendations of this
meeting, an overview of principles of environmental conservation and sustainable development
articulated in international law documents and related reports was compiled in a report called
Principles of Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development: Summary and Survey
to form a guide for the consultation process.
167
Between 1996 and 1997, initial consultations were held worldwide among international
organizations and interested groups. In early 1997, an Earth Charter Commission, composed
of distinguished individuals from every continent, was formed to oversee the drafting and
consultation process. During the Rio+5 Forum in March 1997, the Commission proposed a
"Benchmark Draft" based on the initial consultation and a review of previous efforts since 1972
to serve as a guide for further consultation to develop a people's Earth Charter.
Although endorsement of the Earth Charter by the United Nations remains an important
objective, the consultations were intended to serve as a powerful force for change in addition to
improving the initial Benchmark Draft.
This process also supported and still supports as well as complements the IUCN Draft
International Covenant on Environment and Development, particularly by highlighting its
fundamental ethical foundations.
Explore the Earth Charter website for more information: http://www.earthcharter.org
RATIONALE
Over the past decade the international Earth Charter Initiative conducted a world wide, cross
cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values. Hundreds of organizations and
thousands of individuals participated. Guided by this global conversation, the Initiative drafted
the Earth Charter as a people's declaration that gives expression to an emerging global
consensus on fundamental values and principles for a just and sustainable world.
The Earth Charter seeks to promote awareness of the major challenges and choices facing
humanity. It recognizes that in the midst of great diversity we live in an increasingly
interdependent world and that a global partnership involving civil society, business, and
government is essential. It is an urgent call for the changes in life style, institutional practice,
and public policy required to protect the larger living world and to ensure a better future for all.
Mission
The mission of this phase of the Earth Charter Initiative is to establish a sound ethical
foundation for the emerging global society and to help build a sustainable world based on
respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.
Objectives
The objectives of the Earth Charter Initiative are:
. To disseminate the Earth Charter to individuals and organizations in all sectors of society
throughout the world.
. To promote the educational use of the Earth Charter in schools, universities, faith
communities, and a variety of other settings, and to develop and distribute the necessary
supporting materials.
. To encourage and support the use, implementation, and endorsement of the Earth Charter
by civil society, business, and government at all levels.
. To seek endorsement of the Earth Charter by the United Nations General Assembly in
2002, the tenth anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit.
168
Uses of The Earth Charter
Many organizations and communities are finding that there are a variety of interrelated ways to
utilize the Earth Charter and to implement its values. The Earth Charter can be used as:
. an educational tool for developing understanding of the critical choices facing humanity
and the urgent need for commitment to a sustainable way of life;
. an invitation to individuals, institutions, and communities for internal reflection on
fundamental attitudes and ethical values governing behaviour;
. a catalyst for multi-sectoral, cross-cultural, and interfaith dialogue on global ethics and the
direction of globalization;
. a call to action and guide to a sustainable way of life that can inspire commitment,
cooperation, and change;
. an integrated ethical framework for creating sustainable development policies and plans at
all levels;
. a values framework for assessing progress towards sustainability and for designing
professional codes of conduct and accountability systems; and
. a soft law instrument that provides an ethical foundation for the ongoing development of
environmental and sustainable development law.
Education
The Earth Charter is a valuable and timely educational resource and the Earth Charter Initiative
is giving top priority to its Education Program. A range of educational materials for all ages will
be developed and disseminated in order to promote understanding of fundamental challenges
and choices, the values and principles contained in the Earth Charter, and how the Earth
Charter can be used to help bring about the transformations necessary to attain a more
sustainable way of living. Teachers and educational administrators at all levels will be provided
opportunities to learn how to utilize these materials and to train others. A special advisory
committee on education has been created.
a) Primary and Secondary School
Curriculum materials, classroom work sheets, and teacher training resources are being
developed. In partnership with education organizations, these materials will be disseminated
widely. As a first step, an "Earth Charter Resource Booklet for Children's Education" will be
completed and published. Earth Charter curricula for children and youth have already been
developed and utilized in Costa Rica, Australia, and Italy, and these materials will serve as a
resource for the proposed booklet.
b) Higher Education
Resources for college-level curricula on the Earth Charter will be developed and disseminated.
Courses related to the Earth Charter and sustainable development are being prepared by
University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, working with UNESCO and drawing upon material
currently under development by various education partners, including the National University of
Costa Rica, Australian National University, and Hendrix College in Arkansas.
c) Informal Education and Lifelong Learning
An Earth Charter Facilitator's Kit, which is designed to assist individuals in conducting
workshops on the Earth Charter in NGOs, faith communities, and other organizations, will be
completed and distributed.
169
Business and Civil Society
Increasing numbers of people and organizations are embracing the Earth Charter as a guide
and accountability framework. Endorsements and sector appropriate implementation plans will
be pursued in a variety of areas including the following.
a) Business and Professional Accountability
This program will promote use of the Earth Charter by businesses and professions. One aim is
to encourage professional groups to revise their codes of conduct to better reflect the values
and principles of the Earth Charter, as exemplified by the World Federation of Engineering
Organizations. Another aim is to promote the Earth Charter as a values framework that can be
used to develop a sound ethic of social and ecological responsibility in the business
community. In this regard, the Earth Charter principles are directly relevant to current debates
about global capitalism and the impact of trade on local communities and the environment.
The formation of a business advisory committee is under consideration. Ways to use Earth
Charter principles to promote sustainability certification and labelling and programs for
ecologically and socially responsible investing are being explored in Australia and the United
States.
b) Religion and Spirituality
The program on Religion and Spirituality will continue to encourage use of the Earth Charter in
interfaith dialogues on shared values and will promote the incorporation of Earth Charter values
into the teaching of spiritual and religious groups. The Earth Charter can be used to advance
participation by the religions in the global partnership for a just, sustainable, and peaceful
future. A special Earth Charter advisory committee on religion and spirituality has been
created.
c) Youth
Youth are an integral part of the Earth Charter process. Agenda 21 and Principle 12.c of the
Earth Charter call for special attention to youth. While much of the Initiative's education material
targets youth, participation of this major group will be further facilitated through: a)
partnerships with major youth networks to encourage use of the Earth Charter in their work as
active agents of change; and b) holding Youth Earth Charter forums and workshops.
d) Indigenous Peoples
Over the past two decades, indigenous peoples have been an increasingly influential voice in
international discussions of environmental protection and sustainable development. Earth
Charter Principle 12 gives special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples in connection
with environmental justice issues. The Initiative will, therefore, continue to collaborate with
indigenous peoples' groups in its efforts to help build a global partnership in support of a just
and sustainable world.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. The TRCA will explore opportunities to use the Earth Charter within its programs and outreach
strategies. This will involve answering a number of questions such as:
170
. How the Earth Charter acts as a framework for sustainability for the TRCA and some of it's
major partners, including the City of Toronto's Sustainability Roundtable.
. Level of interest of the partners in pursuing their own endorsement of the Charter.
. How the framework relates to or supports TRCA programs such as education, our
involvement in smart growth and the Centre for Sustainable Living at Kortright.
. How the Charter might assist watershed councils in their work.
. Opportunities for community engagement on sustainability through the use of the Charter.
. Whether AMO or FCM are involved with this initiative.
. Funding opportunities that arise from TRCA connections to global initiatives and
international sustainability initiatives.
FUTURE BENEFITS
The Earth Charter supports and enhances the Conservation Foundation's Living City
Campaign. Sustainability is identified as a core theme stemming from the Living City Vision:
rRCA is a leader in making a Living City Region with healthy rivers and shorelines, biodiversity
supported by a network of greenspace and people committed to sustainable living. Sustainable
Living Through Education is identified as one of the three primary objectives of the organization
in our 2001 business plan. It is also a priority of the Earth Charter. The TRCA's sustainability
education platform's priority actions include:
. Creating a Centre for Sustainable Living at Kortright Centre for Conservation,...to promote
sustainable practices...,
. Expanding environmental and sustainability education opportunities for TRCA employees.
. Integrating the new TRCA website with international educational initiatives which promote
environmental sustainability.
Given these relationships there is a strategic benefit to aligning with the Earth Charter in order
to further pursue sustainability in the TRCA.
For Information contact: Lisa King, extension 5386
Date: September 06, 2001
Attachments: 1
171
Attachment 1
it, 8'''1
~:. :f.
<.'
"THE EARTH CHARTER INITIATIVE
For lMr a decade dim-se groups rhroughout the world have
endeavored 10 c-ie an Earth 0Iarter that seta fonh funda-
menW principles for D sustainable way of Ufe. Hunclrcds of
Oltanizations and lbousancls of Individuals have been
involved.in the process. Rqmscolllli~ from ~
111II1 nongovaM1Clllll ~CllIS. ~ Ill.secure edop-
tiOll of an f!anh ~ cIuri(I& the Rio.Eanh Summit III
. ,
1992. However, the time was not rigbL A new Eanh 0Iatll::l'
InltIai1ve was IDunchcd In 1994 by MaurIce Strong, chair of
Ihc Eanh Council, and MikhaIl Oorbachcv, president of
,ci-n Cross 'In~mDlional. An Earth OIurttr Commission
. was ronncd in 1997 III 0_ the projcd. The scerctariDt for
lhe Commlsslon was established at the Eanh Counc:Il in
Cosra Rica.
The ftllll1 ~crsion of du: Eanh Charter WDS DPPro~
and released by the Eanh CIwter Comminion 1111 meeting
In PlIris In March. 2000. The doc:umcntls bcln~ Mulated
d1rou.gboUlthe ~ IS a peopIe'~ Il'Osty In in effort 10 I~pire
dillC\lssioll of flindaunental ethl~ IsSues and commltme~tlD
Daustll\nab1c' way of life..ltls lift effcdlve educational IXJoI
and c:an provide D w1ues framework for designins profes-
Ilonlll codea of conduct and sustainable clcvclopment plans.
The Eazth OIarter Commission will seck endorsement of tile
Earth Churttr by the United Nalions CJenerul Assembly In
2002. whicI\ Is the letIl!' anaimsary o~ the Rio Earth SummlL
(the re.tI afrhe Eanh Charrcrls tnclostd}
172
. tHE. EARTH CHARTER
. . .. - '.~ .
PREAMBLE ;.;:;.~~ .'
We lrand II a crilicalll10lDeJlt in Eanb's hiSlXll'}'. D lime when humanity
OlDIt choose III fubJrD. AI. the world becomes Inlnasingly intl:rdcpcnd-
ent and fragile.the fulUre.t onc:e bolda IJ'C8l penllllld sreat promile.
1b movo fanvard we l11ust recognize tII8f In the midst of &lIIO.gniticenl
divets\ty of cullll\'CS and life forms we are one hU1lllJ\ ~y and CllIC
l!artb community with & common destiny. We \I1IISl join Illp:ther III
bring forth D lustnlnable global society founded on respect for n.s.ture.
univenal human rights, economlc: Jusdce. and I culture 0( perwe.
'Ibwatds this end. it Is Imperative that. we. the peop1es of Eunh. declare
our responsibility to one another, to the greater communiI)' of Iif'e.
and to future p:ncrations, ,
I
Elrth, Qur Horn.
Humsnity Is p8l1' of & YllSt evolvins ~ EarIh, our'bome, Is 1lI1~
wi!h a unique conununll)' 0( life. The fOrc:es of ~ mala: existence .
a demanding 8nd uncertain advenll1l'e. but Earth bss plQ.Y1ded !he condi-
tions cssentiallO life'l evolution. The tislUence of Ihe COI1II1lIIult)' of
life and the well-bdoS of humanity depend upon preservlng,lI hmlthy
blo-sphem wilh all ~ ecoJosical sYllm1l, II riclt ,Y9rlety of planll and
animals, fcrtile soils. pure WI!cn- IIId cbn air. The sJobaI COvUollltlCllt
'wilh Its liailll rcsowtcs Is a c:ommonl:OllCZl1l'of in pcciples.. The protec-
lion 9f &rth'a vitality, diversity. ahcI beauty Is a I8Clllc1l1Ust.
TIll Global Sllulllon
The dominant pallerns of procluc;tion and consumplion lIrC cawing
environmental dew.stadon. the deplelion of n:sourc:es. IIlId . massiVe
extinctl.on of spec:les. ~mmlini~es are being undcnnined The bcnC!'lS
of development lIrC not shared equitably and the pp bcrwcen rich and
poor Is widening. lqJusric:e. poverty.lJnoranc:c. and vlolctu conRicl1ICC
widespread IIlId the c:iuse of zreat sufferlns. An unprcc:edenllld rise
in human population has oYOtburdcncd ecological and sodal sYltems,
The foundations' of Ilobal security III'll dveatencd. These trends lIrC
periloUl- but not lnevilllhle. .'
TIll Chanldgll Ahud
.The cboK:e is ours: form a glo~ partnership to ClIrC for <h and one
another or rilk !he,destruc:tlon of ourselv'cs and the divel1lty of life.
'Fundamenlll c:hanses an: needed Iii our values, iastiiulions, and ,:,a)'$
of \ivlnz, We must realize tII8f when basic: _ have been met. hUlllllll
devdoPlJlent Is prlmlIrlly aboot be1na more, not having more. We have
the knowledge and tec:bnology III provide for aU and ID reduce our
impacts on the environmenL The ~ of a global civil society
Is creating new opportunities to build a dcmllCl'llic and hUIl\lll1e world.
Our environmental, economic. political. social. IIl1d IplrituaJ cballenges'
IICC interc:on.necled. and together we can fOCle Inclusive solutions..
,
~. .
~. .:....f!i
':.';\: RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE
."'tt-.,; ,...-'
1. Respect Eerth and lIIe In all lis diversity.
a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every fotTII of
life has value regardless of irs worth 10 human beillllS.
b. Affinn faith in the inhelCllt dignity of all human beings and
in che intellccNal. artistic. elhical. and spirilllal polCnti:il of
humanity.
2. Care lor Ihe community ollila wllh understanding, compassion,
and lave.
a. Acceptlhat wich che right 10 own, manage. and use natural
resourccs comes che duty 10 prevent environmental harm and to
protect the rights of people.
b. Affinn thai wich increased freedom, knowledge, and power
comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.
3. Build democratic societies Ihat are lusl. participatory, sustainable,
and peacelul.
0.. Ensure that communities at all levels gUlU'lllltee human rights and
fundamental fRedoms and provide everyone an opponunity 10
realize his or her full polaltial.
b. Promote social and ecollOmiC justice. enabling all to achieve a
secure and meaningfu1liveUhood that is ecolog;cally responsible.
4. Secure Earth's baunly and buuly lor present and
luIure generations.
a. Recognize that llu: freedom of action of each generation is quali-
fied by the needs of fuNrc gencralions.
h. Transmit 10 fuNre generations values. traditions. and instiNtions
tho.t support the long-lenn flourishing of Earth's human and eco-
logical communitics.
In order 10 fulfill thcse fO\lr broad commlDllents. It is ncccs5llry to:
, II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
5. Protect and restore Ihe Integrity of Earth's ecologIcal systems, with
special concern lor biological dlverslly and the natural processes
that sustain lIIe.
a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations
that malce environmental conservation and rchabilillltion integral
to 0.11 developmentlnitlativcs.
b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reservcs.
including wild lands nnd marine areas. to protect Earth's
life suppon systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our
natural heritage.
c. Promote the recovery of endangeced specics and ecosystems.
d. Conll'ol and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organ-
is.ms hannfullO native species and the environment, and prevent
introduction of such harmful organisms.
173
e. Manage the use of renewable resourccs such as waler. soil. forest
products. and marine life in ways lhat do nOI exceed rutcs of
regeneration and thaI protect the health of ecosystems.
f. Manage llu: extraction and use of non-renewable resources such
as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion lIIId
cause no serious environmental damage.
6. Prevent IIarm as tha bast mathod olanvlronmental prolecllon and,
wllan knowledge Is limited, epply a precaullonary appraacll.
II. TaIce action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible envi-
ronmental h8rm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or
Inconclusive.
b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed
activity will not cause significant harm. and malce the responsible
parties liable for environmental harm.
c. Ensure chat decision making nddrcsses the cumulative. long-
tenn. indirect, tong distance, nnd globo.1 consequenccs of human
activities.
d. Prevent pollution of any part of llu: environment and allow no
build-up of cadioactive. toxic. or other hazardous substanCes.
e. Avoid military activitics domaging to the environment
7. Adopt pallarns 01 producllon, consumption, and reproduction Ihat
sale guard Earth's regenerative capacities, IIuman rights, end com-
munity well.belng. .
II. Reduce. reuse. and recycle the materials used in production and
consumption systems, and ensure that residual WDSte can be
assimilated by ecological systems.
b. N;t with restruint and efficiency when using energy. and rely
increasingly on renewnble energy sourccs such as solar and wind.
c. Promote the development, adoption. and equiloble lI'lUIsfer of
environmentally 50und technolog;es.
d. Internalize the full environmentll! and social com of goods and
services in the selUng price. and enable consumers 10 idenlify
products that meet the highest social and environmental SUIn-
dards.
e. Ensure universal access 10 health care that fosterS reproductive
health and responsible reproduction.
f. Adoptlifcstylcs thaI emphasize llu: quaUty of life and mBlCrial
sufficiency in a finite world.
8. Advance the sludy 01 ecologlcel suslelnablllly and promote Ilia
open excllange and wide application ollhe knowledge acqulrad.
a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on
sustaino.bility. with specio.l wnlion to the needs of developing
nations. .
b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual
wisdom in all cultures chat contribute to environmental prolection
lIIUI. IIuman well-being.
c. Ensure that infotTllation of vital importlllce to human healrh and
environmenllll protection. including genetic int'otTllation. remains
llvailable in the pu~lic domain.
'"IIi: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
:. ., ~.
9. Eradlcale poverty as an ethical, eaclal, and envlranmenlallmperalive.
a. Guarantee the right to potable waler, clean air. food security,
uncontaminated soU, shelter, and safe sanitntion, allocating the
national and inlemational resoulCes required.
! .." b. Empower every human being with the education and rcsOUlCes to
secure a sustainable livelihood. and provide social security lIl\d
snfcty nets for those who IIl'C unable to support themselves.
c. Recogniz= the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who
suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities llDd to pursue
their aspirations. '
10. Ensure Ihal economic acllvllles and Inslllullons al all levels pro-
mate human development In In equitable and suslalnable manner.
a.' Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations lIIId
among nations.
b. Enhance the intellectual, financial. technical, and social
rcsoulCes of developing nlllions, and relieve them of onerous
internationat debt.
c. Ensure that allll'adc suppons sustainable rcsoulCe use. environ-
mental protection, and progressive labor standards.
d. Require multinational corporations and intematio'nal fin8llCial
organizations to act transplll'Cndy in the public good. and hold
them accountable for the consequences of their activities.
11. Afllrm gendar equality and equity as prerequisites to suslalnable
development and ensura universal accass 10 educallon, heallh
cara, and economic opportunity,
n. Secure rhe human rights of women lIIId girls and end all violencr
against them.
b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of eco-
nomic. political. civil, social, lI1ld cultural life as full lI1ld eql\al
partners. decision rn.aIa:rs, lenden, and beneficiaries.
c. SlIcngthcn families WId ensure the safety and loving nUltUre of
all family members.
12. Uphold the rlghl 01 all, without discrimination, to a natural and
social envlranmenl supportive 01 human dignity, bOdily heallh, end
splrllual well-being, with special attention to the rlghls ollndlge-
naus peoples and mlnarllles. '
B. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms. such as that based on
race, color, sex, sc.,ual orientation, religion, language. ;md
nlllio~, ethnic or social origin.
b. Affinn the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowl-
edge. lands and resoulCes and to their relllb:d pr.ICtice of sustain-
able livelihoods.
c. Honor and support the young people of our conununities.
enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating susminable
societies. .
d. Protect and restore outsmnding places of cultural and spiritual
significance.
;' .0" .."
t.. ".
:I~:.DE~OCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE
. .':s. .I'
13. Strenglhen democratic InslIIutlons al all levels, and provide Irans-
parency and accaunlablllty In governance, Inclusive parllclpallon In
declslan making, and access ta Justice.
a. Uphold rhe right of evetyone to receive clear and timely infofT11lltion
on cnvironmentnl matlelS and all development plans and activities
which are likely to affect them or in which they have an intercsL
b. Support local, rcgionaland global civil society, and promote the
meaningful participlllion of nil interested individuals nnd organi-
zations in decision maldng.
c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, c.'tpression, peaceful
assembly, lISSocilllion, and dissenl
d. Institute effective and efficient access to adminisll'ative and inde-
pcndentjudicial procedun:s, including rcmc:dies and redress for
environmental hann lI1ld the threat of such harm.
e. Eliminate conuption in all public and private instilUtions,
f. Strengthen tocal conununitics, enabling them to ClI/'C for their envi-
ronments. and assign environmental responsibilities to the tevels 01"
govenunent where they can be ClIIried out most effectively.
14. Inlegrate Into larmaleducatlan and lIIe.long learnIng Ihe knowledge,
values, and skills neaded lar a sustainable way olllle.
a. Provide all. especinlly children and youth. wim educational
oppormnities that empower them to contribute actively to sustain-
able developmenl
b. Promote the conlribution of the IUU unci humanities lIS well as the
sciences in suslllinability cduclllion.
c. Enhance the role of the mass media in ruising awareness of eco-
logical and social challenges.
d. Recognize the importance 01" mo~ and spiriDlal education for
susminable living.
15. Treat all living beings with respect and consJderallan.
a. Prevent crueity to animals kept in human societies and prow:t
rhem from suffering.
b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, lI'apping. and
fishing that cause extreme, prolooged. or avoidable suffering.
c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or
desuuction of non-targeted species.
16. Prom ate a cullure 01 tolerance, nonviolence, a lid" peace.
Il. Encourage and suppon mutual undclStanding, solidarity, and
cooperation among all peQ(llcs and within and among nations.
b. Implement comprehensive suaregies to prevent violent conRict
and use coUaborlllive problem solving to manage and resolve
environmental conflicts and other disputcs.
c. Dcmiliwize national security systems to the level of a non-
provocative defense posture. end convert milituy reSOUlCes to
peaceful purposc.., including ecological restoration.
d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction.
e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space suppons environ-
mental prote~tion eod peace,
f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness crcated by right relation-
ships with oneself. other persons. other culturcs. olher life. Eanh,
and the larger whole 01" which all arc a pwt,
174
Unlversal Responsibility
To realize these :lSpir:ltions, we must decide to live with II sense of
universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth
community lIS well lIS our local communities. We arc at once citizens
of different nations I\1ld of one world in which the loc:J.Illlld global ore
linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-
being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of
human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we
live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the .gift of
life, IUld humility regarding the huml!ll place in nature.
We urgently need a shared vision of buic values to provide an
ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore,
together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles
for 11 sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the
conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments,
and tr:UISnational institutions is to be guided nnd usessed.
(see principles inside)
THE WAY FORWARO
As ncvcr before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new
beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles.
To fullill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote
the values and objectives of the Charter. .
This requires a change of mind and heart, It requires a new sense
oC global interdependence and universal responsibility. We mu.~t imagi-
natively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of liCe locally,
nationally, regionally, and globally, Our cultural diversily is a precious
heritage and different cultures willlind their own distinctive ways to
realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dio.1ogue that
generaled the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing
collaborative search for truth and wisdom.
Life often involves tensions between imponant values. This can
melln difficult choices. However, we mustlind ways to hnnnonize
diversity with unity. the exercise of freedom with the common good,
short-term objectives with long-term goals, Every individual, family,
organization, I\1ld community has a vital role to play. The artS, sciences,
religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental
organizations, and gQvernments u,re all cal1~d to offer creative leader-
ship. The partnership of government, tivil society, and business is
essential for effective governance.
In order to build II sustainable global community, the nations of
the world must renew their commitmenllo the United Nations. fulfill
their obligations under existing inter;national agreements, a.nd support
the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international
legally binding instrument on environment and development.
Let ours be a lime remembered for the awakening of a neW rever-
ence for life. the firm resolve to uchieve sustainability, the quickening
of the struggle for justice Ilnd pellce, and the joyful celebration of life.
EARTH CHARTER COMMISSION
AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST
· Amadou Toumani Toun!, Mali
Wangari Maathai, Kenya
Mohamed Sahnoun, Algeria
Princess Basma Bint Tala1, Sord:m
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
. Knm1a Chowdhry, India
A. T. Ariyarntne. Sri Lanka
Wakako Hironaka, lapan
Pauline Tangiorn. AolClICOlI, New Ze:1llllld
Ema Witoelnr, Indonesia
EUROPE
· Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia
Picm: Calame, FrllllCC
Ruud F.M. Lubbca, The Netherlonds
Federico Mayor, Spain
Henriette Rasmussen, Greenland
Awraham SoelCndorp, The Netherlands
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
· Mercedes Sosl, Atgentina
Leonardo Boff, Bruil
Yolanda Ka1cnbadse, Ecuador
Sluidath Ramphal, Guyana
NORTH AMERICA
· Mauricc F. Strong, Canada
Severn Cui Us-Suzuki, Canada
Sohn A. Hoyt, United States
Elizabeth May, Canada
Stevcn C. RocltefeUer, United SllUes
· Co-Chair
EARTH CHARTER SECRETARIAT
Mitian Vilela, Bmi!
Executivc Director
Earth Charter Secrelllri:u
Earth Council
P.O. Box 319-6100
San SoSl!, Costa Rica
Tel.: (506) 205-1600: Fax: (506) 249-3500
E-mail: Int'o@ClIIthcharter.org
For further information. see the Earth Chllrter
http://www.earthclllUter.org
* Printed on recycled paper u'~ing soy-bllSed ink
175
RES.#D53/01 -
THIESS SERVICES INTERNATIONAL RIVER PRIZE
Brisbane, Australia TRCA's submission regarding community-based
watershed management for the Thiess Services International Riverprize.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on TRCA's
submission regarding community-based watershed management for the Thiess Services
International Riverprize be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Thiess Services International River Prize is presented each year as part of the Riverfestival
in Australia. The prize is valued at $100,000 (Australian currency) and is open to organizations
or individuals who demonstrate outstanding achievement in river management.
The primary judging criteria is the ability of the organization to demonstrate achievement with
respect to:
. organizational capacity and partnerships or alliances that enable the on-the-ground
outcomes to be achieved;
. watershed sustainability with actions and outcomes inclusive of ecological, social
and economic indicators;
. innovations in watershed management; and
. public accountability and reporting of achievements.
TRCA's submission on Community-Based Watershed Management was selected as one of the
four finalists for the award. TRCA has been invited to participate in the Riversymposium, August
29-31,2001 in Brisbane, Australia to make a presentation and to attend the Thiess Riverprize
Ceremony. The grand prize winner will be announced on Wednesday, August 29th, 2001.
Gary Wilkins, Humber Watershed Specialist, will represent TRCA at the award ceremony and
make a presentation on TRCA's Community-Based Watershed Management Initiatives at the
Riversymposium in Brisbane, Australia.
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: August 29, 2001
RES.#D54/01 -
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #3/01 , July 12, 2001 The minutes of Meeting #3/01
held on July 12, 2001 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is
provided for information
176
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #3/01, held on July 12, 2001, 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: August 28, 2001
RES.#D55/01 -
ETOBICOKE AND MIMICO CREEK WATERSHEDS TASK FORCE
Minutes of Meetings #3/01, #4/01, #5/01, #6/01, and #7/01. The
minutes of Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force
meetings #3/01, #4/01, #5/01, #6/01, and #7/01, held on March 22,
2001, April 26, 2001, May 24, 2001 , June 28, 2001, and July 26, 2001 ,
respectively, are provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Etobicoke and
Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force meetings #3/01, #4/01, #5/01, #6/01, and #7/01,
held on March 22, 2001, April 26, 2001, May 24, 2001, June 28, 2001, and July 26, 2001,
respectively, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds 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.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date: August 29,2001
177
RES.#D56/01 -
HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meetings #1/01 and #2/01. The minutes of Humber
Watershed Alliance meetings #1/01 and #2/01, held on May 15, 2001
and July 17, 2001, respectively, are provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Tanny Wells
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance meetings #1/01 and #2/01, held on May 15, 2001 and July 17, 2001,
respectively, as appended, be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated December 2000, and
adopted by the Authority at meeting #11/00, held on January 5,2001 by Resolution #A266/00,
includes the following provision:
3.5 Reporting Relationship
The Humber 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.
Report prepared by: Lia Lappano, extension 5292
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: August 29, 2001
NEW BUSINESS
RES.#D57/01 -
CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
Moved by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff report back on the
feasibility of getting financial contributions from land owners to assist in the cost of
construction undertaken in the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project
1997 -2001.
CARRIED
178
RES.#D58/01 -
ROUGE PARK WEEK
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT TRCA officially declare the week
of October 15-20, 2001 as "Rouge Park Week".
CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:15 p,m., on September 14, 2001.
Irene Jones
Chair
J. Craig Mather
Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
179
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/01
October 19, 2001
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/01, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 19, 2001. The Chair Irene Jones
, called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.
PRESENT
lIa Bossons
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
Pam McConnell
Jim McMaster
Dick O'Brien
Dave Ryan
Frank Scarpitti
Ian Sinclair
Tanny Wells
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Chair, Authority
Member
Member
Member
Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon
Lorna Bissell
_./
Member
Vice Chair
RES.#D59/01 -
MINUTES
/
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
/..:.~'
/
I
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/01, held on September 14, 2001, be approved.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
(a) Lois James of 2270 Meadowvale Avenue, Toronto, speaking in regards to re-diverted
drainage from Highway 7 and Durham Town Line, to land beside 3555 Sideline 34,
Greenriver,
180
RES.#D60/01 -
DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dave Ryan
Frank Scarpitti
THAT the Committee agree to add Lois James to the agenda and speak about re-diverted
drainage from Highway 7 and Durham Town Line, to land beside 3555 Sideline 34,
Greenriver;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be instructed to examine the Long-term impacts of the
re-diverted drainage at this location.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jim Robb, Friends fo the Rouge Watershed, in regards to item 7.1 -
Morningside Heights Community Site Preparation.
RES.#D61/01 -
PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ian Sinclair
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
Attachment: 1
181
Attachment 1 - EXCERPT FROM PRESENTATION BY JIM ROBB
What is FRW asking of the TRCA ?
1. To avoid a recurrence of the Morningside Tributary disaster, the TRCA should prohibit the
placement of stormwater management ponds, or replacement riparian storage capacity,
within the riparian zones or flood zones of permanent streams and streams with established
riparian vegetation;
2. The TRCA should monitor the Morningside Heights development on a daily basis and work
with the MNR and DFO to prosecute any violations or deviations;
3. TRCA Planning and Approvals staff should be directed to improve consultation with TRCA
Environmental Services staff, Rouge Park staff, MNR staff, and the public, from the early
stages of plan review until final approvals;
4. The TRCA Board should take a strong leadership stance on the need for staff to uphold the
objectives and policies of the Rouge Park and this stance should be backed-up at OMB
hearings, if necessary;
5. The TRCA should write a letter to Premier Harris asking his government to enact legislation
to ensure that the objectives and policies of the Rouge Park Management Plan are given
legal status under the Planning Act and Policy Statements;
6. The TRCA should ask the province to update their regulations and policies to require larger
stream buffers and more effective protection of stream corridors ( even streams draining
less than 125 ha), riparian vegetation, forests, wetlands and flood plains;
7. The TRCA should formally ask Premier Harris to provide additional resources to the TRCA
to better protect our streams, green space, watersheds and natural resources;
8. The TRCA should formally ask Premier Harris to review the composition and operation of
the OMB to develop a tribunal which is better-equipped to make good decisions on
environmental planning matters;
9. The TRCA should formally ask Premier Harris to curtail the undue influence developers
have over land-use planning by cutting the donations developers can make to municipal
and provincial politicians and parties.
182
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D62/01 -
MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY SITE PREPARATION
Status Update on the review of site work conducted to date in
accordance with permit approvals granted by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources and a Letter of
Authorization granted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to
allow for the preparation of the Morningside Heights Community within
the City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ian Sinclair
THAT the following report on the status update on the review of site work being
conducted within the Morningside Heights Community and attached letter from
Councillor Raymond Cho be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to monitor the progress of site preparation work
within the Morningside Heights Community being conducted in accordance with Ontario
Regulation 158 and as a requirement of subdivision development approval.
AMENDMENT
RES.#D63/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
Ian Sinclair
THAT the main motion be amended to read as follows:
THAT the following report on the status update on the review of site work being
conducted within the Morningside Heights Community and attached letter from
Councillor Raymond Cho be received;
THAT staff continue to monitor the progress of site preparation work within the
Morningside Heights Community being conducted in accordance with Ontario Regulation
158 and as a requirement of subdivision development approval, and provide an annual
status report to the Board;
THAT staff provide the Board with the position of the 80uge Park Alliance on the site
preparation work;
THAT items 1 - 7 outlined above in the excerpt from Jim Robb's October, 19,2001
presentation be referred to staff and a report be brought back to the Board;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the possibility of having larger buffers included
in the City of Toronto's Official Plan.
183
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Morningside and Neilson tributaries are being lowered and redesigned to facilitate the
development of the Morningside Heights Community in North Toronto. In addition, four
stormwater management ponds are proposed to service the developing area. On July 6th,
2001 TRCA's Executive Committee issued a permit for the allowance of the works which are
now underway. Approval has also been granted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and a
Letter of Authorization has been granted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The .
works once complete will result in a longer term benefit to the natural system and the Rouge
Park.
Morningside Tributary had been significantly altered as a result of works conducted in
accordance with an approved Environmental Assessment going back to the 80's. A diversion
channel was constructed on Staines Road which directed the majority of flows to the main
Rouge River. Sections of the tributary were piped and redirected to a ditch system along
Staines Road. There are natural sections south of Staines which were not disturbed as part of
the previous EA work.
The redesigned channel, once complete, will result in a measurable improvement to the
current degraded system, despite the level of disturbance through the construction process.
The new tributary will be uninterrupted with the exception of road crossings. The base flow of
the tributary will be re-establised as currently the majority of flows enter the diversion system
which is not functioning properly. Natural channel design principles are being incorporated.
This will result in improvements to aquatic and terrestrial habitats and linkages, particularly
given the extent of development which is to occur of the adjacent tableland. An aggressive
planting scheme is also proposed.
The Morningside Heights Development was approved and the limits of the natural system were
defined as part of an Ontario Municipal Board settlement which included among other parties,
Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS)and TRCA. Through the Board process Morningside
Tributary was to be located within a 100 metre wide corridor. The existing corridor is larger
than 100 metres which is attributable to a restriction in the floodplain caused by the
downstream railway spur line. This restriction is proposed to be removed. The channel was to
be lowered and was to include stormwater management facilities. In the end, one SWM pond is
being constructed within the 100 metre corridor with the remaining ponds being located within
a hydro corridor or on adjacent tableland. The 100 metre corridor is sufficient to convey flood
flows during a Regional Storm Event.
Save The Rouge Valley System was part of the Board process and was able to voice concerns
with the original proposal and eventually settle with the applicant, as did the TRCA. SRVS had
equal standing at the Ontario Municipal Board as an in~orporated body. Their involvement
resulted in another voice for environmental protection and enhancement through the approval
process. Further, the SRVS was given considerable funds, a portion of which are to be directed
to long term naturalization within the developing area.
184
PERMIT APPROVAL AND SITE MONITORING
A permit under Ontario Regulation 158 was granted for the proposed works. Along with the
many engineering details approved as part of the permit, staff also accepted a detailed
planting scheme and detailed sediment and erosion control plans. Site works are currently
underway which are being supervised by TRCA enforcement staff and staff of the other
approval authorities. In addition, on-site supervision is being conducted by representatives of
the developers group.
On-site works conducted as a requirement of the permit to this date include the diversion of
flows around the site of the tributary works and the construction of a portion of the new
tributary. Extensive grading is also being conducted within the larger site area beyond areas
regulated by the TRCA. Sediment and Erosion Control measures are in place and are
operating effectively. The site is reported as being in good condition and water in the diversion
channels in the downstream reaches of Morningside Creek is clear. Vegetation has been
removed within the areas slated for residential development and along the route of the existing
tributary.
As part of the TRCA enforcement review process, enforcement staff have attended biweekly
construction meetings with the applicants representatives. Enforcement staff also conduct
frequent visits to the site and confirm that all works being done are in compliance with the
approved permit.
On site supervision on behalf of the developers group is being conducted by Parish
Geomorphic and The MBTW Group.
The applicants have also met with the Ministry of Natural Resources officers on September 10
and 14th, 2001 to review a request for a six week extension to the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act permit with regard to fisheries timing. Approximately 9,000 fish have been
removed from the area being disturbed and temporary barriers have been placed at the
upstream and downstream reaches. MNR staff are supportive of a permit extension.
Further, staff met with the landscape firm The MBTW Group to refine the approved planting
scheme and to' address modifications requested by the City of Toronto Parks Department and
Ravine Control Group. These discussions have resulted in minor changes to the list of plant
species being proposed.
DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to monitor the progress of the site works to ensure that the Developers
Group, their consultants and contractors continue to meet the requirements of the permit
approved under Ontario Regulation 158.
For Information contact: Russel White, extension 5306
Date: September 19, 2001
Attachments: 3
185
Attachment 1
~
m-s A
lNJ
..,
.....
_ _ ~ I>i ve:...~iMl fflWC1'V..e..
........) f>A6tJ1..ow PitS
~ OLN "~c..st o~ "e.a 6.-rf ">
~lsr,tJb c.oN()m~S
186
Attachment 2
:'l
II
J
---
SCALE: "N.T.S.
CATCHMENT
BOUNDARY,
MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS
POST -DEVELOPMENT
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
_I
II
, , , . ....... '-..J I 1'--
187
Attachment 3
Councillor Raymond Cho
Toronto City Cuuncillor
Scarborough-Rouge River
Ward 42
lORONm-
September 17, 2001
TELECOPIED - VIA FAX NO. (416) 667-6270
Dick O'Brien, Chair
The Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
Dear Dick:
Re: Toronto Region Conservation Authority - Agenda
I have just returned from a site visit to the new development of Morningside Heights at the corner of
Morningside and Finch. I was appalled at the number of mature trees that have been chopped down by
the developers in such a short period ot time. There appears to be IInle or no supervision regarding the
mass destruction of mature trees as the bulldozers clear the land for future residential development.
The Morningisde Tributary has also been diverted and I am concerned that this development may not
be receiving proper supervision from the appropriate authorities.
Present at the site this morning were some of my local constituents, members of the media, and
representatives from Friends of the Rouge Watershed. My constituents, especially, expressed their
grave concerns that these trees that had developed to maturity and were flourishing were so brutally
taken down by the developers.
I am writing this letter to ask you to place the Morningside Heights issue as an item on the agenda for
the next meeting of the TRCA, and I would also like to have an opportunity for concerned citizens and
representatives to make a presentation/deputation at the same meeting.
Thank you for looking after this and if there are any Questions or concerns please do not hesitate to
contact my office.
S truly, ,0 ~
~ol~
nd Cho
Taro 0 City Councillor
Ward 42 - Scarborough-Rouge River
TORONTO CITY HALL
100 Queen 51. W., Sle. 623
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Phone: (416)392-4078
Fax: (416) 696-4159
Emsl!:
,ca
188
Attachment 4 - Presentation by Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed
TRCA Approves
Devastation of the Morningside Tributary of the Rouge Park
Background
The last tableland trout stream in Toronto, the Morningside Tributary of the Rouge River and
Park, has been clear-cut and buried beneath tonnes of dirt, killing fish, beavers and wildlife in
an area with nationally-vulnerable species such as red-side dace.
Bad deals between the Morningside Heights developers, Save the Rouge Valley System
(SRVS) and government officials led to the complete obliteration of more than 1100 metres of
the Morningside Tributary within the Rouge Park.
When SRVS and the Morningside Heights Developers struck a deal, Newspaper articles
reported:
"It almost defied belief: An environmental group [Save the Rouge Valley System] going
to bat for developers planning a vast residential community in an unspoiled area of the
Rouge River". (April 2, 1998 Toronto Star)
"The developers went above and beyond the call of duty and designed the most
eco-friendly subdivision I've seen ." Glenn DeBaeremaeker, president of SRVS
(July 15, 1998 Scarborough Mirror)
After partnering with SRVS, the Morningside Heights developers received approvals from the
Ontario Municipal Board for a 700-acre subdivision surrounding the western part of the Rouge
Park. In return, the developers gave SRVS a few concessions and a controlling interest in a $1
Million Trust fund. Unfortunately, the rampant destruction of the Morningside Tributary which
has occurred over the last two weeks belies any promises of environmental preservation or
protection.
What has been destroyed?
. an 1100 + metre long section of the Rouge Park greenspace system has been clear-cut; .a
family of beavers has been shot and their pond has been destroyed;
. fish, frogs, muskrats and other wildlife have been killed as the stream is bulldozed;
.building on the flood plain will increase the danger of downstream flooding and erosion;
,rare plant communities (e.g. yellow birch, turtlehead and gentian) have been destroyed;
.two Iroquois village sites are threatened and one has already been destroyed;
. habitat for red-side dace, a nationally vulnerable fish species, and trout, has been
destroyed;
. fertile soils that took thousands of years to evolve are being destroyed;
. the life blood of the stream, subsurface groundwater flow, is being cut-off.
189
Why is the stream being destroyed?
The stream is being destroyed to allow the developers to make more money by filling the flood
plain to build more homes. Government officials and SRVS allowed the developers to:
. shrink the flood plain from more 200 to 400 metres wide to only 80 to 100 metres wide;
. divert huge quantities of flood waters into the Rouge River Valley and Park.
Developers are obliterating this Rouge Park stream (Morningside Tributary) to create a new
artificial flood plain which is two to five times narrower but deeper. To dig the deeper flood
plain, the developers are clear-cutting and bulldozing the forests, flowers and wetlands along
the str-m and they are diverting the stream into a stone-lined ditch which is more tan 1000
metres long. The stone lined ditch has no shading and the water is heating-up leading to
excessive algal growth and oxygen depletion which could kill the nationally vulnerable fish
which are found just downstream.
Apparently, some government officials disagreed with this rampant Rouge Park destruction,
however, they were over-ruled by political pressure and terrible decisions by the Ontario
Municipal Board and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
Although the developers promise to build a new stream channel and plant many little trees,
they have already broken their promises to preserve and protect nature during the
development process. It is arrogant and misleading for the developers to suggest that they
can kill and then miraculously resurrect a stream ecosystem that nature created over
thousands of years.
Opposition Squashed
Local Councillor, Raymond Cho, and Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW), opposed the
development. FRW brought forward expert evidence from Dr. Anthony Price from the University
of Toronto about the dangers of clear-cutting and filling the stream flood plain. The City, the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Ontario Municipal Board and the federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans seem to have ignored this evidence In fact, the Ontario
Municipal Board recently awarded $2000 in costs against FRW for its opposition.
Flood Risk Increased by Clear-cutting and Narrowing of Floodplain
Downstream homes near Finch Avenue are already within the mapped flood plain of the
Morningside Tributary and downstream flooding endangers children from two adjacent
schools. But despite these problems, the Morningside Heights development is filling 50% of the
flood plain north of Finch Avenue and building houses on it. When flooding occurs, the
developers will be long-gone with their profits and home-owners and tax-payers will get stuck
with the costly damage.
190
Rouge Park not Protected
When the Rouge Park was created, thousands of Toronto Area residents celebrated. However,
the Rouge Park Plan cannot stop such environmental destruction because the provincial
government has failed to give the Plan any legal standing under the Planning Act or the
Provincial Parks Act.
Why are government officials allowing this destruction?
When he came to power, Premier Harris weakened the Planning Act to favour developers; he
appointed pro-development people to the Ontario Municipal Board; and he slashed the
budgets of the Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources. Government officials are iust
givina-in or aivina-up when it comes to environmental protection because developers alwavs
seem to aet their way bv appealina planning matters to the Ontario Municipal Board. As a
result, developers are destroying our streams and natural resources at record rates.
Government officials at the municipal, provincial and federal level gave flawed approvals which
led to the destruction of this Rouge Park stream. Premier Harris needs to increase staff and
resources at the MOE, MNR and TRCA, and direct his officials to better protect our air, water,
land and natural resources. The Ontario Municipal Board also made bad decisions which also
led to this environmental destruction The OMB seems ill-equipped to deal with environmental
planning hearings. For such hearings, Premier Harris should appoint hearing officers from both
the OMB and the province's Environmental Review Tribunal to promote better decisions.
Key Things which need to be done
1. Premier Harris should enact legislation to ensure that the objectives and policies of the
Rouge Park Management Plan have legal status under the Planning Act;
2. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto should update
their policies to require larger buffers and effective protection of all stream corridors,
riparian vegetation, forests, wetlands and flood plains;
3. Premier Harris should increase staff and resources at the MOE and the MNR and direct
his officials to better protect our air, water, land and natural resources;
4. For planning hearings that have an important environmental component, Premier Harris
should make sure that the hearing officers are appointed from both the OMB and the
province's Environmental Review Tribunal to promote better decisions;
5. Premier Harris should stop the undue influence developers have over land-use planning
by cutting the donations they can make to municipal and provincial politicians and
parties;
6. Environmental groups should refrain from making deals with developers because
experience shows that such deals favour developers not the environment.
191
RES.#D64/01 -
THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
Guild Inn Shoreline Regeneration 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:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Ila Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff, in consultation with the
City of Toronto and Community representatives, be directed to carry out the designs 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
City of Toronto Valley & Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001, at a total cost of up
to $100,000.
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 Sluffs 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 conditions. Authority staff monitor the shoreline annually and undertake 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 Sylvan Avenue
shoreline. With the 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 2002.
In 1986, 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 beacli habitat.
. Develop primary waterfront trail loop between Gates Gully and Guildwood Ravine.
In addition, these shoreli'ne initiatives will complement the Guild Inn (36 ha site) proposal
outlined in the FUNG Report for a multi-purpose arts and culture centre.
192
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Proposals will be sought from qualified consultants to provide professional services in
developing the final design. 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.
Staff will obtain the necessary approvals as per Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Coast Guard (Transport Canada) as they relate to the project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds to complete the final design are budgeted for in Account No. 161-01.
Report prepared by: James Wraith, 416-392-9731
For Information contact: Jim Berry, 416-392-9721
Date: October 10, 2001
Attachments: 1
193
Attachment 1
GUILD INN SHORELINE SITE LOCATION
'~ ~,..r-I_ :.., ~ _-' · \'- \ ~_; j...J r ,L't,/I""-'~
. ~. . . " I ' ~ .. ... 'c:.,_ _ _
"\ 1..-' .~, 1" -'. .', 1 ~ .. 01 ,~
, I ......-r - 't . 11.'" " \.' L.; , J
\ ...-"""-'. 'I:'~ .1.~ ~""". " .... ..- ..........\ L ,..- ""'~.....~
~ . _'" ,..~ ......~~e "-C I I ...............11 -....~ 'I~ 'Ii "
'" \, - ~~i.C:> ,^ ';:"Jt\.V~-";:- / r---. ......\__....\ \,. ~. _ 'I\~::.', \" U'".....~ .
~ ':k--:' ~ ....~) V.J ).--' . . .-.., " . ""~'~'~' ~-,~uc.'
~~c:>......< I' t., -;'~l _..,.......-"1 \.~ \ \ \ ''I:~ ". '$l........ ~ ~~>:.+t/C+~
~- ~~-( r.-';' C,,'~sC~f?Or.lpl{9plVI~I~~g~t!...~-~-o- ~~~~
_-- ")'. V~ ~ I I,', "",-- .J'~ 't:..~~~ '. .....'~"t ,i ,..., .....u:.r'-"~V"".......vo:.-t/C+uc.-
...,-_- '~ 'I. 'i ~ '" a"'NoCU\----<-"'..- r.... ~~~.....U'"~..A:
.. -'--....-,....-'\!'S!~ ,~r~ ~ ..G~'i...'--. Guil~i~,ood,.". '\:AJ\:AJ~'-"~V"""""'VO:'-~
....- h I' I -L- ~.l Po'.:." " ~t.A:.-~UU~
- ~: ... J '-..-.f.:'" 4 ,l' , ......r ri... . ;:;c.r.......cr-...A.r'-"~V""~-
\ t(;-. , \ f --~ .~_...'-I:~ ~ ;:;c.r~ve.
. ...-1 'oiQ '. '~l {"'-<{ I I"~~ 0. ~~.....-I:./~ve.t/.....
~ . \ ~ \......4.V .,~q;.f.,...\ .I"J.:'l ~~-c...c.~
I t ~_.'" ;;;;:0, .... ''(' t/.....'t..A"'~
'.' .., \. " t'"', ..\......J.\~ l' .I. ~"c..~ 'Uc-
,...1" '1'0 . \ .. )' ,r' ~Q~.I/I.C}Y; ~~~'Uc-
A\ ,'Z; 'I} ./, ".'V;". '~~I ~~~-c...c.~-c...c.
\..~ (C. \ \y/ ..so'4? j!j~ /" 't.A:..o't....c,.~~~~t.IC..r
7""', ...0 ".;:;/\ f ,~~ l"~ t. ~~~~t.A:.-
...~\ ,9.. \0 It I / /' ~c..~~~t.IC..r
5. 0;))\ \~ ,IP-'I r.' 'sQ.uttlolN1;3:r' ~ Lal<e Ontar.lo~
'\JI~...\ ~;z....; .....,=> ./D.r.p;,1 e P
.- \ . 0..' ...~ I ........-
'I 0" ,.- l~'
I ',,,,,~ ~l 1./
'( :r':' { 1.::0. ~
\ I~' pffi~ l
I\" . j
\ -,' I oj<
I.' .
\ J .~.
.,...r l
( I
~'UC./~~~~
~
'Uc-~~
t..A:/~~-
t./V'
~-
.L ~ ~ ~ ;:..:: .:: .:: .:: .:: ~"'C/v-~-c...c.
~c.A:../~~~~'C.IV'~
~ .~
....
or
..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
194
RES.#D65/01 -
THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
Meadowcliffe Drive Slope Stability Project, Scarborough Sector. To
undertake the design and obtain all the necessary approvals for the final
slope stabilization along Meadowcliffe Drive shoreline, City of Toronto.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Ian Sinclair
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff, in consultation with the
City of Toronto and Community representatives, be directed to review the preliminary
reports prepared by Terraprobe Limited and make recommendations to proceed with
final design investigations and plans for Meadowcliffe Drive Slope Stabilization under the
City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
As a result of concerns by local residents along Meadowcliffe Drive, staff directed Terraprobe
Limited of Brampton Ontario to carry out a preliminary slope stability and erosion risk analysis
for Meadowcliffe Drive, Scarborough Ontario.
Eleven residential properties on Meadowcliffe Drive are located at the crest of the Scarborough
Bluffs along the Lake Ontario shoreline in Scarborough between Cudia Park Ravine and
Bellamy Ravine. Most of these residences are located about 40 to 100 m from the slope crest.
The exception to this conditions are three houses which are in close vicinity to the slope crest.
The Scarborough Bluffs along Meadowcliffe Drive are approximately 57 meters in height from
the slope crest to the shoreline. The shoreline is not protected and the Lake Ontario water's
edge is in contact with the slope. Relatively lower water levels in Lake Ontario subsequently
have likely reduced the erosion sufficiently to permit natural revegetation to develop on the
upper slope except for localized areas of erosion. The lower portion of the slope is at an
inclination of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (45 degrees) or steeper and is mostly bare of vegetation.
It is noted that Meadowcliffe Drive does not have sanitary or storm sewers and the roadside
ditches are not continuous. It is likely that after heavy rains and spring melts, surface runoff
water flows down the inland secondary slope, over Meadowcliffe Drive, and towards the
Scarborough I?luffs. This runoff appears to have created gullies along the shoreline slope. To
the east, the bluff slope has little or no gully development, indicating there may be less
overland flow reaching the slope at this end of the road. Discussions with residents indicate
that most of the recent ground loss has occurred at the slope crest in localized areas, mostly
along the west part of the study area.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Conclusions from the Slope Stability & Erosion Risk Analysis report indicates that erosion of
the shoreline is actively occurring, and to further assess the current erosion processes and the
effectiveness of remedial methods, the following work be carried out:
. examination of the slope condition along Cudia Park Ravine;
. continuation of monitoring of the slope crest erosion on an annual or semi annual basis;
195
. storm water management be assessed in the area to determine flow quantity and direction;
and
. extend the coastal management plan to address the recent foreshore soundings.
Although the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (completed in 1986) indicated that this
section of the shoreline should remain in a natural state, the conditions (tableland and coastal)
affecting the local erosion rates may have changed warranting a reexamination of the "do
nothing" recommendation.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds to complete the final design are budgeted for in the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project.
Report prepared by: Jim Wraith, 416-392-9731
For Information contact: Jim Berry, 416-392-9721
Date: October 10, 2001
Attachments: 1
196
Attachment 1
MEADOWCLIFFE DRIVE SHORELINE SITE LOCATION
. - J' 1. -.. " ", ,/ f . -
.. - - ?':-... ..... \ '.-_.-', (~.!., "0 'J6~c.~
\..~ _,.. I . ....., I ._1 "',' I I ~
'j,,~~J -' / .._-' ":; " I \ \ r ~( \ l"'f ~d~ i .' -1ft...'tA:
'\. ,'fl.. 1i ........ f"...."...... . t........ ..--- .17-' .. t'4 .,....r
'I'~ \i ,~. /; .) r...13.$(It) par~ I~i :( /' /~" 0- ~
';. / ','~. .I' pO-- .:. _... .~ : '" :.-... 'I"
,. _I 'Io.::.~ ." ~ ..,. .'W ~ ,_.- '..... ,?i., J !..-:.-' ~~.'t..-,o
~', ~ ......r'. -- ,j- '. ,....-...., ',?' t ' ~ .. ~
Jr I' :.' ~ _ -,- ( I, 'I~' ~..J
r~ ,1 _~ r _,..,.-- . . ! ~ f .....t~~
/' '\~ ._,_.~ .~...,.--\ ~ ~ '. i,"'" . ~A~
, ",0.-....,; _" '~J-e. \t'I{(fJrl .b/~' " ,..' ~ ,/ /.:~~CAA::
~\ _~. _ ~ n IL.~ - . _ I .r""~
;' ....... ,,;- C\.c:.e. _~ ~ . n ~ AIt--- -._.2tt Or l ,~./C-'t_1:;....t.-'C~A:fi./C.'t./t"fi
t ." I' . .,.-' _ ~, ", ~I', · .-' ./" ~~...'t.....:-....t.-t"_A:
/ / \..-f!:':",...... \-, "t -, r;; \,'-- ...1. ,/ .~
,. 1\'(:1 ~'J_:,...f....'---'.... ,~, --'-'_ 'syll.tcln Paor;..'t/..-A'. 00(;"'C.A:~"""A....c
'?)\'i~ _....-.-\ \' ~~.., -... .t~t;...t/ &~ _1;.,..<;"'~-,
Y I ...... ~ ~;:;t~. ". ,- ... - - ... .... .... .... "" .... ..... ... ..... ...
? I ~-l 1\ I 1 .-:'.. -', ~....... r: .......'...................................................
/ ",4"': 1 I" :....... ~ ','IV-~ "'" \)\, .'" OV~~~A:"A::
~ "1 \ I.. '.1, ~" a _;~ .;. "' ~...~:.. 'V:A:A~A:.A::,.A';/CA"A....<A..c.-t
\.....0-...---'\...,\... \_\~l' ~ \'~Ct,1 '?:'..- l&....-;:(-.r, C-..~0 ~.....v-...,.<;,.,~~A:..-v.:::
.,..-,-... 'I ,,~ II ", 't...~~..'. #,/ (A.. -.) A..~A:,A;...~A:...'t~...c:..A:
.,r.-..... \ I. ~_.. "- '. '\" .. ~ __ ... ... .... ..... "" "" ... ... .... .... .... b ..... ... ..... '" --
~ J. .... ... t "I...;;; ",-"" "'''wfI'''w''-' "'-'.......-'W"" 'Iw'".................... "-'........."....-............ ...."...,
:"_', \ .~. ';. \ I, ~ ~A:.~.A:A~.._t;..;
.....,. \ ~, . ~ ..
~,,"-l ("\ I, \~(} \ "}t- .'_ ~~~"t.A:./"~A:;
,,\...... \ . \~........ ..... "I, d" ~~~,A:;..It.'(...~
'I~,.......J.-':'"-.:. .. I 1,0\ t j 1 ~ CtJ 130 PGl.r~/''-''~~-:::....t,..~...........<;,.,t.A;./~A:.
i'....-. ,.. I' I""" . - l I I
-~.~'a.~ rO \..n'. I, ',' I, 1 ~ ~ ..."C-'t/""'-"'t/""~...-'t...........<;./~......~/-
. 1 ~ "1~ '. I ..----,.....~ , t
" . .k....,,11 .....<;""0- .'" .; .....'t...v~'VV't..V't..~/'"-.....t..'t.-~...v~~..-v~~
I ,...... :,~ , 'I,
\ ~'4 ,Q,._,,'tlJ, \ \~ .. , v-e....~/''-''t"A..A:AA"AA...'C.A;..A:A:"A_'t....t.-;:A"AA'A..A:A^
...It " ~ \7k" \:,~ I I - "'C/V"C-vt. L k 0 t · ~
:,.- ,p. \-a~,. \~\r'.L..L.catbedral ~~~~ a e n ano~
\ \ 'r?'. J,.~, Bluff) Pat' .. t..~'t.-'t~'V~~~...fi:....-.......c'VV'tA:
~ '"" ...~\ \i?~~ ~~~~'t.A:.,.o~V't..
,~\ If\t \ 'l '.. ~~..::;...<;,.,~~~~~'VC/(;..oc..
.- ~ &...., '101" . L
197
RES.#D66/01 -
DRAFT RENEGOTIATED CANADA-ONTARIO AGREEMENT (COA)
Canada and Ontario have renegotiated the Canada-Ontario Agreement
which sets out roles and responsibilities for the delivery of programs ,
related to the protection of the Great Lakes. Public comment on the draft
agreement has been requested.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff be requested to review
the recently renegotiated Canada-Ontario Agreement and report back to the Authority on
the content and the funding required to address Area of Concern issues within the
Toronto and Region including opportunities for the TRCA to enhance its role in RAP
implementation, monitoring and public outreach activities.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1909 the International Joint Commission was established under Boundary Waters Treaty
between the United States and Canada to protect the shared waters including the Great Lakes.
The International Joint Commission is an independent body at arm's length from the
governments of Canada and the Untied States. The Commission has two main responsibilities.
It acts as a quasi-judicial body in approving projects that affect boundary waters and, in some
cases, transboundary waters. It also makes non-binding recommendations on transboundary
issues that both countries refer to it for study. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
provides for the Commission to monitor and evaluate progress toward the objectives of the
Agreement. These responsibilities significantly expanded the Commission's role and
established it as a "watchdog" over the public's interest. Utilizing information provided by the
Federal and Provincial Governments and information gained through biennial State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conferences, the Commission evaluates and reports biennially on both
countries' progress toward their commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The Federal Government is obliged to respond to recommendations in the Commissioner's
biennial reports.
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canada and the United States have made a
commitment to develop and implement Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concerns
(AOCs). Forty-three AOCs with impaired environmental quality have been identified in the
Great Lakes Basin including the Toronto and Region waterfront and watersheds. The
Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber, Don, Highland and Rouge watersheds are part of the Toronto and
Region RAP AOC.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust are the
local coordinating agencies for the RAP. The two agencies assist the federal and provincial
governments to fulfill their obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA) and Canada-Ontario Agreement. The COA has recently been renegotiated between
the federal and provincial government and currently public and agency comments are being
sought. The funding provisions associated with the implementation of the annexes of the
agreement is a critical element.
198
Recommendation: That the staff be requested to review the recently renegotiated
Canada-Ontario Agreement and report back to the Authority on the content and the funding
required to address Area of Concern issues within the Toronto and Region including
opportunities for the TRCA to enhance its role in RAP implementation, monitoring and public
outreach activities.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: October 05, 2001
RES.#D67/01 -
CANADIAN HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP FUND
Funding proposal to profile the heritage values of the Humber River
through developing interactive multi-media education tools.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Canadian Heritage
Partnership Fund proposal titled, "Historic Humber River - Connecting Communities to
River Heritage" be approved;
THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to take whatever
action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary
approvals and the execution of any documents;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report on the progress of the project should funding become
available.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In September 1999, the Humber River was designated a Canadian Heritage River based on its
outstanding natural and cultural heritage, its recreational values and its contribution to the
development of Canada. With the heritage designation, the TRCA and the Humber Watershed
Alliance, are committed to promoting and marketing the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage
River, creating community awareness and gathering support for the protection and
enhancement of its numerous resources.
The Humber Watershed Alliance, at its meeting #2/01, held on July 17, 2001, established the
Communications and Outreach Subcommittee whose purpose is to promote the Humber River
as a Canadian Heritage River and carry out actions specified in the Humber Watershed Report
Card to educate the community and promote stewardship of the watershed.
In keeping with the objectives and mandate of the Humber Watershed Alliance and its
Communication and Outreach Subcommittee, a funding proposal was submitted to the
Canadian Heritage Partnership Fund in the amount of $151 ,000 on October 1, 2001.
199
Canadian Heritage Partnershio Fund
The Canadian Heritage Partnership Fund is administered by the Department of Canadian
Heritage and is designed to assist partnership initiatives that aim at connecting Canadians,
particularly youth and life-long learners with the riches of Canada's heritage.
A second call for proposal was made for one-year projects. The deadline for year 2001-2002
was October 1, 2001.
Historic Humber River - Connecting Communities to River Heritage focuses on profiling
outstanding historical personalities, places and events associated with the Humber River
through interactive multi-media educational tools. Strong emphasis will be placed on making
these products easily accessible to watershed residents, especially youth and new Canadians
in order to connect them to the rich cultural heritage of the Humber River and its contribution to
the development of Canada. The project will be developed in both official languages.
The overall objectives of the project are:
. To promote the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River and profile its
outstanding cultural heritage values and its contribution to the development of
Canada.
. To provide the community easy access (free of charge) to heritage and
culture-related information (both local and national) to enhance awareness and
education about oar history and culture.
. To generate public interest, commitment and support to protect and preserve our
heritage resources.
. To generate new and unique partnerships and long-term commitment towards
culture and heritage protection and promotion.
This project also fulfills the goals and objectives of the Humber Watershed Alliance to protect,
restore and celebrate the Humber River watershed by implementing its watershed
management strategy document titled, Legacy: A Strategy For A Healthy Humber, and its
companion document titled, A Call To Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy For A Healthy
Humber. Specifically, the following objectives of the Humber Watershed Management Plan will
be met:
Objective 15: Protect and conserve heritage resources.
Objective 16: Celebrate the diverse culture and heritage resources of the Humber watershed.
The first Report Card on the Health of the Humber Watershed was produced by the Humber
Watershed Alliance in 2000 (The Humber Report Card has recently been awarded the Ontario
Professional Planning Institute's Outstanding Planning Award 2001). The Report Card assists
in monitoring the condition of the outstanding heritage and recreational values that contributed
to having the Humber River designated a Canadian Heritage River in 1999. This project
complements the following heritage indicators in the Humber watershed:
200
Indicator 17: Heritage Resources - How well are heritage resources being protected? (current
rating 'C').
Indicator 18: Heritage Events- How well is heritage recognized and celebrated? (current rating
'0').
Overall, this project fosters a conservation ethic, community stewardship, and cultural and
heritage education of Canadians.
PROJECT COMPONENTS/PRODUCTS
The focus of this project is to highlight the role of the Humber River and develop an
appreciation of its rich resources in the context of:
. significant historical themes such as native people, settlement patterns and
transportation;
. association with persons, events, movements, achievements of Canadian
significance; and
. historical or archaeological structures, sites or works which are unique, rare and of
great antiquity.
Existing information will be compiled and digitized to produce a series of multimedia interactive
products with supporting documents listed below. These products will be posted on the
Humber website which will be enhanced to suit specific project needs. Some products such as
an interactive CD Rom will be integrated into school educational programs within the Humber
watershed and will also be made available to other watershed schools in our jurisdiction. There
are currently 350 schools in the watershed. These products will also be made available to
universities, colleges and public libraries within the watershed and also to other provincial and
national resource libraries. The existing information will be digitized and presented (in both
English and French) in the form of:
(a) A Humber heritage video.
(b) An interactive CD Rom and supporting text and display materials (complementary to
the website but with some different content. Greater emphasis on audio and video).
(c) Website enhancement (to make it visually appealing, universally-accessible,
user-friendly and interactive). This will ensure images are described properly for text
browsers and, for those users who are visually challenged, audio clips are included.
All products mentioned above will contain similar background information including:
. A virtual tour of the watershed (from past to present).
. The Toronto Carrying Place Trail and associated points of historic interest.
. Archaeological gallery including Aboriginal history.
. Heritage destinations.
. Important historical figures and personalities.
. French and English settlement of historical importance.
201
A variety of products have been chosen to facilitate better communication and effective
outreach. Each product will be targeted towards a specific audience such as the video for
seniors and adults/new Canadians attending community organizations and settlement
agencies and others focusing on general orientation; whereas, the CD ROM will include
educational and curriculum links and will be geared towards school-going youth. The website
will be more comprehensive and will target a broad audience.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
1. Obtain letters of support from partners and other sources and forward them to the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
2. Seek and confirm in-kind and funding contributions.
3. Prepare implementation details.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Item/Activity Sub Total Request Partner Other Cash %of
ed from In-kind Total
COCCI Cost
Request
ed from
COCCI
1 Project $32,000 $24,000 $5,000 $3,000
Administration (TRCA) 75%
(technical and
administrative
expenses for 2
staff for 5
months)
2 Content $25,000 $12,000 $13,000
Development (48%) 48%
(All multi-media
products)
Audio, video,
graphics, text
(Includes
research and
writing for
learning
material)
3 Production Website $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 -
(enhancement (TRCA) 67%
10-15 page)
CD-ROM $40,000 $40,000 - -
100%
202
Video (10 $25,000 $18,000 $2,000 $5,000
minute) (Trillium 72%
Foundation-
proposed)
4 Translation Website $5,000 $5,000 -
(French) Localization 100%
Based on 15-20 (text, audio,
page text, graphics,
graphics and engineering
audio and language
testing)
CD-ROM $2,500 $2,500 - -
100%
Video $1,500 $1,500 - -
100%
5 Duplication $10,000 $8,000 - $2,000
(1,000 copies of (Trillium 80%
video and 5,000 Foundation
CD-ROM Proposed)
6 Distribution $15,000 $10,000 - $5,000
(including (TRCA) 67%
presentation at
various schools
and community
events)
7 Supporting $14,000 $6,000 - $8,000
documents (Canada 43%
(10,000 copies) Trust
and display for Proposed)
promotion and
Marketing
8 Promotion and $12,000 $8,000 $2,000 $2,000 67%
marketing (Trillium)
(media
advertisement,
launch event
etc.)
9 Other materials $11 ,000 $6,000 5,000 60%
and supplies/
contingency
costs
Grand Total $208,000 $151,000 $32,000 $25,000 73%
203
Total project budget $ 208,000.
Total amount requested $151,000 (73% of total budget).
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237
For Information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 5211
Date: October 11, 2001
RES.#D68/01 -
PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE
REGIONS OF PEEL, YORK, AND DURHAM
Peel Water Management Project, York Natural Heritage Project and
Durham Watershed Resource Management Project. Endorsement of the
Peel Water Management Project, York Natural Heritage Project and
Durham Watershed Resource Management Project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the reports entitled: "Peel Water
Management Project, York Natural Heritage Project and Durham Watershed Resource
Management Project" be endorsed;
THAT staff continue discussions with Regional staff, as appropriate, regarding project
requirements and priorities;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Watershed Management
Advisory Board regarding the final outcome of these submissions.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In April 2001, staff at the Region of Peel requested TRCA staff to prepare an enhanced capital
budget submission that dealt primarily with issues related to water management, to be funded
out of the Peel Conservation Capital fund. It had been noted by Peel staff that funding to the
Credit Valley Conservation Authority for issues related to water management and
subwatershed planning was not being apportioned to TRCA. Rather, TRCA was receiving
funding for specific projects, including the Peel-York-Durham Groundwater Management
Strategy, the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Project, the Regional Watersheds Monitoring Network
and the Natural Heritage Restoration Project.
Following this request from Peel staff, TRCA staff met with representatives from the Regions of
York and Durham. Region of York staff has been consulted regarding an enhanced proposal
that deals with Natural Heritage Management. Region of Durham representatives agreed to
entertain a moderately enhance budget that dealt with issues related to watershed resource
management.
204
The capital budget submission to the Region of York is similar to that submitted to Peel in that
funding for the Peel-York-Durham Groundwater Management Strategy, the Terrestrial Natural
Heritage Project, the Regional Watersheds Monitoring Network and the Natural Heritage
Restoration Project has been included, and additional funds for environmental science studies
and projects, subwatershed planning, natural heritage land acquisition and environmental
education have been added. The respective capital budget requests have increased from
approximately $1.2 million requested in 2001 to nearly $3 million in 2002. Budget projections
for five years have been included in the respective reports.
In terms of the Region of Durham, TRCA staff has prepared a preliminary Capital Budget
request for the Region following the format used last year for the joint submission by the five
Conservation Authorities. The total request for 2002 is similar to the multi-year forecast of last
year. Following the process used in 2001, the TRCA's proposal is being coordinated with the
other Durham Region conservation authorities. A meeting with representatives from these CAs
was held in late September to prepare this coordinated submission. TRCA staff will brief
Durham Region Authority members on this submission and will identify our funding priorities
for 2002.
TRCA staff has prepared the proposals based on recommendations from meetings and
discussions with Regional staff. In order to meet regional budget deadlines, final submissions
have been made to each of the three regional municipalities. These budget proposals are
entitled: "Peel Water Management Project", "York Natural Heritage Project" and "Durham
Watershed Resource Management Project".
RATIONALE
The projects have been designed to incorporate and build on the environmental science,
regeneration project and stewardship capital funding already received from the respective
municipalities. .
The direct environmental benefits that will ensue from implementing these projects include:
. Improved surface water quality.
. Diverse riparian communities that support aquatic habitats and link terrestrial habitats.
. Improvements in groundwater quality and discharges to surface waters.
. More functional terrestrial habitats that support sensitive and diverse wildlife species.
. Improved forest cover and groundwater recharges on the Oak Ridges Moraine, thus
enhancing the groundwater resource itself.
. Increased wetland habitats and associated fish and wildlife species.
. Improved information to facilitate better protection of water and natural resources through
land use planning and development processes.
. Protected water resources, including headwater, well head, recharge and discharge areas.
. Increased stream stability and thus reducing erosion and future maintenance.
. Increased fish community health including the reintroduction of some migratory species.
. Improved air quality through the forest, wetland, and riparian plantings.
. Mechanisms through which change will be monitored, residents educated, and
stewardship of private lands improved.
205
Each of these environmental benefits is directly related to the goals, objectives, and policies
stated in Regional Official Plans and Strategic Plans, where they exist, as well as within TRCA's
Businesses Plan; in the recommendations of Conservation Ontario to the Walkerton Inquiry
regarding the municipal role in watershed management and drinking water quality; and in the
draft recommendations on protecting the Oak Ridges Moraine.
WORK TO BE DONE
. Continued discussion with appropriate regional representatives regarding project
requirements and priorities.
. Presentation to Regional Council, as appropriate.
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5263
Date: October 11, 2001
RES.#D69/01 -
THE TORONTO PORT AUTHORITY - LAND USE PLAN
The Toronto Port Authority has prepared a draft Land Use Plan for its
area of jurisdiction to help guide corporate decision making and to
articulate the objectives of the Port to the broad community. The TRCA
will provide comments to the Toronto Port Authority on their Land Use
Plan as part of their public consultation.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Dick O'Brien
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Port Authority (TPA)
- Land Use P,lan released August 16, 2001 be received;
THAT the TPA be requested to modify the Land Use Plan to incorporate TRCA's
comments and suggestions;
THAT the TPA be r.equested to advise the Authority of any future actions related to the
Land Use Plan and that TRCA staff be provided an opportunity to assist the TPA on
further refinements;
AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto Port Authority and the City of Toronto be so advised.
AMENDMENT
RES.#D70/01
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
Dick O'Brien
THAT paragraphs 2 & 3 of the main motion be replaced with the following:
206
THAT the TPA be requested to defer consideration of the Land Use Plan until the City of
Toronto and TRCA has had an opportunity to evaluate its compatibility with the City of
Toronto's Waterfront Plan, the Toronto Bay Initiatives and the Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation's implementation plans;
THAT staff meet with the City of Toronto and report back on environmental impacts,
public access to the waterfront and other related matters;
THAT the TPA be requested to advise the Authority of any future actions related to the
Land Use Plan and that TRCA staff be consulted;
THE AMENDMENT WAS
CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Canada Marine Act (the Act) requires that Port Authorities develop and approve a land use
plan to help guide corporate decision making and to articulate the objectives of the Port to the
broad community. The goal of this plan is to provide a policy framework that will guide the
management of real property that is managed, held or occupied by the Toronto Port Authority
(TPA), including land covered by water, in an economically and environmentally sustainable
manner. In achieving this goal, the following objectives have been established:
To have regard for the achievement of established local, provincial and national economic
and social objectives; ,
To manage the marine, rail and aviation infrastructure within the TPA's jurisdiction in a
manner that will promote and safeguard Canada's competitiveness and trade objectives;
To provide services in a fiscally responsible manner in the fields of marine and rail
transportation, aviation and recreational boating; and
To provide for a level of safety and environmental protection as required by the Act.
The Plan is intended to help balance the operational responsibilities of the Toronto Port
Authority against other pressures - for greater public access to the water's edge, for more
housing and recreational facilities close to the downtown core, towards a common goal of a
revitalized waterfront that will enhance Toronto's image and competitiveness. The Plan is
timely, given the recently discussed Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation which will
ultimately be responsible for stimulating new development along the waterfront and because
shipping activity in the Port of Toronto continues to playa vital role in the local and regional
economics.
The Board of Directors of the Toronto Port Authority approved'this Land Use Plan for public
consultation purposes at its meeting of August 16, 2001. Interested parties and members of
the general public have been invited to submit comments by November 7,2001. The Board
expects to adopt the plan so that it will come into force on or after November 8, 2001
incorporating whatever changes it may deem appropriate in light of feedback received by that
time.
207
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Toronto Port Authority (formerly
Toronto Harbour Commissioners) and the City of Toronto have worked together to restore,
protect and enhance the Toronto waterfront. Initiatives such as Waterfront Park Development
(Ashbridges Bay, Bluffers Park, Humber Bay Parks), the Keating Channel Flood Control
Program, Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring Program, Tommy Thompson Park-
Interim Management and habitat restoration initiatives, Coatsworth Cut dredging, technical
assistance on various initiatives, and the provision of navigational aids are good examples of
the partnership.
RATIONALE
The Toronto Port Authority recognizes that the City of Toronto's Official Plan represents the
vision of the City's residents as expressed by their elected municipal council. In carrying out its
own activities and in exercising its powers to regulate the activities of others, the TPA will act in
accordance with the Canada Marine Act and its own letters of patent, and will be guided by this
Land Use Plan which was released by the City on Tuesday, October 9,2001. The TPA will
have due regard for the City's Official Plan and zoning by-laws as it fulfills its mandate and
responsibilities in accordance with the goal and objectives of this Land Use Plan.
The Toronto Port Authority Land Use Plan provides specific policy direction based on the
central issues facing the TPA. This report provides a summary of some of the issues of interest
to the TRCA with respect to the proposed land use plan.
TRCA did not have the opportunity to provide input into the preparation of this proposed Land
Use Plan. As the Plan evolves and is revised, the TPA is requested to consult more fully with
the TRCA to facilitate an exchange of information and to ensure compatibility of the TPA's plans
with those of the TRCA. We have provided some initial modifications to the Land Use plan as
outlined below.
1. Environmental Assessment and the TPA
The TPA is subject to the requirements of the Canada Port Authority Environmental Assessment
Regulations, established under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). These
regulations require an assessment of the environmental effects of a project for which the TPA is
the proponent or is providing funding in support of the undertaking. CEAA and the Port
Authority Regulations do not apply to projects undertaken on TPA lands where TPA is not the
proponent or is not providing funding.
Policy Direction
a) In order to attempt to ensure that activities or physical works undertaken on or near TPA
lands do not contribute to the degradation of the environment, the TPA will adopt an
environmental assessment policy. Under this policy, projects proposed for the TPA
lands will be assessed early in the planning stages to determine if there are likely to be
significant adverse environmental effects. The TPA will consider the results of such
assessments in granting approval for projects to proceed.
b) In support of this voluntary initiative and CEAA requirements, the TPA is in the process
developing a guidance document that is intended to describe its environmental
assessment procedures. This document will be publicly available and will be provided
to existing and prospective TPA tenants and other users of TPA lands.
208
TRCA Comment
As a key landowner and agency with joint interests in the waterfront, the TRCA supports the
TPA's commitment to consult prospective TPA tenants and other users of TPA lands, in their
EA initiatives. The TRCA will involve the Toronto Port Authority early in it's environmental
assessment activities so that compatibility of projects with TPA initiatives can be confirmed.
This will provide cost effective planning and public and agency consultations. The TRCA
would also like request that TPA seek input into the environmental assessment guidance
document from the Authority prior to its finalization.
2. TPA Operations
The TPA undertakes a variety of activities related to shipping, marina and airport operations.
These activities and the infrastructure associated with them have, to a varying degree, the
potential for adverse environmental effects. Through its practices, the TPA attempts to
minimize the negative effects of its operations on the environment of the central waterfront
area. In order to formalize these practices the TPA is developing an Environmental
Management System (EMS), a tool that is intended to allow it to minimize the effect of its
activities and initiatives on the natural environment.
Policy Direction
a) Provide for the timely development and implementation of an Environmental
Management System intended to guide activities on TPA lands in order to enable it to
minimize any negative affect of its programs and initiatives on the natural environment.
b) Advise developers of lands near TPA facilities of the potential impacts from TPA
operations; and
c) Oiscourage uses on TPA lands that will have the effect of causing environmental
degradation of the area.
TRCA Comment
The TRCA supports the TPA's efforts toward the implementation of an Environmental
Management System. The TRCA is also pursuing a corporate EMS which will deal with land
use/land management issues. The TRCA would encourage the sharing of information and
EMS approaches with the TPA in future.
3. The Keatino Channel and the Don River
The Keating Channel is where sediments and water from the Don River watershed are received
and deposited on the TPA's harbour bed. There is a sudden loss of hydraulic capacity as the
river straightens out south of Queen Street and sharply changes direction at the Keating
Channel. This causes heavy sedimentation, requiring the TPA to undertake periodic dredging
operations. Dredging the Channel not only allows vessels to navigate through the area, but
perhaps more importantly, enables the Don River to maintain its hydraulic capacity, reducing
the impact of flooding on the lower Don River area, including the Don Valley Parkway and Port
area.
209
Currently, dredging is undertaken by the TPA with the estimated $450,000 annual cost shared
between the TPA, the City of Toronto and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Over the past several years, a number of initiatives have examined the possibilities of restoring
the mouth of the Don River to its natural delta formation. In achieving this objective there are
many complex and costly issues that must be resolved, including: the need to relocate the TPA
works yard; the need to maintain sufficient capacity within the river to maintain or improve its
flooding characteristics; the need to prevent any sedimentation, and more costly dredging of
the Inner Harbour; and a need to plan for the relocation of the Wilson Rail yard and associated
rail spurs.
Policy Direction
a) In the interest of safety and environmental protection, the TPA will continue working with
the City of Toronto and the TRCA towards workable solutions to the mouth of the Oon
River that have potential to reduce or eliminate the need for annual dredging of the
Keating Channel and improve water quality.
TRCA Comment
TRCA has held preliminary meetings with staff representatives of the TPA regarding the Lower
Don Environmental Assessment, Naturalization and Flood Protection. It is anticipated that
lands held, occupied or managed by the TPA will be directly affected by this initiative. The
TRCA will seek the close cooperation of the TPA and other agencies with an interest in the Port
Lands, to achieve a comprehensive solution to flood protection and enhancement of the mouth
of the Don River which may include, but not be limited to, sediment management and
improvement of water quality. The TPA is encouraged to promote any opportunities for
linkages through the Port Lands between Tommy Thompson Park and the Lower Don in any
future development plans consistent with the City's new Central Waterfront Plan and TPA
(previously Toronto Harbour Commission) - "Greening of the Portlands" study.
In a cooperative effort with the TPA and the City of Toronto, the TRCA will continue dredging
the Keating Channel to maintain its hydraulic capacity and navigational depths: The TPA,
TRCA and the City of Toronto meet regularly to discuss the Keating Channel Project (both
dredging and disposal at Tommy Thompson Park) and its monitoring needs.
4. Combined Sewer Overflows
The City of Toronto has an extensive network of combined sanitary and storm sewers that
empty into the Harbour either directly or through the Don River. During wet weather, the
combined sewers carry both sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff. When the capacity of the
system is exceeded during or immediately after storm events, the combined sewers overflow,
discharging directly into the Don River and Toronto Harbour. This discharge contributes
significantly to poor water quality in the Harbour.
Policy Oirection
a) Continue to work with the City of Toronto to eliminate combined storm/sanitary sewer
overflows affecting Toronto's waterfront.
210
TRCA Comment
Stormwater is also a potential contributor to poor water quality in the Toronto Harbour. The
TPA may wish to reword this section to reflect that the TPA will continue to work with the City of
Toronto to eliminate stormwater and sewage discharges to the Inner Harbour that contribute to
poor water quality.
5. Leslie Street Spit
In 1959, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners initiated the construction of the Leslie Street Spit
creating the Toronto Outer Harbour. In the 1970's the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
requested that the THC develop and implement a long-term disposal program for
contaminated sediment dredged from the Keating Channel. The Leslie Street Spit was
subsequently approved as a disposal and containment facility consisting of three cells. Cells
One and Two are now filled to capacity. It is estimated that Keating Channel dredgeate will
take approximately 50 years to fill Cell Three.
The planned filling of the inner portion (Embayments A, B, C, D) of the Leslie Street Spit was
completed in the late 1970's and transferred to the TRCA. The TRCA developed a master plan
for the Leslie Street Spit, now known as Tommy Thompson Park (TIP). The TPA continues to
support the TRCA in the implementation of the TIP Master Plan and to seek out opportunities
for the creation and restoration of fish and wildlife habitats. The TPA is the manager of the
outer/south easterly portion of the Spit untillandfilling/dredging operations are complete and
consistent with TRCA's long term plans for the property as recreation/natural park land.
Policy Oirection
a) The TPA will continue to work with the TRCA in their efforts to manage Tommy
Thompson Park in a manner consistent with the goals of the TTP Master Plan and with
this Land Use Plan;
b) The TPA will continue to be active in the development of habitat restoration programs;
and
c) The TPA will continue to monitor the quality of material deposited on the Leslie Street
Spit, specifically dredgeate, through its management of dredging operations in the
Toronto waterfront; and landfill, through Leslie Street Spit construction landfill
management program.
TRCA Comment
The TRCA will continue to work cooperatively with the Toronto Port Authority to manage
Tommy Thompson Park, to implement the Master Plan and to develop habitat restoration
programs. The TRCA currently monitors the quality of material deposited on the Leslie Street
Spit on behalf of the TPA, through the Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program initiated in
1988. The Authority also implements the Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring Program
through a cooperative effort with the TPA to monitor benthos, fisheries, water quality, and
sediment quality. The disposal cells currently under lease by TPA from the Ministry of Natural
Resources are scheduled to be transferred from the Province to TRCA to fulfill a condition of
the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Environmental Assessment approvals. The Port
Authority's responsibility for final armouring of the extensive shorelines and headlands of the
Leslie Street Spit needs to be resolved as part of the Annual Operating Plan for 2002.
211
6. The Base Lands
The Base Lands are located near (or at the base of) the Outer Harbour Marina and Leslie
Street. The site was created by occasionallandfilling between the years 1952 and 1980.
However, the property was never graded after dumping was completed and is covered in
rubble and construction debris. An extensive environmental audit revealed the presence of a
broad range of surface and subsurface contaminants that do not meet industrial clean up
criteria.
Policy Direction
a) The TPA will continue to review potential future uses of the Base Lands in light of the
need to be competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, as well as taking into
account its responsibilities to support the achievement of local, regional and national
social and economic objectives.
TRCA Comment
The TRCA would suggest that the planning of the Base Lands needs to be done in the context
of the TPA Land Use Plan, the City of Toronto's Central Waterfront Plan (Le. Lake Ontario Park),
the Main Treatment Plant Initiatives and the TRCA's Tommy Thompson Park/Base Lands
proposals.
The Base Lands, although owned by the TPA, are subject to a Management Agreement with
the City of Toronto which limits the TPA authority over the use of these lands through specific
zoning recognizing their environmental significance.
7. The Land Use' Plan
A review of the TPA's Land Use Plan (Section 6) suggests that the followi'1g modifications be
made by the Toronto Port Authority. .
i} Section 6.1 Goal and Objectives of the Plan
To have regard for the achievement of established local, provincial and national
social, economic and environmental objectives.
ii) Section 6.3 Environmental
2. Continue to work with local communities, The Government of Canada, the
Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authoritv on environmental initiatives affecting the TPA lands.
iii) Section 6.9 Outer Harbour Marina and Base Lands
2. Continue to develop plans for the development of the Outer Harbour Marina
------------ opportunities for the public within the context of environmental obiects.
3. Continue to plan for the development of the Outer Harbour Marina -------------- for
the public within the context of environmental obiectives: and.
212
4. Continue to review potential future uses of the Base Lands ------ to support
achievement of local, regional and national social, economic and
environmental objectives.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman extension 5238, Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313
Date: October 04, 2001
Attachments: 1
213
RES.#071/01 -
SIXTEENTH WARDEN LIMITED OMB REFERRALS
TOWN OF MARKHAM, REGION OF YORK
Referral of the Sixteenth Warden Limited draft plan of subdivision and
associated rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Pam McConnell
lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to obtain
participant standing at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the Sixteenth Warden
Limited referrals;
THAT staff continue to pursue the resolution of Authority issues in cooperation with all
relevant parties and participants prior to the commencement of the Ontario Municipal
Board Hearing;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to a future meeting of the Authority once
additional information associated with the subject applications is available.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Sixteenth Warden Limited is the owner of approximately 23.4 hectares (58 acres) of land
located on the west side of Warden Avenue, midway between Major Mackenzie Drive and
Sixteenth Avenue, being Part of Lots 17 and 18, Concession 4, in the Town of Markham. In
1995 the Town of Markham passed a by-law adopting Official Plan Amendment No. 13 which
redesignated the tablelands from Rural Residential to Urban Residential and Open Space, and
incorporated the lands into the Urban Service Area. The lands are currently zoned Suburban
Residential First Density (SUR 1) and Suburban Residential Third Density (SUR 3) by By-law
118-79, as amended. -
From a regulatory context the property contains both the Berczy Creek along its eastern
property boundary fronting onto Warden Avenue, and the Carlton Creek along the southerly
property boundary (Attachment 1). Both valley corridors are regulated pursuant to the
Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158)
and would require a permit from the Authority for any works. Additionally, there appears to be
a watercourse entering the middle of the property from the existing residential development to
the north; an initial staff assessment of this feature confirms it has a defined bed and banks,
and as such meets the definition of a watercourse for the purpose of our Regulation.
Sixteenth Warden Limited is proposing the development of a 53 lot residential subdivision on
full municipal services. In 1984 the lands were originally draft approved as an 18 lot residential
subdivision on private services, with a future development block adjoining Warden Avenue.
Draft approval was extended a number of times up to 1995, at which time the plan was revised
and draft approvals were granted for 20 lots on urban services.
215
N
I-'
~
Schedule A:
Land Currently
Managed, Held or
Not to Scale
rTh~ TOrDflto Pon Authority
l>
-
-
ll)
(')
:T
3
(l)
:]
-
....
:
I
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
While the 1995 draft approval has now lapsed, the Official Plan policies and zoning by-law
permitting the 20 residential lots remains in effect. The new subdivision and rezoning
applications for the 53 lot proposal have been filed to replace the previous approval, and have
been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board owing to Council's refusal or neglect to enact
same.
RATIONALE
There is considerable history associated with the development of the subject lands, which is
evident from the various development approvals granted to the subject property over the years.
There are also a number of resource features affecting the property which are of interest to the
Authority, including the Carlton Creek and Berczy Creek tributaries which traverse the property.
Authority staff has attended the site with representatives from the Town of Markham and the
applicant for the purpose of reviewing development limits previously established for this
property. At the latest site meeting (October, 2000) a watercourse with defined bed and banks
was identified bisecting the lands from north to south approximately midway between Willow
Creek Drive and Bernadotte Drive. Although this feature was not previously addressed, staff
requested the applicant assess the function of this feature and prescribe how it will be
addressed through the current development proposal.
Additionally, issues related to finalizing the development limit and servicing of the site have yet
to be finalized. Sixteenth Warden Limited is currently in the process of finalizing the plan they
will bring forward to the Ontario Municipal Board, which staff anticipate would be accompanied
by relevant supporting studies.
It should be noted that the applications by Sixteenth Warden Limited were denied by Markham
Council subsequent to a public meeting held on March 6, 2001.
WORK TO BE DONE
Staff are recommending participant standing be sought at the upcoming pre-hearing
conference of the Ontario Municipal Board in order to safe guard TRCA interests. Staff will
continue to work with the Town, the applicant and all parties to the Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing in an attempt to resolve any outstanding program or policy issues.
A further report setting out the details of the proposal as they relate to TRCA interests will be
brought forward to a future meeting of the Authority once additional information has been
provided by the applicant.
Report prepared by: Luch Ognibene, extension 5284
For Information contact: Luch Ognibene, extension 5284
Date: October 11, 2001
216
I\)
~
'-J
I :
I .
0__. .. _... )>
=
Q)
(')
::r
3
CD
::J
-
....
en'N~'100D RO~
Rr. HAr /I /IlUSSE U eRr.
,A'" ....-pnOITICE
16'tyJ.AVENUE ,
, "'\.. -":"" I ' ~
n~~~ I 6fun
\ \.. L (--If"'-SOi,'"
_---.II
".
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :28 a.m., on October 19, 2001.
J. Craig Mather
Secretary-Treasurer
Irene Jones
Chair
Iks
218
~
V THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/01
November 16, 2001
The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/01, was held in the South
Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, November 16, 2001. The Chair Irene
Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:11 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell
lIa Bossons
Irene Jones
Anthony Ketchum
Pam McConnell
Jim McMaster
Dick O'Brien
Dave Ryan
Ian Sinclair
Frank Scarpitti
Vice Chair
Member
Chair
Member
Member
Member
Chair, Authority
Member
Member
Member
REGRETS
Bas Balkissoon
Tanny Wells
Member
Member
RES.#D72/01 -
MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Anthony Ketchum
lIa Bossons
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/01, held on October 19, 2001, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Brian Denn~y, Director, Watershed Management Division, TRCA on
item 7.1 - 2001 Rap Progress Report.
(b) A presentation by David Burnett, Senior Planner, Oak Ridges Moraine, TRCA on the
new Oak Ridges Moraine Legislation.
219
RES.#D73/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
PRESENTATIONS
lIa Bossons
Dave Ryan
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff make a presentation to the City of Toronto Works Committee
on the requirements for protection of our water resources and the financial need for a
dedicated fund derived from a portion of the water rate revenues.
RES.#D74/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
Dick O'Brien
Dave Ryan
THAT above-noted presentation (b) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the November 23,2001 Authority meeting on the
environmental concerns and implications of the proposed development of the Seaton
Lands as a result of the land swap with the Richmond Hill lands, taking into consideration
the City of Pickering's Official Plan and the overall watershed impacts.
CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#D75/01 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
2001 RAP PROGRESS REPORT
To receive the Executive Summary of the 2001 RAP Progress Report.
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the attached Executive Summary
and the presentation by Brian Denney, Director, Watershed Management Division on the
2001 RAP Progress Report be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1987, Canada, the United States and International Joint commision identified 42 areas of
concern (AoCs) around the Great Lakes where remedial action was required to restore
environemtal quality. Toronto and region was idenfied as one of these areas. Table 1 identifes
the imapired Uses in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. Since 1989 the TRCA has been
actively involved in the problem definintion, strategy development and implementation of the
Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. Since 1996, TRCA has
been the co-implementor of the Remedial Action Plan with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
220
TABLE 1: Impaired Uses in the Toronto ~nd Region Area of Concern
1m aired Use
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consum tion
De radation of benthos
Restrictions on dred in activities
Eutro hication or undesirable al ae
Beach closures
De radation of aesthetics
De radation of fish and wildlife 0 ulations
Loss of fish and wildlife habitats
Fish tumours or other deformities
Bird or animal deformities or reproductive
roblems -
Degradation of phytoplankton and
zoo lankton 0 ulations
Taintin of fish and wildlife flavour
Restriction on drinking water; taste and odour
roblems
Added costs to a riculture and indust
Status
Impaired
Impaired
1m aired
1m aired
1m aired
1m aired
1m aired
1m aired
Re uires further assessment
Requires further assessment
Requires further assessment
Not im aired
Not impaired
Not 1m aired
One of the requirements under the RAP is regular reporting on the progress to restoring
beneficial uses to the Toronto Region. Attached is the executive summary of the 2001
progress report prepared by the Waterfront Regneration Trust. Brian Denney will do a
presentation outlinng the progress made to date. Full colour copies of the report will be
available shortly.
Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: November 08, 2001
Attachments: 1
221
Attachment 1
Executive Summary
Toronto's waterfront and watersheds have been on the "black list" of Areas of Concern
around the Great Lakes since 1987. This document reports on the work that has been done
since 1987 to restore water quality and healthy habitats. It provides an in-depth assessment of
progress, outlines the activities that are underway towards remediation, and establishes clear
priorities for removing Toronto from the list of Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Toronto's waterfront and watersheds are still seriously degraded. Bacterial contamination
frequently makes much of the waterfront, as well as the rivers and creeks, unfit for swimming
and other water contact recreation. Harmful contaminants affect the health of fish and wildlife,
and restrict human consumption of the fish. Habitats for fish and wildlife have been reduced to
degraded fragments, both along the waterfront and in the related watersheds. Toxic sediments
restrict the disposal of harbour dredgeates to confined disposal sites. Litter and rotting algae
make the water's edge unpleasant in many locations.
The causes of these problems are complex. The Toronto waterfront is affected by lake-wide
influences, being downstream of the other four Great Lakes and the Niagara River, with many
sources of water-borne contaminants as well as deposition from air pollutants. Local sources
include the drainage from six watersheds (from Etobicoke Creek in the west to the Rouge River
in the east) with 210,000 hectares of agricultural and urban lands. The volumes and pollution
loads of stormwater and melting snow from these watersheds create serious impacts in the
rivers and streams as well as the waterfront itself.
Overflows of raw sewage mixed with stormwater following heavy rains are a serious problem in
the lower portions of the Don and Humber Rivers and directly along the waterfront. Spills, road
run-off, and chemical inputs to sewers from industries and homes all contribute to a polluted
aquatic environment. Fish, wildlife and their habitats are affected by sediments and
contaminants in the rivers and lake. In addition, in the course of several centuries of agriculture
and urbanization, wetlands have been filled, forests and riparian vegetation removed, creeks
buried or channelised, shorelines hardened, and dams and weirs built in the rivers, obstructing
fish migration.
Progress has been made since 1987. Toronto's Remedial Action Plan was published in 1994
and has provided guidance to a range of activities by watershed groups, municipalities, the
conservation authority, provincial and federal agencies, and industries. Beach water quality has
been significantly improved at the Eastern Beaches, and will be improved at the Western
Beaches with the completion of a combined sewer/stormwater detention tunnel in 2002.
Twenty hectares of new waterfront habitats have provided for increases in the variety and
biomass of fish. New parks and trails provide pleasant greenspace, recreation and interpretive
opportunities. Lake-wide pollutants such as DDT have decreased. And there are better controls
on spills and industrial inputs to the sewers.
But overall, most of the causes of degradation are still in place and we still have a long way
to go to achieve our vision of clean waters and healthy habitats in Torontols watersheds and
waterfront.
222
This report identifies six key areas of priority action to remove Toronto from the list of Areas
of Concern:
1 . wet weather flow management
2. pollution prevention
3. habitat restoration
4. smart growth
5. education
6. monitoring
1. Wet Weather Flow Management. Uncontrolled flows of polluted stormwater and combined
sewer overflows are the most significant cause of degradation of Toronto's waterfront and
watersheds. Implementation of the City of Torontofs emerging Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan will be essential to restore clean waters in the Toronto Area of Concern. It will
identify the most effective combinations of controls that can be applied at the source (e.g. on
individual properties), during conveyance of water through the stormwater system, and before
discharging into a watercourse or the lake (e.g. ponds, tanks and tunnels). In addition,
complementary actions should be taken in the upstream municipalities, by continuing with
programs to retrofit stormwater quantity control ponds to also control water quality.
Consideration should be given to providing stormwater management for those urban areas,
roads and highways that were developed before ~tormwater controls were mandatory. And
vigilance is required to ensure that stormwater management in new developments and
redevelopments throughout all the watersheds accomplishes the best results possible.
2. Pollution Prevention. Even in dry weather, pollution gets to rivers, creeks and the lake from
a variety of sources. Key actions to address these sources include reducing the use of
hazardous chemicals, eliminating cross connections between the sanitary and storm sewer
systems, preventing spills, improving and enforcing sewer use by-laws and stormwater
policies, and applying best management practices to municipal infrastructure, construction
sites, industries and agriculture.
3. Habitat Restoration. Habitat improvements should continue along the waterfront and in the
watersheds, with emphasis on rivermouth wetlands; areas where land use changes are
occurring (eg Port Union, the West Donlands and the Toronto Portlands); removal of barriers in
the rivers and creeks; and restoration of shoreline/riparian cover. Protection of existing habitats
is also essential, especially in areas of new development.
4. Smart Growth. Although the focus of the RAP is on remedial action to restore degraded
environments, we recognize that ongoing population growth, and the new development to
support it, could result in losing the gains made in restoration efforts. On the other hand, new
development and redevelopment offer opportunities for proactive approaches to environmental
protection and management, learning from the mistakes of past practices and applying the
best practices available today.
5. Education and Involvement. Increased efforts are essential to educate residents,
businesses and industries and encourage more sustainable practices, including better lot-level
stormwater management, water conservation, reduction in use and proper disposal of
chemicals, and habitat stewardship.
223
6. Monitoring. In order to delist Toronto and Region as an Area of Concern, we need to be
able to clearly demonstrate that the beneficial uses specified in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement have been fully restored. This report identifies a focussed list of monitoring and
research needs for the RAP, which should be addressed by all the agencies participating in the
integrated monitoring program developed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Removing Toronto from the list of Areas of Concern will nQt be quick nor easy. tt took
some two centuries to degrade our waterfront and watersheds to today's conditions, and it will
likely take decades to restore environmental health. However, progress to date is encouraging
and demonstrates that much is possible.
The benefits of a clean, green, healthy environment are clear, and have been widely
recognized in recent municipal plans, watershed strategies, and related initiatives such as the
efforts to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine and revitalize Toronto's waterfront. A common thread
that links all these initiatives together is the recognition that a healthy environment is essential
for a strong economy and vibrant communities. The workplan outlined in this report to restore
clean waters and healthy habitats represents a major contribution towards the high quality of
life that will attract new business investments and,meet the needs of residents and tourists
alike.
224
RES.#D76/01 -
CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION
PROJECT 1997-2001
345 Beechgrove Drive, Highland Creek Watershed, City of Toronto.
Construction of the erosion control works at the rear of 345 Beechgrove
Drive, City of Toronto
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff proceed with construction
of the erosion control works at the rear of 345 Beechgrove Drive, City of Toronto, under
the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001 at a total budget
of $125,000 subject to receipt of all necessary approvals.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In the 1970's, the Authority constructed a wire gabion basket retaining wall to protect the
houses on Beechgrove Drive. The gab ion baskets were specifically constructed to stop the
undercutting from water flow during storm events. The gabion basket wall was constructed on
lands owned by the Conservation Authority. During a major storm event in June 2000, the high
water flows undermined the wall causing it to fail. At present the coincident valley slope is
being eroded by the water flow in Highland Creek during each storm event and staff is of the
opinion that the home at 345 Beechgrove Drive is at imminent risk and requires remedial works
to be carried out.
In the spring of this year, Aquafor Beech was instructed to carry out the design of the remedial
works at the rear of 345 Beechgrove Drive and assess the condition at the site. The design
followed the Class Environmental Assessment process for erosion and flood control works. An
open house/public meeting was held in May at which time the consultants presented an
overview of their study finding and alternative for remedial works. Public input from this
meeting, in addition to questionaries that were returned by individuals who attended the
meeting, assisted the consultants in the assessment of the preferred option. Input on the
project was requested from representatives from the approval/commenting agencies. These
included the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Toronto Parks Department, and the Federal
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The preferred option is the construction of an armour
stone retaining wall at the base of the existing slope. A section of the retaining wall will extend
onto private lands
RATIONALE
The 345 Beechgrove Drive site has been identified in the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline
Regeneration Project" as a priority, based on the information gathered through the Authority's
ongoing erosion monitoring program.
The Authority's goal through this project is to:
"Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks,
valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the
valley and lakefront settings"
225
Several of the key objectives outlined in the Authority's Erosion Control and Lake
Ontario Shoreline Program are:
(1) to implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public
and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion;
(2) to implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect
the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats
adversely affected by the erosion:
(3) to design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach
for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access
adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and
enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources;
(4) to acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of
remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property;
(5) to secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and
where the lands are valuable additions to the green space systems;
(6) to protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated
terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and
(7) to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other
environmental protection legislation.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The remedial works consist of constructing an armour stone retaining wall which includes
fisheries enhancement structures and extensive planting above the wall. Attached are the
design drawings for the project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Aquafor Beech Limited, in conjunction with staff, developed a cost estimate of $125,000 for the
proposed armour stone remedial works at the rear of 345 Beechgrove Drive.
In following our policy, the owners of 345 Beechgrove Drive will be asked to contribute $4,600
towards the cost of work and to provide a permanent easement on their property for future
maintenance work, or transfer to the Authority that portion of their property where the works are
carried out. No work will be carried out until these details are finished.
Account No. 167-01 has been set up for this project and funds are available from the City of
Toronto within the Authority's approved capital budget.
For Information contact: Jim Tucker, extension 5247
Date: November 02, 20011
226
RES.#D77/01 -
LOWER DON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN STUDY
Flood Protection and Naturalization of the Mouth of the Don.
Establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee to assist TRCA staff
and consultants in the development of the Lower Don River
Environmental Assessment and Functional Design St~dy.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THAT a Lower Don Environmental Assessment Technical Advisory Committee be
established to provide effective agency and regulatory Input into the Environmental
Assessment and Functional Design Study for the Flood Protection and Naturalization of
the Mouth of the Don;
THAT the Terms of Reference, including the membership be approved;
THAT the Terms of Reference be reviewed following the development of a contract
between the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation/Interim Corporation and the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to determine any changes;
THAT any costs incurred by the TRCA as a result of the establishment of this committee
be attributed to the Lower Don EA project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Board as required.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2001, City of Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, Federal Transport Minister The
Honourable David Collenette and Ontario Deputy Premier and Finance Minister The
Honourable Jim Flaherty announced the commitment of the three governments to the creation
of a Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the funding for priority capital projects
totalling $300 million. Included in the priority capital projects was a $2 million allocation for the
Environmental Assessment and Functional Design for the Naturalization and Flood Protection
for the Lower D~n River and the identification that the project will be managed by the TRCA.
The objectives established for the Lower Don project as outlined in a City of Toronto report
from the office of Michael Garrett, CAO dated April 2, 2001, to the Policy and Finance
Committee were identified and include:
1. To clean up a significant local source of soil and groundwater pollution;
2. To establish a corridor of land for the Don River that provides:
(a) Natural, stable, river channel and river mouth;
(b) Healthy lake, river and shoreline habitat;
(c) Natural habitat link between Lake Ontario and Don River Valley; and
(d) Pedestrian and bicycle trail links between Lake Ontario Trails and Don River Valley
trails;
227
3. To provide a flood protection solution for the West Don Lands that enables removal of the
Holding Symbol;
4. To remove all other developable lands from the Regulatory Flood Plain and remove the
Special Policy Area designations in the Lower Don Lands;
5. To maintain existing road traffic capacity through or around the affected area; and
6. To maintain a rail connection to the Port Industrial Area and the East Bayfront.
At Meeting #3/01 held on April 27, 2001, the Authority passed Resolution #A58/01
"THA T the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of Toronto be
advised that the TRCA will undertake the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower
Oon River: Environmental Assessment and Functional Oesign component of the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Initiative and will make every reasonable effort to complete the
project through to the submission of the Environmental Assessment within the 18 month
time frame established for the work;
THA T the staff be directed to expedite the necessary contracts or agreements with the
Interim Waterfront Corporation necessary to enable the Environmental Assessment and
FunctionalOesign for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for the Lower Oon River to
proceed;
THA T the staff be directed to work closely with aI/levels of Government, and in particular,
the City of Toronto to ensure that the project is integrated into the other waterfront
revitalization initiatives, the Olympic Bid, transportation plans, the Toronto Remedial Action
Plan, and the new Central Waterfront Plan;
THAT the Interim Waterfront Corporation and the future Toronto Waterfront Revitalization
Corporation, once formed, be requested to include implementation costs in their projected
capital budget commencing in 2002 anticipating that the Environmental Assessment will be
completed in 2002;
THA T aI/ direct costs and reasonable indirect costs arising from the Environmental
Assessment and Functional Oesign Project be recovered through the funding allocated to
the project through the Interim Waterfront Corporation and its successor the Toronto
Waterfront Revitalization Initiative, and its shareholders: the Federal Government; the
Province; and, the City of Toronto;
THA T the preliminary studies undertaken to date, be used whenever possible to expedite
the process including the fulfillment of the public consultation requirements of the
Environmental Assessment Act through the demonstration of a long history of public
consultation and support;
ANO FURTHER THA T the staff proceed as quickly as possible to hire the appropriate
consultants that have proven expertise for this project in such a manner that expedites the
process while providing a cost effective approach and achieving excellence in design and
the incorporation of the City of Toronto's policies for environmental sustainability."
228
On Tuesday, October 30,2001, the Province of Ontario signed the Tri-Ievel agreement to
establish the interim corporation. It is our understanding that Robert Fung, who has been
appointed as the chair of the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation will now be able to
negotiate the relevant contracts to enable the priority projects to begin. In anticipation of this,
TRCA staff have held meetings with the following potential stakeholders:
. City of Toronto:
Transportation Services Department;
City Planning Department;
Works and Emergency Services Department;
Parks and Recreation Department;
Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; and
City Councillors Pat McConnell and Jack Layton;
. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency;
. Ministry of Environment - Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch;
. Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);
. Ontario Realty Corporation (aRC);
. Toronto Port Authority;
. Task Force to Bring Back the Don;
. West Don Lands Committee;
. Task Force on the Gardiner - Lakeshore Corridor;
. GO Transit;
. CNR;
. Canada Lands;
. Unilever; and
. Home Depot.
Staff have agreed in principle, subject to the formal contract being negotiated with the
Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, to:
. co-ordinate public consultation with the other three priority projects;
. participate in the public consultation on the City of Toronto's Central Waterfront Part II Plan;
and
. to work closely with Canada Lands, TEDCO and aRC to address soil and groundwater
issues.
Staff are also currently developing a draft request for proposals for the preparation of the
Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessments and for the background and functional
design studies that are required in support the Environmental Assessment. Staff have also
initiated a number of small studies to consolidate ecological information.
RATIONALE:
The complexity of the naturalization of the Lower Don EA and the flood protection requires that
close communication be maintained with a number of city departments, agencies, regulators,
and land owners. It is recommended that a Technical Advisory Committee be established to
assist TRCA staff and consultants to ensure that the Environmental Assessment takes into full
account the evolving planning and transportation considerations which are critical to the
naturalization options at the mouth of the Don.
229
The establishment of this Technical Advisory Committee does not in any way preclude or
replace the full public consultation requirements of an Environmental Assessment. The TRCA
is committed to effective and timely public consultation. Establishment of the Lower Don EA
Technical Advisory Cpmmittee (TAC) at this time will enable the TRCA to move quickly once
the contract is negotiated with the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and/or the Interim
Corporation. A short Terms of Reference is appended including the proposed membership.
Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: November 05, 2001
Attachments: 1
230
Attachment 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR THE LOWER DON
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2001, the Federal Government, Province of Ontario and The City of Toronto
announced the commitment to create a Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and to
fund priority capital projects. One of the four projects identified was an Environmental
Assessment and Functional Design Study for the Naturalization and Flood Protection of the
Lower Don River. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was identified as the
agency that would undertake this work on behalf of the Revitalization Corporation.
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
In April 2001 , the TRCA passed the following recommendations to address these issues as part
of the Lower Don River Environmental Assessment and Functional Design.
Res. #A58/01 :
"THA T the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, and the City of
Toronto be advised that the TRCA will undertake the Naturalization and Flood
Protection for the Lower Oon River: Environmental Assessment and Functional
Oesign component of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative and will make
eveI}' reasonable effort to complete the project through to the submission of the
Environmental Assessment within the 18 month time frame established for the
work;
THA T the staff will be directed to expedite the necessal}' contracts or agreements
with the Interim Waterfront Corporation necessal}' to enable the Environmental
Assessment and Functional Oesign for the Naturalization and Flood Protection for
the Lower Oon River to proceed;
THA T the staff be directed to work closely with all levels of Government, and in
particular, the City of Toronto to ensure that the project is integrated into the other
waterfront revitalization initiatives, the Olympic Bid, transportation plans, the
Toronto Remedial Action Plan, and the new Central Waterfront Plan;
THA T the Interim Waterfront Corporation and the future Toronto Waterfront
Revitalization Corporation, once formed, be requested to include implementation
costs in their projected capital budget commencing in 2002 anticipating that the
Environmental Assessment will be completed in 2002;
THA T all direct costs and reasonable indirect costs arising from the
Environmental Assessment and Functional Oesign Project be recovered through
the funding allocated to the project through the Interim Waterfront Corporation
231
and its successor the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Initiative, and its
shareholders: the Federal Government, the Province; and, the City of Toronto;
THA T the preliminary studies undertaken to date, be used whenever possible to
expedite the process including the fulfillment of the public consultation
requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act through the demonstration of
a long history of public consultation and support;
ANO FURTHER THA T the staff proceed as quickly as possible to hire the
appropriate consultants that have proven expertise for this project in such a
manner that expedites the process while providing a cost effective approach and
achieving excellence in design and the incorporation of the City of Toronto's
policies for environmental sustainability. II
ROLE OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The main functions of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) will be to:
. Review the Request for Proposals, prior to its distribution to the consulting industry;
. Review the consultant's proposals in response to the Request for Proposals;
. Provide timely technical advice to the TRCA staff and its consultants in the development
and review of the draft Environmental Assessment and functional design for the Lower Don
EA and Functional Design Study;
. Streamline agency involvement and access to key individuals and information;
. Assist in the response and to issues raised during public consultation throughout the
project; and
. Assist in co-ordinating the Lower Don EA with other planning and project initiatives that
have bearing on the completion of the EA and/or its future implementation.
RELATIONSHIP TO FORMAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The T AC's role is primarily to provide advice and streamline the development of the
Environmental Assessment by providing a forum for agency consultation. Development of the
Environmental Assessment requires public and agency consultation both in the development
of the Terms of Reference and in the consideration of the alternatives. While the establishment
of the T AC will assist agency comment and participation in the project, additional formal
comments from agencies will be accepted and required as part of the overalj consultation
process. Four recognized community leaders that are familiar with the technical issues of the
project will participate on the T AC and provide initial comment from a public stakeholders
perspective. All formal public consultations will be handled outside of the TAC.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE TAC
A preliminary listing of TAC members is provided below.
Federal Aaencies:
. Transport Canada
. Department of Fisheries and Oceans
. Environment Canada
. Canada Transportation Agency
232
Provincial Aaencies:
. Ministry of Environment (including representatives of the Environmental Assessment and
Approvals Branch)
. Ministry of Natural Resources
. Superbuild
City of Toronto:
. Works and Emergency Services (including representatives from Transportation and the Wet
Weather Flow Management Master Plan)
. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Department)
. Urban Development Services (Planning Department; Waterfront Director)
. Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health Department)
Other Agencies and Land Owners:
. Toronto Port Authority
. Toronto Waterfront Regeneration Corporation
. Canada Lands (Ontario Realty Corporation [aRC] and Toronto Economic Development
Corporation [TEDCO] )
. CN Railroad
. GO Transit
. TRCA staff
Citizen Members:
. Mark Wilson (Don Watershed Regeneration Council)
. John Wilson (Task Force to Bring Back the Don)
. 2 Other Members To be appointed
APPOINTMENT OF TAC MEMBERS
Citizen members will be appointed by the TRCA. Agencies will be requested to appoint
suitable staff to the T AC.
REMUNERATION
Citizen members will receive mileage and parking costs for each meeting.
MEETING FREQUENCY
It is anticipated that the TAC will meet approximately once per month.
LENGTH OF TERM
The T AC will be established initially for a period of 18 months commencing on December 1 ,
2001. TRCA staff will request an extension should the Environmental Assessment require
additional time.
233
RES.#D78/01 -
MARIO GRECO, OMB APPEAL
TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE, REGION OF YORK
Appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision to deny a consent
application by Mario Greco.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to obtain
participant standing at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the Mario Greco appeal;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to pursue the resolution of Authority issues in
cooperation with all relevant parties and participants prior to the commencement of the
Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Mario Greco is the owner of a parcel of land situated on the north side of Main Street just east
of Highway #48 in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, municipally known as 5318 Main Street
(see Attachment). The property has a frontage of 153 metres and an area of 5.71 hectares,
and is situated on the Oak Ridges Moraine within an approved Settlement Area. The property
is traversed by the Little Rouge Creek and is subject to flooding under Regional Storm
conditions.
The Community of Stouffville Secondary Plan designates the lands associated with the Little
Rouge Creek as part of the Greenland System, with the table lands to the east and west of this
resource feature designated as Mixed Use Area and Gateway Mixed Use Area, respectively.
From a regulatory context the property is subject to the Authority's Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158), and a permit would be required
from the Authority prior to constructing in the regulatory flood plain or interfering with the
watercourse.
The owner is proposing to sever a 1.06 hectare portion of land within the southeast portion of
the property. The proposed severance line generally follows the alignment of the watercourse.
The majority of the parcel to be conveyed is within the Regional Storm flood plain with no dry
access from Main Street. While the application circulated for staff review identified the intent
was to create a new lot, subsequent correspondence from the owners' solicitor indicates the
parcel is to be conveyed and combined with adjoining lands to the east. It should also be
noted that the adjoining lands are also partially situated within the Regional Storm flood plain.
The application was refused by the Committee of Adjustment on August 22, 2001. The owner
has appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, and a hearing has been scheduled
for December 5, 2001.
234
RATIONALE
The Little Rouge Creek and associated corridor is of interest to the Authority. The stream
corridor is ill-defined and drains in excess of 125 hectares, and is subject to Ontario Regulation
158. The Little Rouge Creek at this location is sparsely vegetated, and is classified as a cold
water stream. The Town's Secondary Plan for this area encourages the development of trails
within the Greenland system to link the community together.
Authority concerns relate to the protection of the watercourse, flood plain and' associated
buffer, and further fragmentation of ownership, as set out in the Authority's Valley and Stream
Corridor Management Program.
WORK TO BE DONE
Staff are recommending participant standing be sought at the upcoming Ontario Municipal
Board hearing in order to ensure the interests of the Authority are safeguarded. The Town h,as
advised that to the extent Qur interests are mutual, they can provide representation on our
behalf. As such, it may not be necessary to retain separate legal counsel.
Report prepared by: Sandra Wiles, extension 5244
For Information contact: Sandra Wiles, extension 5244
Date: November 08, 2001
Attachments: 1
235
Attachment 1
\
0)
'Z
o
H
en
en
~
u
z
o
u
st
i"'"
up
t.:IZ
~..c
~~
lfl
\
.......
. -.
~-,
.~~
236
RES.#D79/01 -
DRAFT CANADA - ONTARIO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE
GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM
The Canada-Ontario Agreement expired March 2000. A renegotiated
Agreement including four Annexes addressing Areas of Concern,
Harmful Pollutants, Lakewide Management, and Monitoring and
Information Management has been posted for comment. The Agreement
and its Annexes while identifying goals, research, required plans/studies
and desired results, provides no assurance of federal and provincial
resource commitments to address Great Lakes Issues.
Moved 'by:
Seconded by:
lIa Bossons
Frank Scarpitti
WHEREAS over 16 million Canadians depend on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Basin's rich resources for clean air and drinking water, food and shelter, good health,
employment, sport and recreation;
WHEREAS the basin holds 20 percent of the Earth's fresh water;
WHEREAS we, who share the Basin with 25 million Americans, have subjected and
continue to subject it to stresses resulting from urban, and rural uses, invasive plant and
animal species; air pollution, acid rain, smog, the loss of valuable species and areas of
biodiversity, and clif'!1ate change. In turn the health of the basin's inhabitants is subjected
to bacterial, viral, and parasitic diseases, toxic contaminants, and endocrine-disrupting
chemicals. The social well-being of communities in the basin is also affected by beach
closings, limits on fish consumption and drinking water advisories;
WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
is the primary vehicle for the fulfillment of Canada's obligations under the Canada-United
States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA);
WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario Agreement expired in March of 2000;
WHEREAS the 2001 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to the House of Commons reporting on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River Basin has found in part:
that "while the federal government and its partners have been active in the basin for
several decades, with some positive results, recent trends show that some aspects of
water quality in the basin may be deteriorating;"
that "there is an ambiguity over federal commitments;"
that "the government does not have the basic informatio'n to develop priorities and
action plans;" '
that "while it has managed its cleanup fund well in areas of concern, a clearer
rationale is needed for financing action in the future;"
that "misuse of fertilizer and manure on farmland has damaged the ecosystem of the
basins;"
237
that "the federal government has not provided the International Joint Commission with
enough information to properly assess Canada's progress under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement;" and
that "the funding to deal with many issues in the basin is unstable, declining and
insufficient to meet the government's objectives;"
WHEREAS the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario reports that "the absence of a
new COA creates a policy and operational void that prevents ministry staff and federal
officials from moving forward on many urgent ecological restoration/cleanup issues in
the Great Lakes Basin;"
WHEREAS the current draft Canada-Ontario Agreement and Annexes provide limited
funding support for project implementation;
WHEREAS the current draft Canada-Ontario Agreement and Annexes provide little
recognition and support for the need to promote and undertake stewardship activities
throughout the entire basin; and,
WHEREAS the TRCA values the continuing opportunity to work in partnership with the
governments of Canada and Ontario to plan and implement strategic actions that secure
and restore the beneficial uses of the Toronto Region for the health, and sustainable
prosperity of the Region's residents;
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the governments of Canada and
Ontario be requested to move expeditiously to make the amendments necessary to
incorporate the following recommendations to the draft COA and the draft Annexes and
commence their implementation immediately and that the parties commit to timely
negotiations to ensure that further lapses in this critical agreement do not occur again;
THAT the federal and provincial governments initiate a process immediately to establish
a fifth Annex to address watershed and waterfront management issues for areas outside
the current Areas of Concern and to provide these watersheds and waterfronts the
resources and expertise required to address environmental and ecological management
concerns that affect the health and security of the Great Lakes;
THAT the Canada and Ontario - Areas of Concern Annex set a clear priority and
mechanism for the provision of federal and provincial funding for capital resources to
assist municipalities and other partners in the implementation of remediation plans
addressing stormwater management including "at source", "conveyance" as well as "end
of pipe" approaches;
THAT the capital funding provision for the implementation of natural heritage and fish
habitat management strategies be continued;
THAT the Areas of Concern Annex be amended to include capital assistance for
Conservation Authorities in addition to municipal and regional strategic planning for the
purposes of natural heritage and fish habitat planning and the implementation of
strategies;
238
THAT the governments of Canada and Ontario increase substantially the current
allocations to local organizations and agencies such as the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust (WRT) that are
carrying out local RAP implementation activities as per the RAP implementation model
used in the Toronto region that supports reporting, monitoring, citizen engagement,
advocacy and action that leads to the restoration of beneficial uses;
THAT the federal and provincial governments continue to recognize the important role of
partnerships at all levels, in the delivery of Great Lakes protection and restoration
initiatives and to provide direct and indirect support to ensure effective and cost efficient
local and regional delivery;
AND FURTHER THAT these recommendations be forwarded to the Prime Minister of
Canada, the Premier of Ontario, federal and provincial Ministers of the Environment and
to the respective MP's, MPP's, Regional Chairs and Mayors of the TRCA's watershed
municipalities, Conservation Ontario and the other Conservation Authorities.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Authority Direction
At meeting #8/01 , the Authority requested staff to review the recently renegotiated
Canada-Ontario Agreement and report back to the Authority on the content and the funding
required to address Area of Concern issues within the Toronto and Region including
opportunities for the TRCA to enhance its role in RAP implementation, monitoring and public
outreach activities.
In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). The Agreement was renewed in 1978 with the purpose of restoring and maintaining
the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In 1987, a
protocol to the Agreement identified 42 Areas of Concern (AoCs) in the Basin where one or
more beneficial uses have been impaired. Of these 42 AoCs, five were shared between
Canada and the United States in the connecting channel areas, and 12 were within the
Province of Ontario. The Toronto region is one of the largest and most complex of these 12
AoCs in Ontario. The 1987 protocol also required that for each AoC in their jurisdiction, the
governments develop and implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) which would embody a
systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restore and protect beneficial uses in
the AoC. The protocol also required that the public be consulted in all actions taken.
Since 1971, the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
(COA) has provided the framework for systematic and strategic coordination of federal and
provincial initiatives with respect to protecting and restoring the beneficial uses of th'e Great
Lakes Basin. It includes the development and implementation of RAPs for which Environment
Canada and Ministry of Environment are the lead agencies.
Importance of the COA to the Toronto ReQion
The Lake Ontario Waterfront, from the mouth of the Etobicoke Creek to the mouth of the Rouge
River, the Toronto Harbour, the nearshore waters and the attendant watersheds are considered
the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan Area, based on the impairment of its beneficial
uses.
239
Beginning in 1991, under the direction of COA, the Metro Toronto RAP Team, a collaboration of
government implementing agencies and members of the public, prepared and submitted the
Stage 1 RAP report, identifying impaired beneficial uses to the International Joint Commission
as required under the GLWQA. Subs~quently, the Team developed the report "Clean Waters,
Clear Choices". This Stage 2A report contains 53 recommendations for action to "restore the
polluted waterways and waterfront in the Metro Toronto Region."
In the ten years since the process to develop a Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto Region
commenced, many important implementation projects have been initiated or completed to
address critical issues. (See Item 7.1 in this Agenda)
In 1996, a new mechanism was established to promote the implementation of these
recommendations. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust (WRT) entered into an implementation partnership with the federal and
provincial governments to continue the reporting, study, advocacy, monitoring, public outreach
and education efforts required under the GLWQA.
Approximately $250,000 has been made available for this work annually shared by the WRT
and the TRCA. Of this, $50,000, is contributed by Ontario. Less than $1 million dollars
annually has been made available from the federal government through partnership funding to
address the myriad of problems related to the restoration of beneficial uses in the Toronto
Region. Ontario has contributed substantially less but did establish the Great Lakes
Foundation in the past 5 years. The TRCA and WRT staff together with municipal staff, have
consistently brought to the attention of the governments of Canada and Ontario the
inadequacy of this funding both to meet the basic requirements under GLWQA for reporting,
study, monitoring, public outreach and education needs and to address seriously the capital
sums required to address the issues of combined sewage outfalls and stormwater
management.
The previous COA lapsed in March 2000. With no agreement in place there has been no
framework for addressing the program and funding issues.
Recent TRCA Resolutions with resDect to COA
In October 1999, the TRCA resolved that:
RES. #A272/99 -
"WHEREAS the Great Lakes Basin plays a pivotal role in the health, quality of life, wealth and
prosperity of 9 million Canadians, fully 25% of Canada's population;
WHEREAS the Great Lakes are the direct source of drinking water for these Canadians;
WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is
the primary vehicle for the fulfillment of Canada's obligations under the Canada-United
states Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
240
WHEREAS the 1994 COA agreement has only partially achieved its three key objectives
being the restoration of degraded areas, particularly the seventeen Canadian and Binational
Areas of Concern, the prevention and control of pollution, including a 90% elimination in the
use, generation and release of persistent toxic substances identified in the Agreement, and
the conservation and protection of human and ecosystem health in the Great Lakes Basin;
WHEREAS the Toronto and Region has been designated as one of 12 Ontario Areas of
Concern based on the impairments and loss of beneficial uses of the waters and habitats
within the watersheds and along the Great Lakes Shoreline and in particular within Toronto
Bay;
WHEREAS the Canada-Ontario Agreement and the Great Lakes Cleanup Fund expire in
March of 2000;
WHEREAS it is imperative that the Federal Government renew its program funding for the
restoration of Great Lakes water quality and habitats at a level sufficient to enable an
aggressive program that will provide measurable results;
THA T the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority calls on the Governments of Canada
and Ontario, the Federal and the Provincial Ministers of the Environment to ensure that the
negotiations on a new Canada-Ontario Agreement are completed in time to be in place and
signed when the current Agreement expires in March 2000;
THA T the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority calls on the Federal Government and
in particular the Ministers of the Environment and Finance to ensure that program funding is
in place to aggressively address remaining and emerging Great Lakes issues;
THA T the TRCA calls on the local Greater Toronto members of the federal and provincial
governments to ensure:
. THA T the Parties commit to the basic goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
including the elimination of the use, generation and release of persistent toxic
substances within the Great Lakes Basin;
. THA T the agreement and funding program embodies the critical linkage between
tributary watershed health and the health of the Great Lakes;
. THA T the agreement and funding program provides for the continuation of remediation
of the Areas of Concerns, and the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the Great Lakes System;
. THA T the agreement and funding program makes provision for addressing emerging
issues, such as endocrine-disrupting substances;
. THA T the agreement continues the current practice of providing specific targets and
benchmarks in relation to the achievement of the Agreement and specifies the
responsibilities of the parties including the allocation of resources, subject to approval
by Parliament and Legislative Assembly of Ontario; .
241
. THA T the agreement and funding program recognizes and supports the role of municipal
governments, conservation authorities and aboriginal governments and communities in
the achievement of the Agreement's objectives;
ANO FURTHER THA T the TRCA acknowledges its support of the recommendations made to
the International Joint Commission and the Water Quality Board dated May 12, 1999 by the
Chairs of the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council for:
1. the development of an "urban runoff annex" to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
and to ensure priority be given to assisting local municipalities, agencies, and others to
deal with stormwater management infrastructure fun~ing, research, and monitoring;
2. the acceleration of efforts to address the serious issue of air borne pollutant deposition
within the Great Lakes Basin recognizing that this issue cannot be resolved through local
community actions;
3. program development and federal funding for environmental education and awareness
stressing new approaches such as community-based social marketing to foster personal
behaviour change and ensure that support be focused on innovative partnerships with
school boards, other agencies and community based groups for effective delivery at the
local level;
4. the sharing of timely information on costs and ecologically effective technologies and
creative solutions for addressing common causes of use impairments among "like" Area
of Concerns."
In June of 2000, the TRCA expressed to the Provincial Minister of the Environment its concern
once again over the delay in the renegotiation of the COA and advised that the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority was willing to assist and partner with the Province in a variety of
initiatives including monitoring and the continuing implementation of the Toronto Remedial
Action Plan.
At Meeting #4/01, the Watershed Management Advisory Board passed the following:
RES. #D66/01 -
"THA T the staff be requested to review the recently renegotiated Canada-Ontario
Agreement and report back to the Authority on the content and the funding required to
address Area of Concern issues within the Toronto and Region including opportunities for
the TRCA to enhance its role in RAP implementation, monitoring and public outreach
activities. "
242
Canada-Ontario Aareement ResDectina the Great Lakes Basin Ecosvstem - October 2001
The draft 2001 COA has two components, the Agreement itself and four Annexes which
address Areas of Concern, Lakewide Management Plans, Harmful Pollutants, and Monitoring
and Information Management. The Agreement establishes the Vision, Principles, and
Administration Arrangements including provisfons for amendments and the development of
additional Annexes.
Through this Agreement, Canada and Ontario agree to:
. Common priorities, goals, and objectives for the enhancement and preservation of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem;
. Management strategies required to achieve these goals and objectives;
. The roles and responsibilities of each level of government in relation to these strategies;
and
. A commitment to report regularly and publicly on the state of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem as it relates to actions taken pursuant to the Agreement.
The vision established for the Great Lakes Basin is for "a healthy, prosperous and sustainable
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem for present and future generations." There are 12 principles
identified to direct and guide the actions of Canada and Ontario:
. Accountability
. Adaptive Management
. Conservation
. Ecosystem Approach
. Free Exchange of Information
. Pollution Reduction
. Precautionary Principle
. Prevention
. Public/Stakeholder Participation
. Rehabilitation
. Science-based Management
. Sustainability
Comments:
The TRCA's recently adopted Business Plan establishes objectives for the Living City Region
based on achieving Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity and Greenspace, and
Sustainable Living through Education. The TRCA's continued involvement and partnership with
Canada and Ontario as a co-implementor of the Toronto Remedial Action Plan is welcomed
and consistent with its Business Plan.
The TRCA and other conservation authorities in Ontario recognize that the management of all
watersheds that drain into the Great Lakes Basin must be undertaken and resourced to ensure
that new areas requiring remedial actions do not develop. Indeed this would seem to be the
essence of the COA principle for Prevention. Within the TRCA, the Petticoat, Duffins, and
Carruthers watersheds and waterfront areas east of the mouth of the Rouge River are not
included in the Toronto Area of Concern. Historically funding that has been available for rural
stewardship, fisheries management, etc. tied to the COA has not been made available outside
the RAP watersheds and waterfront areas.
243
The need to implement enhanced stewardship activities throughout the entire Great Lakes
Basin is a serious issue. For example, The Report of the Federal Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development (2001) specifically referenced concerns over
manure and fertilizer management in Ontario and Quebec:
"Despite the efforts of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, the
provinces and agricultural organizations over the last decade, nutrients are
accumulating in soil on farms in the basin. Their environmental impacts are increasing.
Roughly 70 percent of Ontario and Quebec farmland had much higher nitrogen levels in
1996 than in 1981. On more than 30 percent of farmland, the levels of residual nitrogen
pose a risk of water contamination." p.20
With respect to soil erosion it is stated that:
"Close to half of Ontario's soil is at risk of washing away faster than new soil can form.
More than 10 years of federal and provincial government intervention has slowed soil
erosion somewhat, but at a rate that could take 90 years to bring soil loss down to
sustainable levels. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has identified overall objectives
of reducing soil erosion, but has no action plan detailing how it expects to achieve
them."
Another area that has not been adequately addressed though the current Annex approach is
the management of waterfront issues. Along the St. Lawrence River zones, ZIPs (zones
d'intervention prioritaires)have been initiated to establish plans and undertake cleanup and
protection issues.
It is recommended that a fifth Annex be developed to address non area of concern watersheds
and waterfronts throughout all of Ontario.
Annex - Areas of Concern
This Annex identifies three five year goals:
1. Restoring environmental quality and beneficial uses in at least two locations, resulting in
the removal of the designation "Area of Concern".
2. Completing all required actions for Remedial Action Plans in at least six AoC's (and
continuing to monitor recovery);
3. Making progress towards rehabilitation ecological systems in the remaining AoCs
The nature of the beneficial uses of the Toronto and Region Area of Concern preclude under
any reasonable scenario, either complete restoration and/or removal as an Area of Concern
within the next five years, or the completion of all required actions within the next five years.
This leaves the Toronto RAP to be addressed within the 3rd goal. As a measurable objective,
delisting and completing actions, are worthy targets. However, if funding is limited as it has
been in past years, there is danger that resources may be only allocated to achieve the first, or
the first and second goals. The Toronto RAP, arguably one of the most complex RAPs, may
continue to receive little assistance from the federal and provincial governments. The health
and security of the Great Lakes Basin requires a sustained commitment to remediation.
244
It is recommended that the federal and provincial governments continue and expand the level
of resource commitments to all AoCs recognizing that restoration of beneficial issues for
complex areas such as the Toronto AoC requires long term commitments.
The governments of Canada and Ontario agree through this Annex to seek the following
results:
1. Reduced pollutant discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants and combined
sewer overflows.
2. Reduced loadings of nutrients, pathogens and trace contaminants from urban
stormwater.
3. Reduced nutrient, microbial and trace contaminants from agricultural sources.
4. Management strategies for contaminated sediment.
5. Rehabilitated aquatic and riparian habitat leading to the re-establishment of fish and
wildlife populations.
6. Collaborative action among government, organizations and basin residents.
7. Publicly available environmental monitoring information for evaluating environmental
recovery and adjusting remediation strategies.
In order to achieve these results, the governments of Canada and Ontario commit to develop
within 12 months, a five year work plan that will contain a variety of actions ranging from
research, regulatory and voluntary mechanisms, technical and/or financial assistance to
municipalities so that they may study, research, and demonstrate approaches that may be
beneficial. The actions already undertaken by the Toronto RAP Team and the municipalities
provide or will provide shortly, direction. It is of concern that the provision for capital funding
assistance provided with respect to sewage treatment plant upgrades and combined sewer
overflow issues is not extended to storm water retrofit requirements. This requirement is the
focus of the multi-year, multiwatershed study currently being undertaken by the City of Toronto
and by upstream municipalities in terms of stormwater retrofits. While the TRCA firmly
supports the use of all federal and provincial mechanisms, as identified in the Harmful
Pollutants Annex, to restrict the use and emission of potential pollutants, the absence of clear
funding support for stormwater management to restore beneficial uses in areas that were
developed prior to requirements for stormwater management is felt to be a serious issue.
Funding to support the implelTlentation of these projects is critical to making a real time and
measurable recovery in the Toronto Region.
It is recommended that capital assistance through the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program
and similar mechanisms be extended for stormwater retrofit projects.
Similarly, assistance for planning, technology transfer, and monitoring related to other desired
results falls short in providing the essential capital funds required for implementation. Result 5,
as identified above, is an exception to this. The Annex provides for capital assistance to
municipal and regional official planners to complete and implement natural heritage and fish
habitat strategies and makes provision to assist land owners. This approach has proved
extremely beneficial in the Toronto Region. The TRCA in cooperation with its watershed
municipalities has developed fish habitat management strategies and is currently working on a
natural heritage strategy. The TRCA has effectively used the funds to address barrier mitigation
resulting in the return of migratory species to the Humber and Don, and a host of habitat
245
projects both within the watersheds and across the Toronto waterfront. It is unclear however
from the wording in the Annex if funding will continue to be available to conservation authorities
to carry out this work.
It is recommended that conservation authorities be added to municipal and regional planners
with respect to funding for the development and implementation of natural heritage and fish
habitat planning and implementation.
The Canada-Ontario Agreement seeks to support collaborative action among government,
organizations and Basin residents. To meet this result:
"the parties will develop and sustain local RAP implementation mechanisms; provided
technical support and funding to local organizations to facilitate RAP implementation;
convene regular workshops and support information exchange and technology
transfer; consult with and engage community participants in the implementation of RAP
activities; and publish RAP progress reports and information materials and maintain
current websites."
The TRCA and the WRT undertake many of these functions on behalf of the two parties. One
important way that the TRCA assists is through citizen involvement which is a hallmark of the
community-based watershed planning approach developed in the Toronto Region. This
approach has resulted in the establishment of the Etobicoke - Mimico Creek Watersheds Task
Force, the Humber Watershed Alliance, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. The TRCA
provides support as well to the Rouge Park Alliance. The Watershed Report Cards first used
in the Toronto Region have become a model in other jurisdictions. The TRCA's participation in
the RAP implementation has provided funds that have also resulted in the acceleration of the
Natural Heritage Strategy, the development of the Watershed- Waterfront Monitoring Network,
piloting of upstream storm water retrofit studies, construction site sediment management
studies and outreach and education activities. While the TRCA and WRT have been successful
in using these funds as seed resources to lever more money, additional resources are needed
to provide the level of service to meet the result targets identified by the parties.
To enhance the level of effort by the TRCA and the WRT additional resources will be required.
The TRCA has recognized for many years the importance of monitoring to identify baseline
conditions and to Getermine post project effects. As part of its role as co-implementor of the
Toronto RAP, TRCA has developed and begun implementation of a watershed and waterfront
monitoring program that will provide information to the many municipal and agency partners.
This program now established for the Toronto AoC will substantially address the monitoring
results sought for this area. The Canadian and Ontario governments through partnership
contributions should augment this work by filling the existing information gaps as proposed.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: November 06, 2001
246
RES.#D80/01 -
GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY - PARKHILL DAM
INQUEST
TRCA Actions Related to Parkhill Dam Coroners Inquest
Recommendations.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report regarding the Parkhill
Dam Inquest, dated October 24, 2001, be received for information.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1998, a young boy went missing while swimming above a low head dam (weir)
structure known as the Parkhill Dam on the Grand River. During the search and rescue
operation that ensued, a police diver was sent into the river upstream of the structure. He was
swept into an opening within the dam where the boy was trapped and became entangled.
Both the boy and the police officer were drowned with their bodies being recovered three days
later. As a consequence of these unfortunate deaths, a Coroners Inquest was held over a
twenty-two day period in May and June of 2000.
Unlike the Parkhill Dam, TRCA structures have not been designed with low level openings at
their base aside from our major Control Dams which have gates or valves which remain closed
when not in operation.
The Coroner's Jury made forty recommendations, with Recommendation #37 reading:
"We recommend that other Conservation Authorities or agencies responsible for watersheds
within this Province be directed to follow the recommendations numbered 24-30 as outlined by
the Grand River Conservation Authority, in order to obtain uniformity throughout the Province."
In keeping with this request, the TRCA has reviewed the recommendations from the Parkhill
Dam Inquest as defined by recommendation #37 and has prepared the following series of
responses specific to our Authority to each of the recommendations.
Recommendation 24:
"We recommend that an updated, computerized, cross-referenced Registry and Indexing
System be implemented by the Grand River Conservation Authority to include:
. all dams in the Grand River Conservation Authority watershed regardless of ownership
. all pertinent information, sketches, drawings, blueprints, photographs, written material,
maps specifications that will assist in identifying hazards
. that this registry is to be sent to all Emergency Services within the Grand River
Conservation Authority
. that all hard copy original documents shall remain in the filing system; copies should be
made when these documents are needed outside that room. tI
247
Response:
The TRCA has in place a data base of all our water control structures in a GIS format and is
identifying all remaining significant structures as part of our Watershed Planning process.
Hard copy drawings of our major structures are on file at each dam and we have copies on
microfiche for all our structures at 5 Shoreham Drive.
TRCA will incorporate our dams into our GIS Flood Warning System data base which we are
currently updating and provide as input to all Municipal Emergency Response programs.
Recommendation 25:
"We recommend that access to all materials (schematics, blue prints, drawings and other
written material that might relate to the structure) in the possession of the Grand River
Conservation Authority be known and available. Further that the appropriate staff members
within the Grand River Conservation Authority be made aware of the index and be instructed in
its location and use."
Response:
As noted above, all drawings of our dam structures are currently at Head Office in a microfiche
format. All flood duty and senior staff will be trained on how to access and use this system.
Recommendation 26:
"We recommend that the Duty Officer immediately notify senior Grand River Conservation
Authority officials of emergency situations. This can be accomplished by cellular or pager
systems. "
Response:
The TRCA operates a 24-hour, 7-day a week emergency Flood Warning System which allows
for immediate contact of our Flood Duty Officer. In addition, a Duty Officer system exists for
issues related to the office and our properties. All senior staff contact numbers are included
within the contact lists for both these systems.
Recommendation 27:
"We recommend that the Grand River Conservation Authority include in its current education
programs the hazards associated with dams and/or water controlled structures. This should
include a pamphlet with respect to the above educational program."
Response:
TRCA has integrated water safety related issues into our current education and other
programs. Specific training information related to water safety and low head dams was
incorporated into a City of Toronto education video directed at our schools. The TRCA also
issues Flood Safety Bulletins directly to schools as part of our Flood Warning System.
As part of our on-going Education Program review, we will be re-assessing this issue.
248
Recommendation 28:
"We recommend that the Grand River Conservation Authority continue their review of all dams
and water control structures owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Ensure that all
potentially hazardous structures including sluices, ducts and the structures themselves have
been analyzed and hazards controlled to the extent physically possible."
Response:
The TRCA has an ongoing review of all major structures and evaluates all other structures
including safety stations and signage on an annual basis. Reports are prepared related to any
maintenance issues.
As part of this review process, staff will now include along with maintenance issues, any issues
related to public safety at each site.
Recommendation 29:
"We recommend that the Grand River Conservation Authority post signage to reflect specific
dangers at dams and water control structures. Examples: "Extreme Currents", "Deadly
Undertow". "
Response:
The TRCA has installed signage where deemed appropriate. A typical warning sign reflects
issues such as no swimming, danger strong undercurrent, keep off.
Recommendation 30:
"We recommend that the Grand River Conservation Authority erect fencing where appropriate
and feasible as visible barriers and deterrents."
Response:
The TRCA has installed fencing where appropriate around our larger structures, and has
installed signage and safety stations at other sites. We have also been working with the City of
Toronto related to an update of its existing safety stations.
For Information contact: ~on Haley, extension 5226
Date: October 24, 2001
RES.#D81/01 -
TRANSPORT CANADA GREENSPACE PROJECT - FEDERAL
AIRPORT LANDS
CFN 30769. Report on the Transport Canada process concerning the
disposition and management of approximately 3,000 hectares of
federally owned land on the Oak Ridges Moraine and areas of the Rouge
Park.
249
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to participate fully
in the process to determine the future disposition and management of the Transport
Canada Greenspace Project lands;
AND FURTHER THAT staff prepare and submit a proposal for the transfer and
management of the Transport Canada Greenspace Project lands when requested.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #3/01, the Authority adopted the Resolution #A60/01 as follows:
THE BOARO RECOMMENOS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority extend its appreciation to The Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport, for
the Government's commitment to protect the environmental significance of these lands;
THA T Authority staff be directed to participate fully in the process to determine the future
disposition and management of these lands;
ANO FURTHER THAT the Authority express to the Federal Government and the Greater Toronto
Airports Authority that the option of consolidating these lands with the other significant holdings
of the Authority within the Rouge Park and along the Oak Ridges Moraine should be
considered.
On March 23, 2001, The Honourable David Collenette, Minister of Transport announced that
the federal government will protect the federally owned portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine and
areas around the Rouge Park as greenspace. These portions of the property total 3,051
hectares (7,562 acres) of which 800 hectares (2000 acres) is designated for Rouge Park
purposes. He also advised that over the next 12 months Transport Canada would work with
the community, environmental groups, federal and provincial agencies to fully explore the
issues regarding the transfer, stewardship and management of the properties.
Transport Canada held two key stakeholder meetings on August 9 and August 14, 2001 and
invited public comments at meetings held on October 18 and 25, 2001. Various Authority staff
attended all the meetings. Following is a brief summary of the meetings to date.
. that there was not enough information about the property to make informed decisions and
as a result a number of background studies are required including but not limited to:
- agricultural sustainability
- natural heritage resources
- linkages to Rouge Park, other TRCA lands, and Provincial lands
- public uses
- review and analysis of leases
. to build on and integrate findings of the Duffins Creek Strategy, the Regional Natural
Heritage Strategy and the Rouge Park North Management Plan
250
. that a stakeholder committee should be created to develop a management plan for the
lands
. that the Federal Government should continue to have a role in developing and
implementing the management plan for the Greenspace Lands
. that a stakeholder implementation entity should be created to direct the implementation of
the management plan
. that key stakeholders should include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Transport Canada/Environment Canada
-TRCA
- tenants
- agriculture community
- Rouge Park Alliance
- Green Door Alliance
- municipalities
. it is recognized that the lands identified for Rouge Park purposes are addressed by the
Rouge Park North Management Plan and that a separate process may be developed for
these lands
It is our understanding that Transport Canada will be requesting proposals or expressions of
interest from various stakeholders. Several stakeholder groups have expressed interest in
working with the Authority to develop and submit a proposal similar to what is outlined above.
There appeared to be a general consensus that the best management plan for the Greenspace
Project lands could only be achieved by consultation with the legitimate stakeholder groups
and is important for the TRCA to work with other stakeholders-where appropriate.
Report prepared by: Ron Dewell, extension 5245
For Information contact: Ron Dewell, extension 5245
Gary Bowen, extension 5385
Date: November 06, 2001
RES.#D82/01 -
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #4/01, October 9, 2001. The minutes of Meeting
#4/01 held on October 9, 2001 of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council is provided for information.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #4/01, held on October 9, 2001, be received.
251
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the
Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the
formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the
Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed
Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Oon" and to regenerate the watershed.
For Information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 5238
Date: November 07,2001
RES.#D83/01 -
CENTRAL WATERFRONT PART" PLAN, MAKING WAVES:
PRINCIPLES FOR BUILDING TORONTO'S WATERFRONT, OCTOBER
2001 .
Direction requested to report directly to Authority meeting #9/01 on the
Central Waterfront Part II Plan to meet the commenting deadline
requested by City of Toronto staff.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim McMaster
Dave Ryan
THAT the Watershed Management Advisory Board requested that staff provide written
comments on the Central Waterfront Part" plan - Making Waves directly to Authority
meeting #9/01 to meet the commenting deadline of November 30, requested by City of
Toronto staff.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On October 9,2001, the City of Toronto released the report Making Waves: Principles for
Building Toronto's Waterfront. Recently TRCA staff were advised that agency comments will be
required by November 30, 2001 to enable the City to prepare its reports back to City of Toronto
Committee. To meet this recently established deadline, staff are requesting permission to
provide comments directly to Authority meeting #9/01 to held November 23, 2001.
The release of "Making Waves" follows two years of effort to develop a new program for the
Lake Ontario Waterfront. In November 1999, the City of Toronto released "Our Toronto
Waterfront: the Wave of the Future!" The report unveiled a broad vision for renewing Toronto's
46 kilometre waterfront. At that time, Prime Minister Chretien, Premier Harris and Mayor
Lastman announced the formation of the Toronto Revitalization Task Force headed by Robert
Fung.
In March 2000, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force released Our Toronto
Waterfront: Gateway to the New Canada. In August 2000, Toronto City Council approved Our
Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum, the City's preliminary analysis of the Task Force
report, as well as an Implementation Strategy.
252
In October 2000, the three governments pledged their financial support to revitalizing Toronto's
waterfront. Then in March 2001, four priority projects were announced including the
Environmental Assessment and Functional Design for the flood protection for the West Don
Lands and the protection of the Port Lands. The TRCA was named the implementing agency
for that project. With the announcement and approval of the governance structure of the
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation in May, a further step was taken.
Making Waves is the proposed Part II Plan for the Central Waterfront, establishing the
principles to guide development from Coxwell Avenue in the east to Dowling Avenue in the
west. This area includes the Leslie Street Spit, Tommy Thompson Park the Toronto Portlands,
the mouth of the Don and the West Don Lands, the Central Harbour and Exhibition
Place/Ontario Place.
RATIONALE
Authority needs to analyse the document to ensure that the key waterfront/watershed
strategies and policies/programs are reflected in this new Central Waterfront Plan.
WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will prepare a comprehensive report, presentation and recommendations for
consideration at the Authority meeting scheduled for November 23, 2001.
Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 5238; Larry Field, extension 5243
Date: November 13, 2001
NEW BUSINESS
RES.#D84/01 -
JESSAMYN HOLDINGS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Frank Scarpitti
Pam McConnell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority strongly supports and urges the Province to provide financial
assistance through its Lands for Life Program or other appropriate mechanism to the
Town of Markham and/or TRCA for the acquisition of the property known as Jessamyn
,Holdings, a parcel contiguous with other Town holdings on German Mills Creek, a
tributary of the Don River;
AND FURTHER THAT Tina Molinari, MPP, Thornhill and Minister Snobelen be so advised.
CARRIED
253
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :46 a.m., on November 16, 2001..
Irene Jones
Chair
J. Craig Mather
Secretary-Treasurer
Iks
254