The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board 1996 ~ , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #1/96 March 1, 1996 Page 01 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, March 1, 1996. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair lIa Bossons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Alan Christie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Joan King ........................................................ Member Jim McMaster ..................................................... Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chair, Authority Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES.#W1/96 - MINUTES OF MEETING #7/95, #8/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT Minutes of Meetings #7/95 and #8/95 be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED DELEGATIONS (a) Mr. 0' Arcy Chadwick, Vice-Commodore of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, spoke in opposition of a 25% proposed MTRCA rent increase and the Club's interest in a continuation of the Tommy Thompson Park shuttle van operated by the MTRCA. - ,~- ,'~ D2 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 MOTION TO REFER RES.#W2/96 - DELEGATION (a) Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Lois Hancey THA T staff be directed to negotiate with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club regarding a proposed rent increase for leased Authority lands at Tommy Thompson Park; ANO FURTHER THAT a complete staff report be brought to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board at a later date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED DELEGATIONS CONTINUED (b) Mr. Michael Colterjohn, President, Gardiner Farms in opposition to recommendation regarding ESA 36 - Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA's), shown under Res. #W3/96. (c) Mr. Brian Moss of Clublink in opposition to recommendation regarding Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA's), shown under Res. #W3/96. (d) Senator Lorna Milne in opposition to recommendation regarding ESA 35 Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA's), shown under Res. #W3/96 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RES. #W3/96 - ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory (See Appendix - WR1/96 to WR34/96) Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Alan Christie THE BOARO RECOMMENOS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), summarized on the attached table, be adopted as part of the Authority's inventory of ESAs; THAT staff be directed to use this new information to advocate the protection of these ESAs through plan input and review activities; ANO FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate the new ESA information to the affected municipalities to seek their support in recognizing the ESAs in appropriate land use designations within their planning documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE The adoption of changes to the Authority's inventory of ESAs as a result of recent field investigations and evaluations. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 D3 BACKGROUND It was recognized in the 1982 ESA Study that the study findings would have to be continually updated for the following reasons: (1 ) the original work concentrated on the major valley systems, waterfront, and the Oak Ridges Moraine and there is a need, to be complete, to look at the remainder of the Authority's jurisdiction; (2) changes that have occurred as a result of natural biological succession; (3) changes in the "status" of various species and habitats in terms of range or rarity; and (4) changes that have occurred as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of changes in land use. In 1993, as the first step in updating the ESA Study, new designation criteria were approved (Res. #A 191/93). The new criteria reflect the increasing awareness of the sensitivity of natural areas and the consequences of habitat fragmentation. This new understanding and criteria provided further rationale for reinvestigating existing ESAs as well as looking at new candidate areas. It was anticipated that, as field investigations for existing ESAs (to confirm their status and boundaries) and new candidate areas are completed, there would be significant changes to the Authority's inventory of ESAs. Therefore a formal process for Authority adoption of New and Updated ESAs in the format of an annual report was approved (Res.#A226/94). ~ ANNUAL UPOA TE !ill ~ To the end of the 1995 field season, investigations have been completed for the following 11 ESAs: 1. Seven sites identified in the 1982 ESA Study were re-evaluated: . ESA 22, Carex Peckii Area #1, was encompassed by the extension of another site, ESA 21, Pine Valley Forest; . ESA 24, Graham's Forest, was delisted because the site did not fulfill rare species and quality habitat criteria; . Boundary modifications were made to ESA 35, Centreville Creek Area, and ESA 37, Caledon East Forest; . ESA 38, McCarthy Area, was combined with ESA 36, Caledon East Complex to recognize the habitat linkage; and, . The descriptions for all sites were updated to reflect the new designation criteria approved in 1993. 2. Four new ESAs were identified: . Two in the Humber watershed, ESA 131, Ouffy's Lane, and ESA 132, Caledon East Swamp; and, ",' D4 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 . ESA 133, Crother's Woods, in the Oon watershed, and ESA 134, Cherry Oowns, on the Ouffins Creek watershed. A table listing these ESAs, including the criteria fulfilled and boundary changes, is attached. A map depicting the general location of the ESAs is also attached. The full descriptions can be found in Appendix WR1/96. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to work towards achieving an up-to-date, complete inventory of ESAs within the jurisdiction. The primary focus of the 1996 Field Investigations and Field Reports will be: 1. Sites identified as a result of the Authority's Plan Input and Review Process. 2. Sites where investigations were commenced during 1995 but require further field work to complete the update. 3. Sites within the Humber River watershed to support the development of the Humber Watershed Strategy. For information contact: Oena Lewis (ext. 225) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 D5 NEW , REVISED AND DELETED ENVIRONMENT ALLY SIGNIFlCANT AREAS 1995 FlELD SEASON SUMMARY TABLE WA TERSHED CRITERIA BOUNDARY ESA NUMBER AND NAME FULFILLED MODIFICA TIONS MUNICIPALITY HUMBER 21 Pine Valley Forest 5, 6, 9 extend west Vaughan 22 Carex Peckii Area #1 not applicable combine with ESA 21 Vaugnan 24 Graham's Forest none delete Vaughan 35 Centreville Creek 2, 5, 6, 7 extend west, expand core Caiedon 36 Catedon East Complex 2, 6, 7 extend north, reduce south Caledon 37 Caledon East Forest 2,6 extend south Catedon 38 McCarthy Area not applicable combine with ESA 36 Caledon 131 Duffy's Lane 5, 6 new ESA Caledon 132 Caledon East Swamp 2, 3, 5, 6 new ESA Caledon DON 133 Crother's Woods 5, 6 new ESA Toronto DUFFINS 134 Cherry Downs 2,4,5,6, new ESA Pickering 7, 8 Criteria by number and title: 1 geological feature 2 hydrological function 3 corridor 4 essential habitat 5 rare species 6 quality habitat 7 remnant habitat 8 extensive habitat 9 provinCIally significant (ANSI or class 1-3 wetland) D6 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 , I ~ A ; , ! .. ~ I ." .. - . I ! I - , - . f. ! I = L <: . A' ! i ! : I I! ~ ! ~i ! Ii:; ~ ; i ;2~1 i' ! I ;; I i Ii :: _.;~ I . i I . ; i. L '" ; 'I . .tl '::1: I ! ~ '" g Ai! ::! ::; = _ s . : ~ . , .. : .. n - . I : ~ ~ " -'~ " >=:- ~ ..-. ..... @ ...-: .... - ---' -- WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 D7 RES. #W4/96 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT/PROPOSED ACQUISITION BOUNDARY AMENDMENT AND POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AUTHORITY LANDS Rouge/Rosebank Area Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENOS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to request public input into the proposed boundary amendment and the potential disposal of surplus Authority land in the Rodd Avenue/Bella Vista Orive area of the Rouge/Rosebank Community as shown on the attached Figure 1; THAT staff be directed to advise the Rouge Park Alliance of the proposed boundary amendment and request their input; THAT the Rouge Park Alliance be requested to fund the acquisition of the properties between Bella Vista Drive and the Rouge River; ANO FURTHER THAT a report recommending further action in this matter be brought to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Proposed amendment to boundary of lands required for Authority purposes to implement the Lake Ontario Waterfront Oevelopment Program in the vicinity of Rodd Avenue/Bella Vista Orive, in the Town of Pickering, and the resulting potential disposal of surplus Authority lands. BACKGROUND At Meeting #3/94, the Executive Committee adopted Resolution #47/94 directing staff to review the potential disposal of certain Authority-owned lands in this area, in accordance with established Authority policies. In addition, the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992 - 1994, identified the need to consolidate and complete our acquisition in the Rouge/Rosebank area and that a surplus land proposal may be required to achieve this objective. Authority-owned lands in the Rodd Avenue area were acquired under the Authority's Waterfront Development Program that initially obtained its direction from the 1967 "Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area. The acquisition boundaries established in the Rodd Avenue/Bella Vista Drive vicinity were very ambitious and reflected the high level of funding support at that time. The acquisition limits are defined by Petticoat Creek Conservation Area in the east, the Lake Ontario Shoreline, the Rouge River to the west and the CNR right-of-way to the north (see attached plan). Also, note the Rouge Park boundary follows MTRCA ownership along the east side of the Rouge River valley, south of the CNR tracks. This is consistent with the Rouge Park boundary policies for developed areas. However, wherever possible, they encourage 30 meters from the stable top of bank. In this instance, the 30 metre line coincides with Bella Vista Orive. Our proposed amended boundary reflects the 30 metre line and three privately owned residences are found within this area. ~ D8 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96. MARCH 1, 1996 The area originally contained over (40) single family homes and/or lots of record and includes the Rosebank Nursing Home property. Most of the Authority-owned parcels in this area, including the seven existing residences, were acquired in the 1970's and early 1980's. Petticoat Creek Conservation Area was completed in 1975. There have been no significant acquisitions in this area since the early 1980's. The Authority has assembled approximately two-thirds of the properties in the area, however, we have been frustrated in our attempts to complete the remaining acquisition because of the decline in our traditional funding. As a result, we have not been able to achieve our main objectives of bringing the entire shoreline into public ownership and in creating a functional open space linkage between the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. Our fragmented ownership causes operational and maintenance concerns and provides very limited opportunities for public use or enjoyment. The existing community south of the CNR tracks continues to question the Authority's intention with respect to their properties. The existing designation of "potential acquisition" by the MTRCA has no status under the Planning Act and several properties have carried out significant improvements. Also, the Town of Pickering is in the process of reviewing the Town's Official Plan, the "Pickering District Plan". The Draft Official Plan in this area designates Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and the shoreline and river valley areas defined by the Authority's fill line as part of the Open Space System, and we feel it would be appropriate to have the amended acquisition boundary and the Town's Open Space designation coincide to the extent possible. Given the issues related to this area, staff is prepared to recommend a boundary amendment. The proposed boundary amendment is generally being based on the following criteria/objectives and is reflected on the attached Figure 1. (i) provision for a functional linkage between Petticoat Creek/Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and the Rouge Park; (ii) provision for a waterfront trail; (iii) recognition of the Rouge Park boundary based on 30 metres from the stable top of bank; (iv) recognition of the Provincial Regulatory Erosion Standard along the Lake Ontario Shoreline, (3H:IV plus 30 metres); (v) protection of the minor watercourse. The proposed boundary amendment would result in 17 Authority-owned parcels including seven residences being outside the project boundary and therefore surplus to the Authority's needs. This would allow the Authority to consider the disposal of the 17 parcels. Under this proposal 11 private properties would remain within the acquisition boundary. RATIONALE The deletion of lands originally scheduled for acquisition and the disposal of lands no longer required for Authority purposes will allow the Authority to concentrate on the acquisition of key properties along the Lake Ontario shoreline, within the Town of Pickering, to help achieve the vision of a linked waterfront open space system. It will also eliminate the "potential acquisition" designation that exists on properties not required for park purposes. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96. MARCH 1, 1996 D9 WORK TO BE DONE Staff is proposing to arrange a public meeting in the local community and to invite their input regarding the proposed boundary amendments and potential disposal of Authority-owned lands. It is also important that staff coordinate the Authority's boundary amendment process with the Town's Official Plan review. Report prepared by: Ron Oewell,(ext. 245) For information contact: Oon Prince,(ext. 221) Ron Oewell,(ext. 245) , .' " , , '" '':' ,. ~ '" (. ~ ....,' ';I, D10 WATER AND RELATED LA ND MANAG EMENT A DVISORY BO i _ ARD #1/96 . ' MARCH 1 ,1996 , I ! j - I - - -- ~oC;::c:S::-- .4C:~jC:::~:' ~~~...,=-_": _ .....1 J ' .- :::('", ':.- __."'l - I _........NL,.,..:.~v :::'J - .:...:: - :C:L1Si-'''~ ::: .. -..; - __ _ 'JC: _qr"' ::-__ v' I 3C~~;C -::. , ...... ,..-r(V I ~ I I ~ i iCA&.t: I - I . . . . I ~ - .... I \ .O~CE I I ~ - QaRK I ~O\.NO~- I I I ' -' ~ J.N::::~ I .:::- . .\011':, :~: ~ia. : - ~ '.~~.~: I " I - . ....os -- ." . - .'. ....€. :::: .} :.1 ~__'jC..:.R.g~ ..."\....,. ~YC:"4r:c.V ......:':l. .996 " , WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 D11 RES. #W5/96 - POTENTIAL FUTURE ISSUES FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION DURING 1996 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Paul Raina THA T the list of potential future issues for Board consideration during 1996 be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND It has been our practice to provide the Board with a list of issues which may be coming before the Board during the year. This list is not all inclusive as matters will arise during the year which are not listed. The list is, however, an indicator of the Board's work for the year. Plan Review - Scarborough Mapping Extension Program Sites - policies and action plan for developed areas within previously unmapped floodplains - Mid Humber Trail Master Plan Resource Science - Tommy Thompson Park Operation - Waterfront Monitoring - Etobicoke Creek Phase 1 - Hydrology/Storm Water Management - Cash in Lieu Proposal - to address areas where storm water controls are not possible - North York's Storm Water Management Program - Oon Fisheries Plan - Ouffins Creek Hydrology - Oon Storm Water Management Criteria - Fill Line Extension - Status Report - Brampton Channel Trail Project - Water Management Program Waterfront - Mimico Apartment Strip Trail - Frenchman's Bay Master Plan (Pickering Harbour Company) - Gates Gully Trail - Arsenals Lands - Motel Strip Park Plan - Integrated Shoreline Plan - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay Environmental Services Various construction and environmental regeneration project reports, e.g. Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control, Dixie Road/Oundas Avenue Flood Control Don Watershed - Don Work Plan for 1996 - Oon Council Minutes & Quarterly reports - West Don Lands - Flood Control Project "" D12 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/96, MARCH 1, 1996 Humber Watershed - Humber Task Force Minutes & Quarterly Reports - Humber Watershed Strategy For information contact: Brian Denney, ext. 242 RES #W6/96 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #1/96 Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Alan Christie THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #1/96, held January 11, 1996, be received. . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #1/96, January 11, 1996 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and servce to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238 TERMINA TION The meeting terminated at 11 :40, March 1, 1996. Lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary-Treasurer pI. Please note that Res.#W7/96 has not been used. " ~ , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #2/96 April 19, 1996 Page 013 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, April 19, 1996. The Vice Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 11 :00 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair lIa Bossons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Jim McMaster ..................................................... Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chair, Authority Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS Alan Christie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair Joan King ........................................................ Member Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member MINUTES RES. #W8/96 - MINUTES OF MEETING #1/96 Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: lIa Bossons THAT Minutes of Meeting #1/96, held March 1,1996, be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED D14 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April19, 1996 PRESENT A TION (a) Mr. Scott Jarvie, Coordinator, Environmental Projects, MTRCA, conducted a slide presentation on Tommy Thompson Park, 1996 Interim Management Program, adopted by Res. #W8/96 of these minutes. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RES. #W9/96 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK - 1996 INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1996 Interim Management Program for Tommy Thompson Park be received; THAT staff be directed to execute the 1996 licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club; THAT staff be directed to negotiate a formal agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners regarding access and other such items deemed necessary for the 1996 program; AND FURTHER THAT staff be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Interim Management Program including the execution of any documents and agreements. AMENDMENT RES. #W10/96 Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Jim McMaster THAT staff be directed to prepare a report on developing user fees for Tommy Thompson Park and report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board at a later date. THE AMENDMENT WAS ......................................... NOT CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE As part of the ongoing Interim Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park, staff has outlined the proposed 1996 Interim Management Program for the Park including the annual lease with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19,1996 D15 BACKGROUND At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/96, the Aquatic Park Sailing Club (APSC) made a deputation concerning a 25% rental rate increase being considered by the Authority. The Authority was basing their consideration on a similar rate increase imposed by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on boat clubs within their jurisdiction. At this meeting, the APSC also expressed their concern regarding other implications to the Club's lease resulting from severe budget cutbacks experienced by the Authority in 1996. The Board, in referring this issue to staff, adopted Res.#W2/96: "THA T staff be directed to negotiate with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club regarding a proposed rent increase for leased Authority Lands at Tommy Thompson Park; AND FURTHER THA T a complete staff report be brought to the Water and Related Land Management Board at a later date. " Since the APSC lease is usually considered as part of the overall annual operating program for Tommy Thompson Park, staff has prepared the following report which outlines the details of the 1996 License Agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, and the proposed 1996 operating program for Tommy Thompson Park. ~ Aauatic .E.sl.rk Sailina QyQ License Aareement Staff has negotiated a 1996 license agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities at the Park. The conditions of the license will be the same as used in previous years. Vehicle parking on-site and access during public hours will be limited to three (3) weekends in the spring and three (3) weekends in the fall for necessary preparatory work. During public hours outside the above, the Aquatic Park Sailing Club members must park their vehicles at the Leslie Street parking area. Ouring non-public hours (i.e. Monday to Friday), vehicular access to leased land will be granted to members of the Club upon proof of membership and key privileges. The 1996 rental rate for the leased lands at Tommy Thompson Park has been negotiated and developed as follows: The Authority has agreed to adjust the current (1995) APSC Lease to reflect 10% of the Metro formula for boat facility rental rates. The Authority adopted this 10% figure in the early 1980's to reflect the special access and servicing limitations placed on the Club by the Park planning and construction process. Based on this modified formula the 1995 Rental Rate for the Club is $5,635.00 (32.8 acres times $1,787.07 divided by 10%). An annual rent increase of 5% will be applied to the adjusted rate for 1996. This rent increase is consistent with previous increases imposed by the MTRCA and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. This increase results in a total rent of $5,916.75 for 1996. In addition to the 1996 rental, the APSC has offered to provide the Authority with a $2,000.00 contribution to help offset the cost of the 1996 shuttle van service. 016 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19, 1996 1Jll!2 Interim Manacement Procram In order to reflect significant changes to the Authority's funding arrangements in 1996, a number of modifications have been made to the Tommy Thompson Park operating program in order to reflect a 52 % budget reduction in 1996. Where possible the 1996 Interim Management Program will endeavour to maintain the basic components of the previous year's program. These basic components include: . public access year round on weekends and statutory holidays; . public transportation in the form of a single park shuttle van operating from May to Thanksgiving; . Gull Control Program; . summer nature program on Sundays only with coordinated volunteer walks; and . a licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities. The details of the 1996 Tommy Thompson Park operating program are as follows: ~ Access: the park will be open year round on weekends and holidays (excluding Christmas Day, Boxing Oay, and New Year's Day) as follows: April - October 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. November to March 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In the interest of public safety and security, staff will be on site at all times during public hours. Ouring the spring, summer and early fall seasons, the gate staff will assume responsibility for the operation of the shuttle van service while continuing to maintain control of access, and act as an emergency contact on site. ~ TransDortation: will be provided by means of a single van operating from May 11th through October 14th, 1996. As in previous years, the service will operate on a half hour schedule between the main gates and the pedestrian bridge within the Park. Due to reduced staffing, the service will no longer connect with the TTC Jones Bus at Commissioners and Leslie Streets. This reduced route will not impact ridership since the use of this transit connection in the past has been minimal. The use of a single staff person at Tommy Thompson Park to maintain gate access during the winter and operate the shuttle van service from May to October provides a cost savings in the order of $6,000. A voluntary contribution of $2,000 by the Aquatic Park Sailing Club towards this service further reduces the cost of operation to a total of approximately $2,000 in 1996. Nature Interoretation: will be offered to the public at a reduced level from June 1 though September 2, 1996. This year's program is proposed to include theme walks presented by a park naturalist on Sunday afternoons and the operation of the "Spit Cart" at the Park on Sunday mornings. In addition staff will coordinate and publish a list of walks to be hosted by other naturalist groups and organizations at Tommy Thompson Park in 1996. As in previous years, the objective will be to provide information to the public about the Park's natural features as well as the history, planning and construction of the site. The operation of this program by MTRCA staff has allowed the integration of other information related to watershed management, and highlight other Authority projects on the waterfront and in the river valleys. 1 ' '("~ .~ ~ " WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D17 Wildlife S!lli! Resource Manacement Activities: will include a reduced ring-billed gull control program, common tern habitat management, Canada goose management. The Gull Control Program will be undertaken from April 1 through July 7, 1996 and will encompass the same areas controlled in previous years. Control techniques will include staff patrol. owl effigies, pyrotechnical devices, scarecrows and supplemental egg collection, with control activities being undertaken on weekdays throughout the duration of the program. The Common Tern Management Program for 1996 will be similar to 1995 and will include the delineation and monitoring of nesting areas, signage and patrol, maintenance and monitoring of artificial nesting rafts in cooperation with the Canadian Wildlife Service, and monitoring overall tern nesting success. FINANCIAL DETAILS Costs associated with the 1996 Interim Management Program have been estimated at $65,000, which reflects a reduction of approximately 52 % from 1995. The following is a breakdown of the 1996 operating budget: Technical Oirection/Supervision: $25,000.00 Gate Operations: $15,000.00 Gull Control Program: $14,000.00 Van Service: $4,000.00 Nature Program: $3,000.00 Equipment Rentals: $10,000.00 Miscellaneous (materials/supplies/licenses/insurance etc.): $2,000.00 Revenue (APSC Lease and Van Contribution): ($7,916.75) TOTAL $65,083.25 In order to meet the 52% reduction in operating budget the following are the modifications that have been made to the 1996 Park operations: . park administration has been offset by approximately 50% by other projects and funding; . reduction to a single staff at the Park during the spring, summer and early fall; . reduced Nature Interpretation Program operating on Sundays only; and . reduced gull control program and the elimination of other biophysical monitoring of wildlife communities at the Park. RATIONALE The purpose of the management program at Tommy Thompson Park is to maintain the existing level of public use in accordance with the delegated responsibilities given by the Province. The proposed 1996 Interim Management Program is in keeping with the agreement with Metropolitan Toronto for the Authority to operate the site without establishing any long-term operating procedures. The provision of a van shuttle service will facilitate access for members of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club during the periods when vehicular access is restricted. In addition, this service has enhanced the use of the site for other individuals and groups who could not otherwise enjoy the site because of the distances within the site. : \~ ~:~*{, ~';':~; ~ ~' . ~, , D1S WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19, 1996 - The use of an Authority operated transportation service augments the Authority's presence on-site and increases the level of public safety at the Park. The reduction in staffing during the spring, summer and early fall seasons allows the Authority to maintain the existing park operating season, continue the operation the shuttle van service and meet budget reduction targets for Tommy Thompson Park in 1996. For information contact: Scott Jarvie, (Ext. 312) RES. #W11/96 - PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POLICY City of North York Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority support the Purpose, Goals, Principles, and Steps of the City of North York Stormwater Management Policy; THAT initial discussions about the proposed funding arrangements, roles of the Authority, and mechanisms for determining end-of-pipe stormwater management requirements be held in conjunction with the Steering Committee being established by Metro Works for the Master Planning for Wastewater Systems exercise; AND FURTHER THAT staff respond to the City of North York and report back to the Authority with a recommended course of action once discussions have taken place. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Actions to be taken in response to the City of North York's proposed Stormwater Management Policy, associated funding arrangements, and recommendations for the Authority's role. BACKGROUND At its meeting on November 15, 1995, the Council of the City of North York adopted, by Resolution No. 95-15, an extract of Clause 6 of the Works Committee Report No. 20 including a Storm water Management Policy (see attached). The report identifies that although the City has been involved in various aspects of storm water management (SWM), there has been no comprehensive written policy and there are limitations to the City's capability in undertaking certain SWM responsibilities. The report also recognizes the duplication, confusion, inefficiency and inaction which prevails within the field of stormwater management today as a result of the involvement of numerous agencies and relevant pieces of legislation. In a proactive attempt to overcome some of these problems and clarify roles, the report recommends a Storm water Management Policy to be implemented by the City. The Policy applies to the following key areas: WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 019 . lot level and conveyance controls for new subdivisions and major rezoning . spills control devices for industrial/commercial developments . promotion of source, lot level, conveyance controls (e.g. grassed swales, perforated subdrains, cisterns, soakaway pits, etc.) wherever possible . incorporation of stormwater management practices as part of road reconstruction projects and spills control devices in industrial and commercial areas . continued review and improvement of city operations and maintenance programs (e.g. snow removal, salt storage, catchbasin cleaning) and engineering standards. Overall, the policy recognizes the importance of preventing future impacts from stormwater runoff generated from new development; upgrading SWM systems in older urban areas to meet current objectives; and continuing to improve the City's ongoing operations and maintenance activities that affect stormwater. The thrust of the policy is one of "do what you can, when you can" and "where you can", which recognizes the unique challenges for achieving current SWM objectives in a predominantly urbanized area. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the report Forty Steps to a New Oon. The policy conforms to the direction set by the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, which advocates source control of pollutants. The Policy, however, limits the City's responsibility to the provision of source and conveyance controls. The third type of SWM measure, end-of-pipe controls, is also a critical component of an integrated stormwater management plan and is necessary to meet the Authority's flood, erosion, water quality, and other related aquatic habitat objectives. The City's Policy recommends that end- of-pipe measures should become the responsibility of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) due to its unique ability to plan on a watershed basis. The City's report goes further to recommend a funding arrangement necessary for the MTRCA to carry out this role: i) A stormwater management component for Oevelopment Charges be levied by Metro and all other Regional municipalities within the MTRCA jurisdiction to provide Capital Funding to the MTRCA for the planning and construction of major stormwater management facilities. ii) A surcharge on water rates be levied by Metro and proceeds be transferred to MTRCA for both Capital Funding and Maintenance of major storm water management facilities." At present, the construction of major end-of-pipe SWM facilities, in most areas, is the result of a comprehensive planning process, largely funded by private developers and coordinated by the municipality. Private developers coordinate and cover the cost of planning, design and construction of the SWM facilities. Authority staff contributes technical advice to the overall planning studies, which set the SWM requirements and delineate locations for siting end-of-pipe facilities. Planning and construction of major SWM facilities in already urbanized areas is being advocated by the Authority through watershed strategies, such as Forty Steps to a New Oon, as part of regeneration projects. The Harding Park Regeneration Project in the Town of Richmond Hill is an example where the Town funded and took the lead in planning, design and construction of a SWM pond retrofit project. The Authority contributed technical expertise and funding. \ ' ., D20 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April19, 1996 As stated above, it is typically the municipality who has coordinated the overall planning studies, such as in the case of the City of Mississauga's Stormwater Quality Control Study, completed in 1995. That study recommended SWM requirements to be met through source, conveyance and end-of-pipe measures for new developments, as well as infill and redevelopment, and recommended sites for the location of future new and retrofit end-of-pipe facilities. Authority staff contributed technical expertise as participants of the study's Steering Committee. The study provided the basis for calculating costs of implementing the recommended end-of-pipe SWM facilities, which in turn will form the basis for deriving a city-wide development charges levy. The levy is a proposed addition to the City's Oevelopment Charges By-law. In this case, the City of Mississauga will be responsible for coordinating the detailed design and construction of end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities. To date, maintenance of SWM facilities has been a municipal responsibility largely due to the fact that municipalities are the owners of the facilities. Few municipalities have had experience with major, non-routine maintenance activities, such as dredging a detention pond, but most conduct some level of routine maintenance, such as de-clogging outlets or grass cutting. Considering the Authority's current level of involvement and capabilities and the directions we are setting for our future role in watershed management, it would appear that the following functions would be consistent with those put forward by the City of North York: . provision of technical advise during the preparation of comprehensive planning studies and planning of major SWM facilities; . coordination of planning studies and planning of major SWM facilities, where appropriate; . coordination of or assistance with planning, approvals and implementation of non- routine maintenance activities associated with major SWM facilities. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The City of North York has forwarded this report and its recommendations to Metropolitan Toronto and all municipalities within the MTRCA jurisdiction for endorsement of the proposed funding arrangements. The report was also forwarded to the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources for their information. Metro Works, in collaboration with the area municipalities and other stakeholder groups, has recently proposed the establishment of a Steering Committee to oversee Master Planning for Wastewater Systems on a watershed basis for all watersheds within the Metropolitan Toronto boundaries. The objective of this exercise is the development of a comprehensive and integrated plan for the overall management of the collection and treatment of wastewater, including stormwater runoff. The Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the area municipalities within Metro Toronto, MOEE, MNR, the Metro RAP, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, watershed task forces, and community group stakeholders. The Steering Committee and technical studies associated with this Master Planning exercise could provide an appropriate forum for initial discussions about the City of North York's proposal and a basis for implementation. It is recommended that Authority staff, in consultation with the City of North York and Metro Works, convene initial discussions about the City's proposal with members of the Steering Committee for Metro's Master Planning for Wastewater Systems exercise. Some of the items to be addressed through a conceptual evaluation of this proposal include: "-, WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D21 . level of support among other municipalities; . status of the Golden Task Force Report recommendations; . potential application of the proposal to only part vs. all of the MTRCA jurisdiction. If there is sufficient interest among members of the Steering Committee in considering this proposal further, the additional items listed below would need to be addressed. . Consultation with area and regional municipalities throughout the MTRCA jurisdiction. . Need for the preparation of a comprehensive planning study, similar to the City of Mississauga's Stormwater Quality Control Study, to provide a basis for setting minimum source control targets; delineating potential sites for end-of-pipe facilities; and determining minimum funding requirements. . Other issues: - property ownership (land, end-of-pipe facilities) and taxes; - liability for flooding, erosion and water quality impairments; - basis for funding level and mechanisms for the transfer of funds; - timing of construction with respect to pace of development; - requirements for legal agreements; - reporting and communication requirements; - monitoring and auditing requirements. BENEFITS Step 39 of the Forty Steps to a New Don states: "Fund the Oon's regeneration through existing and new sources." The establishment of a surface water quality improvement fund, associated with municipal water bills, was cited as one example of a potential new source of funding. Similarly, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario's recently developed "Business Case" proposes an additional fee associated with the municipal water bill as a potential source of municipal funding support for conservation authorities. The City of North York's initiative represents an opportunity for the Authority to discuss innovative funding arrangements with area and regional municipalities. The discussions will also assist in clarifying relative roles, responsibilities, and liabilities in SWM. Overall, the potential to link a fee for (storm)water management with the direct user or beneficiary of clean water could offer significant benefits in community awareness and education, which extend beyond the immediate benefits of funding support and clarification of roles. For information contact: Sonya Meek, ext. 253 : , D22 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,Apri119, 1996 SCHEDUlE -e- Peg. 1 01 3 APPENDIX -A- HISTORY Pr" 1 S- CentuTY North York was mainly a forest with hundreds of little creeks tributary to the main rivers of the Don and Humber before the settlers started cleanng the lands in the 18'" century. When it rained, only a small portion of the rainfall got converted to surface runoff reaching the receiving waters as most of the rain either got absorbed by the soil and vegetation or Just evaporated. The runoff percolating through the soil recharged the groundwater which fed the base flow of the watercourses dunng dry periods. Erosion in these watercourses was a natural process and pollution was negligible. , I 18'" Centurv As settlers removed most of the vegetation to create farmlands in North York in the 1700's, the rate of surface runoff reaching the watercourses increased, along with Increased loads of washed off topsoil and manure. With advances in agncultural science, fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides also found their way to the watercourses. While increased rates of runoff flow through ditches along farm fields affected erosion problems in the watercourses, introduction of manure and chemicals started to negatively impact on certain fish and plants. MId 20. CentuTY As urbanization started and then exploded In North York from the 1950's on, pervious farmland was replaced with impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots and roofs. Both the rate and volume of surface runoff reaChing the watercourses increased resulting in erosion and flOOding problems. Meanwhile the rate of infiltration and absorption decreased resulting in lower groundwater and base flow levels. Stormwater runoff was regarded as a nuisance which had to be removed from a site or roadway as quickly as possible to the nearest watercourse, without much consideration of downstream quantity and quality impacts. To cope with surface flooding, roadside ditches in older subdivisions were replaced with storm sewers and new subdiviSIons had storm sewers, carrying runoff even faster to the watercourses. To cope with erosion, the watercourses were lined with hard surfaces such as concrete and gabion channels, or if erosion became too severe, watercourses were eliminated altogether to become piped sewers, all the time increasing the rate of runoff reaching downstream. It was not recognized that the storm sewers or the minor svstem was designed to prevent surface flooding from frequent and less intense storms and that if storms produce runoff in excess of the capacity of the storm sewers, the overland flow route or the maior Svstem carries the high runoff flows. As for runoff quality impacts, the farmers' manure and chemicals were replaced with other pollutants such as soils, toxic metals, industflal chemicals and construction sediments, created additional negative impacts on the environment. PrB!tllnt The negative Impacts 01 urban runoff are now recognized. Quantity Impacts became evident sooner due to Increased erosion and flooding problems and due to the significant time and money allocated to correct these problems. Quality impacts became evident more recently as studies concluded that urban runoff could be as polluted as combined sewer overflows and sewage treatment plant by-passes. It was alSO. recognized that the -first flush- effect wh~n the pollutants are picked up and carned by surface runoff during the initial staaes of frequent storms. had the mosf rfp'r,,,,,pl""'I"..d ....11-...... ....... .._~_ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19,1996 D23 ~ APPENDIX -8- Pag_ 2 01 3 OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Stormwater Management Programs by all levels of government have been Involved In the efforts to assess the magnitude of the urban runoff quantity and quality problems and to take steps In correcting or preventlng them. There are hundreds of studies since the early 1980' s dealing with Slormwater Management issues In the Metro Toronto area of the Great Lakes alone. A few of the recent activities Include the following: I) provincial GovernmlJnt Mlnlstrv of Natural Resources IMNRJ Under the mandate of the federal Fisheries Act, MNR requires the Implementation of runoff quality controls on new developments. Mlnlstrv of the Environment and Enerav (MOEE) The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) has published the -Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual- in June 1994, outlining the control measures that can be implemented at the lot level, (i.e. on a development site\, at the conveyance level, (Le. along storm sewers or streets\' and at end-of-pipe level, (i.e. at the outfalls to the watercourses and lakes). Although these guidelines are beneficial for developing Mgreen fieldM municipalities, most of them are only marginally effective or impractical for a developed municipality like North York, except for some use in in fill developments or City road reconstruction projects. The Province has also published -Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements. Implementation Guidelines and AmendmentsM to the Planning Act and related legislation in February 1995, which encourage among other things. "the development of otficlal plan polley which incorporates consideration for the protection. preservation, and sustamability of water on a watershed baSIS. M II) ReCllonlll Government Metrooolitan Toronto Reaion Conservation Aurhoritv (MTRCAJ The MTRCA has prepared the .Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program- in February 1994 which defines the various natural resource areas requiring protection and rehabilitation and outlines the measures that can be taken by various agencies. public and private. The MTRCA . has also carried out a watershed planning study in 1994 for the Don River resulting in a document titled MForty Steps to a New DonM and is about to do a similar study for the Humber River. Metrooolitan Toronro Metro Toronto's 1995 State of the Environment Report states that -the Metropolitan Strategic Plan contains objectives to virtually eliminate the discharge of toxic contaminants in Lake Ontario and Metro watercourses: improve nearshore lake water quality to swimmable standards: reduce water consumption; and reduce pollutant loadings from runoff. M Metro Council has adopted on October 12'ft and 13'ft, 1994, Metro Works Committee Report No. 16 which states that Metro will be the lead agency in creating a strategy to deal with stormwater management issues, on a watershed basis, Including treatment of discharges. For the . . D24 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAG~MENT ADVIS~RY BOARD #2/96.ApriI19, 1996 . .. SCHEOUU; -E- P.3013 . past several years, Provincial, Regional and Local municipalities have been Involved with two large studies, being T A WMs IT oronto Area Watershed Management Strategies I and Toronto Area RAP (Remedial Action Planl, with the overall objective of reducing pollution reaching the rivers and Lake Ontario. Metro has proposed the first stormwater quality pond project on Emery Creek as a result of the T A WMs study for which they are currently involved in obtaining the necessary Environmental Assessment Approvals. We support a regional or watershed stormwater management program and hope that cost-effective and efficient projects like the Emery Creek Quality Pond can become reality one day. * - I ,~. ~7 (,'; ~\;~.- I WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D25 EXTRACT OF CLAUSE 6 OF WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 20 DATED OCTOBER 31, 1995 ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 15, 1995 BY RESOLUTION NO. 95-15 6. POLICY - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (WM30l Your Committee had before it the following report (October 26, 1995) from the Commissioner of Public Works: "1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present a Stormwater Management Policy for Works Commillee and Council approval. 2. DISCUSSION The sum of various methods to deal with rainfall once it converts to runoff, its impacts on private and public property as well as on the receIVIng waters such as rivers and lakes is called Slormwater Management. Slormwater Management methods may include installatIOns as simple as ditches beside farmers' fields or roadways. as common as storm sewers under urban roads, or as sophisticated as dams on rivers or stormwater treatment facilities. For background information and evolution of stormwater management practices, refer to Appendix A'. Slormwater Management involves Ihe sciences of Hydrology for the conversion of rainfall to runoff, Hydraulics and Physics for the transport of runoff in pipes or watercourses, Biochemistry for the study of pollutants in runoff and Biology for the impact of runoff pollutants on habitat of receiving waters. Although It involves all these SCiences, Slormwater Management can be regarded as an art because It cannot be sCientifically claSSified and universally applied and it has to be dealt with on a case-specific, site-specific basis. The subject is complex and ever evolVing. Various aspects of stormwater management are under the jurisdiction of one or more agencies of Federal (Environment Canada, Fishenes and Oceans Canada). ProvinCial (Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources), Regional (Metro Toronto Region Conservation AuthOrity, Metro Works). and Local (North York) govemments. At last count. there were fifty-two different legislations involving Stormwater Management. The extent of review, approval, control, enforcement and funding responslbililies, or the lack of them, has resulted in much duplication, confusion, ineffiCiency and Inaction. For information about actiVIties and initiatives by other Government agencies, refer to Appendix B-. Stormwater Management controls can be classified Into three general groups: 1. Sgurce Controls. include all control devices and practices that can be Implemented atlhe lot level. Examples include roof connections to discharge to the lawn, soakaway pits, . Attached as Schedule "E". r 026 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,ApriI19. 1996 - 2 . Clause 6 (Continued) detention of site runoff before reaching storm sewers, oil and sediment control devices in parking lots, etc. 2. Conveyance Controls. include all control devices and practices that can be Implemented in the runoff conveyance system, Le. in the storm sewers, roadways or drainage channels. Examples include perforated pipes, grass swales, oil and sediment control devices in manholes and catchbastns, naturalized open channels, etc. 3. End-of-Pioe Controls, include mostly major control facilities such as quantity or quality ponds. runoff disinfecllon and treatment systems. The City has either undertaken or proposes to undertake many of the lot level and conveyance level controls as outlined in the Stormwater Management Policy presented in this report. End-of- pipe controls are beyond the City's funding and expertise capabilities and could be more effectively planned and managed by regional agencies on a watershed basis. Although North York has been involved With various aspects of Stormwater Management, currently there is no comprehensive written policy. The City manages storm drainage infrastructure worth an estimated $900 million dollars which includes 1560 kilometres of storm sewers, over 700 storm sewer ourtalls, as well as numerous watercourses for which no monetary replacement value can be set but must be recognized as Irreplaceable natural resources. Recently. there has been increasing pressures on the City to construct and assume end-of-plpe controls and malar stormwater management facilities such as quality and quantity ponds With impllcattons for funding, liability and long term maintenance. It IS essential that the City has a Council Policy on Stormwater Management clearly defining Its responsibilities and capabilities which IS current and up-Io-date. 3. SIQRMWA TfR MANAGEMENT IN NORTH YORK A. Present North York Stormwater Manaaement Practices and ActiVities : 1) Development Aoolications Subdivision and major rezoning applications are required to restrict the post-development runoff to pre-developn'ent runoff rates both for major and minor storm 5ystems. All remaining development applications including Site Plan Control applications are reqUired to restrict the minor system runoff to a 2 year storm at 0.5 runoff co-efficient or the allowable design capacity of the receiVing storm sewer. whichever is critical. They are also reqUired to provide an overland flow route Without damaging the proposed and adjacent properties. - I , WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 027 - 3 - Clause 6 (Continued) 2) Sewer Use Bv-/aw Revisions House roof leads directly connected to the storm sewers contnbute greatly to the runoff rates and volumes reaching the receIving waters. The City Sewer Use By-law was revised in 1993 not to allow connection of roof leads to the storm sewer connection for houses with a lot frontage of fifty feet and greater and sideyard setback of six feet and greater. 3) Management Proaram for Watercourses and Stonn Sewer Outfalls This program was implemented in 1993, with the objectives of creating an Inventory of all the City's storm sewer outtalls, the proactive inspection and the preventative repair of the ouUalls and the watercourses Within the City jurisdiction. Funds in the amount of $500,000.00 are allocated annually to the Watercourse Drainage and Erosion Control program. 4) Monitoring and Imorovement of Winter Salt and Sand Ooerations Reduced use of sail and improved closed storage of salt and sand for winter use have contnbuted to less amounts of these reaching the watercourses. Currently, all sail is stored In enclosed structures, maInly in salt domes. 5) Street Sweeoing and Flushing Ooerations In the summer streets are flushed and swept to remove dirt and debns, once every Iwo weeks in residential areas and once every week In industrial areas, weather permitting, at an annual cost of $1,000,000.00. 6) Reaular Catchbasin Cleanina Ooerations Regular catchbasin cleaning operations contribute to better Stormwater Quality Management. Catchbasins are cleaned once every 1.5 years or on an as-needed basis. using vacuum trucks. at an annual cost of $250,000.00. 7) Tracina and Disconnection of Service Cross Connections Service cross connections illegally discharging sanitary effluent into storm sewers, especially in industrial areas are actively searched. traced by teChniques such as dye-testinq and enforr.prl In - i r D28 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19, 1996 - - 4 - Clause 6 (Continued) disconnect. The annual budget for this program is $500,000.00. 8) Saifl and Pollution Control Response . A cleaning crew is equipped to respond to, contain and clean up minor spills and to assist the Metro Works and MOEE in control of the spills. The crew also monitors storm outlalls and watercourses and installs absorbent collection matenal as required. The annual budget for this program IS $100,000.00. 9) Imarovements to SanitarY Svstem & Basement Flooding PreventIon Sanitary sewer backup problems iesulting in exit:. .... 'J d basement f100dings during wet weather conditions have been investigated and solutions provided by using flow detention pipes resulting In no increase in flows reaching Metro trunk sewers and treatment plants. These works have assisted the overall Metro trunk sewers and treatment plants by eliminating the negative impacts on downstream combined sewer overflow and plant by-pass problems which are the main pollution sources in Lake Ontario. The City is committed to solve the basement flooding problems, by containing the high wet weather flows In large storage pipes with restricted outlets and Without Increasing the flows to the Metro system and so far has invested approximately $15,000,000.00 toward this program. 10) Tree Plantings The City's Parks and Recreation Department plants and maintains thousands of trees within the road allowances which help the hydrologic cycle by providing evapotranspiration and Infiltration as well as slowing down the runoff rates. 11 ) Reduced Use of Pesticides and Herbicides The City's Parks and Recreation Department has significantly reduced the spraying of pesticides and herbiCides, thereby redUCing lhese pollutant levels In drainage runoff. B. ProDosed North York Stormwater Manaaement Practices and ActiVities: 1) North York Proiects Since the replacement of ditched roads with curbs and storm sewers increases the rate and quantity of . I , D LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D29 WATER AND RELATE _ _ _ . - .- - 5 - Clause 6 (Continued) runoff flows reaching the receiving waters and in some instances may reqUIre new storm autfalls, . Public Works has started exploring altemative drainage methods. One option is the installation at perforated pipes as storm sewers to improve infiltration. 2) Bio-enaineering When works are required on watercourses or storm outtalls Public Works has started to preserve the natural charactenstics at the site and to use natural materials, whenever pOSSible. The co-operallon ot the Parks and Recreallon Department IS sought in efforts to prOVide a vegetative buffer between storm outtall points and the watercourse, in order to filter out pollutants and slow down the runoff. In additIon, their co-operation and expertise IS sought in implementation at vegetation and tree planting activities near watercourses and storm sewer outtalls in City parklands. Public Works suggests that no grass cutting be done along a ten metre (10m) wide strip beside watercourses. 3) Stormc8otors and Goss Trao Catchbasins The use of Stormceptors or similar new technology stonnwater quality control deVices in lieu ot storm manholes in roadways and parking lots assists In capturing oil and sediments present In urban runoff. Public Works practice now recommends the installation at Slormceptors In the parking lots at commercIal and industnal development applications. Goss traps in catch basins perform a Similar function but to a much smaller degree. It IS intended to install either Stormceptors or catch basins With Goss traps on North York roadways In commercial and industrial subdivisions. when dOing road reconstruction projects, whenever possible. 4) Develooment Gradina Control and New Runoff Control T echniaues On-site runoff control for proposed development applications, especially for overland flow major system design, reqUIres adherence to proposed grades and elevations. Although grading ot subdivisions and in fill housing prolects are controlled at present by Public Works and Building Departments respeCllvely. grading control at other development prolects such as rezoning or site plan applications is somewhat unclear. It is proposed to implement more stnct grading controls for all developments and to encourage use ot new runoff ~ l . D30 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,Apri119, 1996 - - 6 - Clause 6 (Continued) control techniques such as soak away pits and cistems with the co-operallon of the Planning and Building Departments. 5) Construction Sedimentation Control Silt washotf from construction sites is a major pollution source for receiving waters. Public Works proposes to implement more stnct controls and enforce them with the co-operation of the Planning and Building Departments. C. Recent Public Works Initiatives 1 ) Mede Pond is a pnvately owned natural pond tributary to the Humber River in the Weston Road/Sheppard Avenue West area behind the SI. BaSil's School. There have been complaints regarding pollution in the pond, mainly as a result of polluted runoff from the upstream industrral areas. It is proposed to Install several Stormceptors in the catchment area of this pond. Discussions are underway with Stormceptor Canada, the manufacturer and MTRCA, to arrange a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of these devices for future uses. 2) Dry detention ponds are man-made depressions, usually in parks. to prevent overland runoff which exceeds the storm sewer capacity from causing flooding downstream. This is achieved by excavating a depression or by placing berms in the perimeter of passive parks areas. Public Works has constructed dry detention ponds with the co- operation of Parks Department in Muirhead Park. Fenside Park and Heathrow Park. In April 1995 Council authorized work in the Bayview Village Park to prevent excessive flooding of properties near the downstream east end of the park. This project is currently being designed. 3) Donwoods Drive in the Hoggs Hollow area was reconstructed in 1993 with perforated pipes instead of standard storm sewers in order to avoid the need for a new storm outfall. 4) The Bridle Path and Lawrence Park areas are two of the remaining neighbourhoods with ditched roads. Local Improvement projects included within the 1995 Budget in these two areas are being studied to investigate the use of grass swales and other alternative drainage methods to filter out runoff pollutants and to aVOid the need for new storm outtalls. 'f'V . WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D31 - 7 - Clause 6 (Continued) 5) Five storm outfalls on the Black Creek are in urgent need of repair and outfall reconstruction work has been authonzed by Clause 4 of Works Committee Report No. 21, dated November 16'n, 1993. adopted by Council on December 111. 1993. The Public Works Department studied the feasibility of reducing the number of these outfalls and as a result it has been pOSSible in this project to come up with an environmentally effective flow diversion design eliminating two of the outfalls. Stormceptors will also be Installed in place of some of the storm manholes in the upstream catchment areas to improve water quality. 6) Erosion problems along an East Don tributary watercourse near the Locke House In Moatfield Park is to be stabilized by uSing vegetative measures, live-cnb walls and other natural methods instead of traditional hard measures like concrete or gab ion baskets. 4. PUBLIC EDUCA TlON Water and watercourses are natural resources and should be treated as such. Efforts should be undertaken to make the public aware of thiS fact. Public Works can only provide the phYSical works .in improving a watercourse; the upkeep, clean-up, tree planting and general protection of the watercourse can be carned out by the public through volunteer persons and groups if it IS made aware of Its value. One suggestion is the use of runoff containers by residents willing to disconnect their house roof leads and to collect the roof runoff for watering lawns. ThiS practice not only reduces the runoff flows but also contnbutes to water conservation efforts. To this end, it IS recommended that all schools through the Boards of Education, Ratepayers Associations, and vanous environmentalmterest groups should be contacted through the North York Environment Committee to raise the Public's awareness of stormwater management, to make them aware of the new Stormwater Management Policy and request them to take an active part in the protection of our resources. 5. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW REGIONAL FUNDING ABBANGEMENT It is our opinion that the Metropolitan Toronto Region Conservation Authority whose jllrisdicllon is not hampered by artificial political boundanes but IS based on watersheds, has an overall control of watercourses and valley lands is uniquely positioned in co-ordinatlng stormwater management activities on a watershed basis. Since large-scale watershed studies and solutions extend beyond North York's capabililles and borders, the Public Works Department fully supports the Initial ion of these studies by MTRCA or other regional agencies. Unfortunately the usual outcome of these lengthy studies IS sound recommendations but Without clear responsibilities nor any available funding for carrying out the speCific prOJects. There is - . , D32 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19, 1996 - a - - . . ..- . Clause 6 (Continued) also a general trend of downloading all implementation and funding responsibilities to the lowest level of govemment. North York is committed to implement controls at the source lot level and at conveyance level, but has no expertise and funding available for controls at the end-of-pipe level. End of pipe control facilities such as quality ponds which should be located not on the limited remaining developable land but in valley lands separate near watercourses, should be managed by MTRCA as it is much more cost-effective and practical to locate large centralized facilities in valley lands rather than a multitude of small facilities scattered near resldenllal areas, with pOlenllalliabllity. nuisance complaints. maintenance and operations problems. Unfortunately at this time MTRCA has no funding resources to plan for and manage these types of facilities. A two-pronged funding mechanism could be used to support the MTRCA mandate to be considered by Metropolitan Toronto as well as all mUnicipalities within the MTRCA Jurisdictton. i) Since urbanization and development impacts on water resources, a stormwater management component tor Oevelopment Charges could be levied by Metro and all other Regional municipalities Within the MTRCA Jurisdiction to provide Capital Funding to MTRCA tor the planning and construction of stormwater management facilities. ii) Since water resources and water use are part of the overall ecologic cycle, it appears appropriate that MTRCA should be able to receive a contribution from the Metropolitan Toronto water rates. ThiS Will proVide MTRCA With a continued and independent base for both Capital Funding and maintenance of major stormwater management facilities. It is requested that Council forward this funding proposal to the Councils of Metropolitan Toronto and all MUnicipalities within the MTRCA's jurisdiction to seek their endorsement. 6. CQNCLUSION,S Funds from existing capital funding such as the Drainage and Erosion Control Fund for watercourse and outfall proJects, Local Improvement Funds for road and storm sewer constructton, Sewer Surcharge Account or various Maintenance Funds can be utilized to implement the City's existing and proposed Initiatives as outlined in the Stormwater Management Policy. In some instances cost savings Will be achieved immediately With the new methods and practices, and malar long-term cost savings will be achieved With the ultimate reduction of erosion and pollution problems. It is recognized that improvements to the watercourses will not become apparent soon. It took about two hundred years to damage nature's way of handling runoff and it is hoped that with these new practices it will take less time to correct them. It is our opinion that small steps can and should be taken by North York ~ "., ' \'~" ~;. , - . ' 'h' ." WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 033 - 9 - Clause 6 (Continued) whenever the opportunity presents itself, as outlined in the Stormwater Management Policy and that the cumulative impact will be noticeable. The thrust of the Policy is 'do what you can", "when you can" and 'where you can. rather than a strict regulatory document. 7. RECOMMENDA nONS It is therefore recommended that: a) the Works Committee and Council adopt the following Stormwater Management Policy. CITY OF NORTH YORK STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT POLICY Pumose: To establish selVice and conveyance controls within the City of North York to manage stormwater in an environmentally sound and cost effective manner within available financial resources and to provide effective selVice to the City residents and business owners. ~ i) To minimize negative impacts of stormwater runoff on human life, property and the environment. ii) To minimize negative impact of human influences and urbanization on water resources. PrinciDles: i) To ensure that runoff quantity control is provided for both major and minor systems, whenever possible. ii) To ensure that runoff quality control is provided for, by means of practical devices and activities, whenever possible. Hi) To ensure that watercourse and storm sewer outfall projects involve the use of natural design, materials and bio-engineering methods. and that efforts will be made to reduce the number of storm sewer outfalls, whenever possible. iv) To ensure that North York continues to consult and co-operate with other govemment agencies and participate in Watershed Planning studies and that major stormwater management facilities are part of such a process. ~ i) All subdivision and major rezoning applications shall restrict post-development runoff to pre-development t . D34 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,ApriI19, 1996 . 10 - Clause 6 (Continued) runoff rates for minor and major systems. Minor rezoning and site plan control applications shall restrict the minor system runoff to a 2 year stonn at 0.5 runoff co-efficient or the allowable design capacity of the receiving storm sewer, whichever is critical. They shall provide a sate overland /low route without damaging Ihe proposed and adjacent properties. Existing drainage patterns in adjacent properties shall not be adversely affected. ii) All subdivision and major commercial and industrial development applications shall provide Stormceptors or other appropriate stormwater quality control devices. The use of grass swales, perforated subdrains, cistems and soak away pits shall be encouraged. iii) City road reconstruction projects shall be designed to try to avoid the creation of new storm outfalls, to be achieved by using allemative drainage methods, where feasible. iv) City road reconstruction projects in industriaVcommercial areas shall be regarded as an opportunity to install Stormceptors or similar stonnwater quality control devices. v) City operations for snow removal, salt storage. street sweeping, flushing and catchbasin cleaning shall continue 10 be monitored and improved, whenever possible. vi) City storm sewer outfall and watercourse improvement projects shall utIlize natural design, materials and bio-engineering methods, whenever possible. vii) Review City engineering standards and specifications related to drainage. viii) Continue to monitor future developments in the field of stormwater management and utilize them in City activities and practictos. where feasible. b) the City CIeri< fOlWard this report to the MTRCA, . Metropolitan Toronto and all Municipalities within the MTRCA jurisdiction for endorsement of Ihe proposed funding arrangement as follows: i) A stormwater management component for Development Charges be levied by Metro and all other Regional muniCipalities within MTRCA jurisdiction to provide Capital Funding to Ihe MTRCA for the planmng and construction of major storm water management faCilities. - ~1 ,;: '.. l<~ I, ~ '~ " I)' " ." WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D35 - 11 - Clause 6 (Continued) ii) A surcharge on water rates be levied by Metro and proceeds be transferred to MTRCA for both Capital Funding and Maintenance of major stormwater management facilities. c) the City Clerk fOlWard this report to the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources for their information; d) the City Clerk fOlWard this report to the City of North York Environment Committee for their information and implementation of education activities.. Your Committee RECOMMENDS that the report (October 26, 1995) from the Commissioner of Public Works be adopted and that the appropriate CIty Officials take the necessary action to carry out the recommendations. ........ ~11uncl\1_'.20 D36 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19,1996 RES. #W12/96 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE Minutes of Meetings #1/96, #2/96 and #3/96 Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #1/96 (January 9, 1996), #2/96 (February 6, 1996) and #3/96 (March 5, 1996) be received. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #1/96, #2/96 and #3/96 are provided for information. BACKGROUND The Membershio Selection. Reoortina Procedures 5!.lli! ~ 21 Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of ~ Humber Watershed ~.E2.r..Q.e. "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board." Copies of the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #1/96, #2/96 and #3/96 are provided. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact Madelyn Webb, ext. 331 RES. #W13/96 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE Progress Report: October, 1995 to April, 1996 Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Humber Watershed Task Force Progress Report - October, 1995 to April, 1996, dated April, 1996, be received. . . . . . . CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 037 KEY ISSUE The Humber Watershed Task Force Progress Report is provided for information. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE The Membershio Selection. Reoortina Procedures ilD..d. ~ 21 Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of 1llit Humber Watershed ~ ~ "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board." To ensure that the Authority is kept informed on an ongoing basis, in addition to the progress report, all minutes of the formal monthly Task Force meetings are also reported through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. For information contact: Madelyn Webb, ext. 331 D38 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19, 1996 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO ANO REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT October, 1995 to April, 1996 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/96 April 19, 1996 Ie" '~, , WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D39 HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT October, 1995 to April, 1996 The Humber Watershed Task Force was launched on October 15, 1994, the same day as the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority celebrated the 40th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. The Humber Watershed drains a total area of 907 square kilometres and is the largest watershed within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Its main tributaries are the West Humber River, East Humber River and Centreville and Black Creeks. The Humber has an unusually large number of kettle lakes in the area of its headwaters. Examples are Lake Wilcox and Lake St. George. The Humber Watershed Task Force consists of elected representatives from each of twelve local and three regional municipalities; fifteen citizens residing within the Humber River Watershed; five senior federal and provincial representatives; the Chair of the Authority or designated member; and one representative each from the Metropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, Black Creek Project, Humber Heritage Committee, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, Urban Oevelopment Institute and the Soil and Crop Improvement Association. A Humber River Watershed Atlas, Phase I, was released in March, 1995 and contains maps, text and photos detailing the characteristics of the Humber Watershed. The final edition of the Atlas will be completed by October, 1996 and will contain information on the findings of the task force sub-committees work. The first meeting of the Humber Watershed Task Force was held in February, 1995 and regular meetings have taken place in each month following. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS The work of the Task Force is divided into five sub-committees and the following briefly summarizes their progress to date: Vision and Princioles: The Vision and Principles Sub-Committee developed a Challenge Statement and a seven element Vision and Principles involving the entire task force. From March 25 to April 2, 1996, the Challenge Statement and Vision were brought to public consultation and the input of various groups throughout the watershed was obtained. The Challenge Statement and the seven element Vision are as follows: , , " , D40 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,ApriI19. 1996 I!::if CHALLENGE A healthy and sustainable ecosystem where we live, work and play in harmony with the natural and cultural environment. VISION STATEMENT eA watershed system that supplies clean water to the river and watershed residents and contributes to the quality of the Great Lakes bioregion; eA healthy ecosystem abundant with life; eA diversity of interdependent communities connected geographically, culturally and historically by the watershed; · A sustainable system which recognizes ecological health as the foundation of a healthy watershed economy; eA safe place, a destination of choice, where people have fun and celebrate a renewed watershed consciousness; eA special place for life-long learning: creatively expanding our minds, sustaining our bodies and nurturing our spirit; .Our legacy to future generations ensured through community partnership, stewardship and individual responsibility." These statements are still in draft form and will be revised and tabled with the Humber Watershed Task Force in the near future. Cultural Heritaae: The Culture and Heritage Sub-Committee is responsible for identifying culture and heritage resources within the Humber River Watershed. These resources include contemporary cultural features, known archaeological sites, and those built heritage structures deemed important by municipalities. Ouring the past six months, the Culture & Heritage Sub-Committee has completed its draft background report which was received by the Humber Watershed Task Force at its meeting on February 6, 1996. After consultation with our municipal partners, the sub-committee prepared a Culture & Heritage Strategy which has been refined into a set of draft recommendations which include goals, objectives and management actions. These draft recommendations were developed by the sub-committee through a facilitated workshop. One of the significant successes of the Culture and Heritage Sub-Committee has been to establish a committee of municipal heritage planners to discuss heritage issues common to each municipality. At present, the sub-committee is preparing nomination documents for submission to the Canadian Heritage River System to have the Humber River designated as a Canadian Heritage River. Economic: The Economic Sub-Committee released its draft background report, entitled "'Watershed Economics and the Humber" and presented its strategy recommendations to the task force on February 6, \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D41 1 996. This report is currently in circulation to the planning and/or economic departments of the watershed municipalities. Peer review has also been requested from MTRCA and Environment Canada staff. On March 23, 1996, at a strategy integration workshop, task force members considered the inclusion of each economic recommendation in the Humber strategy. Goals, objectives and actions suggested by the sub-committee on the topics of water, natural renewable and non-renewable resources, agriculture, urban development, and tourism and recreation were integrated with the goals, objectives and actions of the other three technical sub-committees.. The sub-committee has one meeting scheduled in April. At this meeting, comments received during the peer review process will be discussed. The report will then be revised accordingly, and finalized. If necessary, revisions to the strategies previously recommended to the task force will also be made. Natural Heritaae: The Natural Heritage Sub-Committee completed its report which was presented to the Humber Watershed Task Force on March 5, 1996. The report describes and evaluates the condition of the natural heritage system in the watershed and makes specific management recommendations. The recommendations are in the form of natural heritage system goals, objectives and actions for the task force to consider in the development of an overall watershed strategy. The sub-committee is still involved in the completion of surface and groundwater studies, fisheries planning, as well as a framework for natural heritage protection and enhancement. As most of the sub-committee's work is now completed, the group will meet on an as required basis. Communitv Involvement i!ill! ~ ~ The Community Involvement and Public-Use Sub-Committee is responsible for identifying the outdoor recreation and education uses which currently exist in the Humber River Watershed. This includes municipal, provincial, private as well as Authority facilities and lands. Ouring the past six months, this sub-committee has completed its draft background report. During this period, the inventory and analysis of open space, outdoor recreation, tourism and education uses within the watershed was updated. The issues were collected through discussions with the sub-committee as well as at a municipal workshop. Additional chapters have been added to the report including recreation development opportunities, recreation development nodes and potential concept sites. An outline of the tourism and recreation values required for nomination of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River was also included. The strategic directions have been refined into a set of draft recommendations which include goals, objectives and management actions. The draft recommendations were developed by the sub-committee through a facilitated workshop. The draft document will be circulated for peer review. The peer review will include staff from municipalities, provincial agencies and private interest groups within the watershed. Work to be completed within the next few months includes the finalization of the sub-committee report based on peer review and public consultation, integration of the goals, objectives and management actions with the other sub-committees for inclusion within the strategy document and assistance with the preparation of subwatershed action plans and concept site plans. \'~'.~~' ~~') .s",'. ~~_ " ~r~..- , D42 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,Apri119, 1996 PUBLIC CONSULTATION Public consultation is integral to the success of the task force's work to solicit community input and ideas, communicate information and build a constituency for the Humber Watershed Strategy, particularly its implementation at the community level. Phase I of public consultation was held in March, 1996 and the services of Trinity Theatre were engaged to identify shareholders throughout the watershed, to develop animations on the Humber Watershed, and to provide an interactive workshop, including theatre, wherein the public had an opportunity to comment on the vision. According to the Humber Watershed Task Force Workplan, the Humber Strategy document will be completed by October, 1996 at which time the Authority's approval will be sought. Production and distribution will occur once the appropriate approvals have been obtained and funds have been raised. INTEGRATION Qf GOALS A..NQ OBJECTIVES A strategic integration workshop was held on March 23, 1996. At this time, the goals of all the sub-committees were combined to reduce overlap and to fill gaps. As a result of the workshop and the subsequent revisions, a set of strategies consisting of 8 goals and 34 objectives was approved by the Humber Watershed Task Force on April 2, 1996. RES. #W14/96 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #2/96, March 7, 1996 Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #2/96, of March 7, 1996, be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #2/96, March 7, 1996 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land 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 Oon Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman, ext 238 , , .' ,-t', ". 'I WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D43 RES... #W15/96 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO V ALLEY AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1992-1996 Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1996 construction program for the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" at a total cost of $500,000, subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works along the Sylvan Avenue sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. BACKGROUND In 1994, Authority staff completed and filed the Environmental Study Report in accordance with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario - Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. The Authority has received approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and authorization pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. The initial phase of construction commenced in November, 1994 and by year end, approximately 40% (295m) of rubble core dyke had been constructed along with about 130m of the easterly beach embayment access road. Ouring 1995, the rubble core revetment was completed to the westerly end of the project. In addition, approximately 60 metres of final armouring was completed. A second newsletter summarizing the progress of the work was issued to the community in January 1996 (see attached). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Ouring 1996, it is proposed that up to 150 metres of revetment will be final armoured. In addition, imported clean fill will be placed and graded along the base of the bluffs. If the level of funding is reduced, then the amount of final armouring will be reduced accordingly. Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor. The supply and delivery of quarry stone will be tendered in accordance with the Authority's purchasing policy. Environmental monitoring for the project in 1996 will include fisheries survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document any changes to the aquatic environment in the vicinity of this project. In addition, monitoring of bluff erosion and lakefill quality will be ongoing. The Authority will continue with the Sylvan Avenue Steering Committee meetings during 1996 to provide input and direction to the project implementation. A third newsletter will also be sent out to the community later in 1996. , '.J " D44 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,ApriI19, 1996 The success of this project and its implementation can be attributed to the continuing participation of the three community representatives on the Committee. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget to carry out the 1996 work is $500,000. Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account Nos. 133-03 and 133-23 have been set up for the project. Report prepared by: Nigel Cowey (Ext. 244) - I , 0 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 045 The S vlvan .:\.venue Regeneration Project .. 1996 . -- - JANUARY VoL 1 r.z PROJECT UPDATE .,i Gale'!' \.juiJy \v,1I be letl unmn'mai 1'br reMk7lt mcm~ f'tI the cummlttee Whl11S the Svt..,an Ayenu~ Thl!l ~ector I~ alon. Svl....3n P:'tI'k. .1nd 1SSISIf'd 'The \1C1ml"Ullt::Jn i.lronlo .:Ind the dC'!\ll(I" \\1'111 rl'e'!er'\"e :I ~on 01 It'llS :tqtOn Cun!lCr:31lon \ulhnrllv Reqen....llon PrOtect? 1:1Nr.ll be3cn <"oretln. oelOw lite f':1I'1:. I \tTRC. \ I \'llh (f'eClal c\'cnr' (0 rro. C~n5m.zcuonol the .;..IQn hemIc mace!he l'IeftC'ri,c: Of the flrnl<<t. I)" S~lIne Kc:zencr:uum P""U:CI cum- Accom"lIs"ments 011". Sylvan \4...=, IQqlli 03\ldCtnmnICt)t the rnenced In 131e I \JQol JnO connnuC"O Prolec:t1n 1995 '.Vltmmnt Rc~encr:l.1Inn rrusl In\J throu!l'Ol.1l 190< TIus ['fOlcet Ie: l1e'lumC'C -\ccomffhshmentJ ro =Ie Include: ~ nl S\ 1"":1" r\\t'nuc conducted:l :0 reauce [ne nsk 01 crO!IO" Q'V ..13eH. ~ompicllon oiintmm shorehne ,..ur, on tnn "'r!Coml1lete . "onton or 1M Iwn, I.I!O meG'e5 of !ihorcllne 1t Ihe prorecr10n wuh the rubble ITtetmCnI -...at"'"' trout. Pte'Kntltlon.~ wen!' ~e base or the SC3'DOTOU1U1 BlUffs 10 oro\ Ide eltrended to Ihe wmertv end of ~lIIllne ~'a1 "r the :)vlvan e.'ums''''e :tQtaIlC ~nd f~m;]1 1'1301131 S~I...~n AvenueuC'el'holOf protert 2nd the .....ctli1nl1~ ~Ionllhe Soulh :n=ncemen1S, The 5..1\-:111 !'cctor C~lena..s ,n1ll:l1 Dnase I!O merresl of final M.-uIC Dn..C' snon:llne section. \vesrmy o1tonq Ihe L.,ke \ )n1Vlo ...nore. Jrmour1n~ fnr the ~horchne line (rom lhe (001 III RCI'!::ue pl::Jce to rronnenl com11leted. Follow,n. 1he w3lk. J B80 was held S~ IV3n ;>>311t In Ihe (II'\' nt St:1rborou~n, ('omoletto" ollhe pl:lIUJn~ plan JI rbe nome 01 Peter 3no JUd... Chi1uvln JSJOCI~led Wllh rhe lini1i <horellne for :5Vl\"atI A\enue nClllnbou" JnG :rnanenr ~ !'iubmls.~M)n for 31'P'"w:1i re"Dft'SCnt:lIl\'CS from Ine Mlnl!\U'V ul to lhe ~lnI5tr'V oiNarur.11 Resources, 'l1fUl':l1 Rcsource~ 3nd rhe ,V:lIertront jl~nIClpi1C10n or 3re3 r~ldcnl' ~nmmllon rnJ~1. l1'\e \lPP 'or W8lklnR the .iCj'o'I"':Jn' oon10n oj rhe ~mu~ E3lOl. ~T1UnICll"l:J1 W:uenmnt fr.111 Qn .\by ZJ "'I(n ~IUlC:IJrK. Jna <;fJrf ,II \ITRl".\, David Cromole. .:ontln~llon 01 environmental In 'lO\m1De1' ItJQ( \lrRC.\ "1i1lf:tnd monllonn@: 01 fill QUi1hrv :JnQ S..i\'an rC110enl' mt'f on (ne ...ue with construction Ol'JlC:nflon. )le\"e1idchncf. \fPP :ne new member ~ctcbnnon 01 the :lopl1J" Jj ;lnd 'or Ir.e ?m\ Ince 01 ()nl3no, to re\'ICW Ihe lnltl:lllon ofrhe pro,ect \..ItM3 ;"m~~ 01 tMe rmlt'C1 3nd In 'CelC hl5 barbeQue for 3n::J rcslderllJ 31 Peter (~torconunu!o:d lunQ(n~ In lqo,. ChilU"'ln'lO re<ldcnce"n Mi1... ;.1 .md he'\'ona 10 complete IMe I'nOICCr, :I \Viliboouf with Sieve Gilc:hn5t. .\f.Pp The 51r:f'nn~ C.Jmmlnee ""III continue In Novemoet. 10 mm throU~OUI I QQfI Public Involvem.nt Guld... .". Project Benellls Proc.... P1roro tat", S~tr".o~,.:9 /90J The Svl"-an AYenue SlcennlJ C .Jmmlnre The.s...I~ Avenue 5hon:ime Rct;ener~ met rive rune tltmu~OUI I oo~ fO fn'tl:\W 3non ProICClI~ a li\'e-v~r. SJ 7 -million How la.". ""'feCI Being DesIgned? !.he prolJR"S!\ of the protect. Some of lhe F'III<Cl. T11e EnVIronmental SlIJdv Rc!,<>n. The prt)leet hu eren ..iesnrned nol onl'" m~,or Items of diSCUSSion 3ftd concern ~ bv tile !'otTRC. \ In M.v [_ Included: docuInmu the del~ pr'OCeSS. .1.ucssmcnl to reduce e!'Oslon mK bUI 31'0 10 rm- finahallon of planllnq rll"S 0(.Jilrm311"'cs. .lnd r:monille on the \ ICe the ouelic \VIU1 q:re~ter JCCC'l5 In consrrucno" ~cheQule :1ftd budqet ljetrctlon or tMe orelCTT'ed lJCS,IJZ1. nus the ',\ltCT1T'Onl Jnd It' link '''IIM thc rro~ c:onunut"d prorCCt fundln~ pnJrrct ~ents :1ft e~cellml ex:unple of ~ \V3lertronl rr';311 SVl'tem t'ef'\cen 5u1'Pl~ oi SUltilble toncme rubble l\mmonal.. ":lnCJC'n1 gO\ emmentl~bhc me (juud 1M ~nd (j,JlC'S GUlly I BetlJm'" 3tId nnh fill piInraa, In xnOft. Throul;houl'he desl~ !U\'lnel Jd\'OC3ted by the W!lenron! R.e~enenllon Trusc. The \tuntClr311lV I'1rol"C'f'T" iI~enr~ pMIe or' the prolC'C't. monetllt"Y I~~ wen: oi ~tetrot'OIlt3n Toronlo. lnd It'le'': ,rv on80lnll COmntunlry rcl~lIons CCIftSIdrm:t or panmounl Impon:ancc. The of ScUOOrOUI!R The rinal desllp' concent c:1I1, ror the cre:tt1Oft Ilf 3 nC'\v "'no~llne conri~lIo" CI~ oroken concn:tC ruDblc Jnd .::utn rdl ~ t:re1nq used Ie constNct 3 senC'S 01 ":-:- etmtmts' 'r..hore "O"UCl'W'e'S to"f'Doo I<<t:ne :5hO~llfte :2~:unsc ef'O'lon bY '.."ve Keon :u1d l3Jte !e'\'els. Two ~mi1IJ ('me3Y' menl3 ormdcnanons In tne' <lJ'UCr.Jn '."Iil ~ c:onstJ'UC1ed to l,,"~3te l'"'3t!l3JI\" prortcteti W31er ~ tor rotenu31 ri...h '='113'- :he rtCCf"t'\J ~\..:l c:nbbl~rone SUD"lnle'\ Ithln :nece :1n:-:L' \\ Ullmrm\ e CO\et' lor 'U\e"TlIle lj.Mlp"Owln ;lnd '."Iil 1i5O mmole gOOlJ In\ cnC't"r"3le nJblul The g031llj to tnc~"e L"!e r:ot.~hore mwnl1l~ rotCMU31 lor '1311\ c: t:oldw:uCT' $pCCleJ. '.\Itn 3 fOCUS ('ft l:1Ke C't)ut The WCSlrm runlOn DI,he "'lle' Jf1rf"'tI' T7r, "YlJkah,III ifm. J to ,.'" P"n Ocn."",,: G~"..,' Qr",,"" Stt\r' I :,,'''''trrU, \IPP mi1Ic1\' :00 :n~ I c'uenOlnq '11 'he ...1....e RDn Bnllinnl: JDhn u.n": and Bill Collins. .. 4 I D46 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAG:MENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,ApriI19, 1996 P'OJt'C1.:a fJellltMO. r~r~ the mOSl Resoun:~1 :lnd s:~o.ouu tmm me un n('t'''('t'!'! '!'Ie' ""1" ,nd the ":ld ..I eeonotfttadvcffiC1Cftt: ::n"lIwere:t ~unlCIP'lhrv o(M~ItI3n roronlo. 'he oenn,," 'ne 13kelllll"'"",on '''Ill l"'C sauna: 2IMI eco~lallv errec:f1ve method :nom~:\lIU:a l"13ntlnlll""'Cr.lm \,"""~. DC PfO'W1dln, erosIOn connt pnMft'tIOn The \Yone: ~ Dmpo~ for 19~ "fnMd In Itte "JRJre. u'unl CuUlnln In rar the l'I!UIUaDlt Inl~n.ar. 2ton. wtll COnsIS' Of' DI'OmOft ~r3ClIl13non and rcv:mcDlIlIft. Syl...."'mue. _rililn, _tile """"""'" 2nd b:Ise Ollhe htulr~ with cJ~ ~ till: 7'be conc':t"tU3113l'k1.~i11"C' "13rt' \\ere Th. (aUowln, oenerhs w,lI be ~cnlC'\'C'd :nillnlmance"rq1lenl~"menl 01 ;,,~cnlalln 'Me ",vlv3n . \ \ C"U~ and sucporr the cost crfml\"erte1 o. the concTtte rubble on Ihe ruDble core 5rernnr' ImmTlf~'1 I"t'lr mcelln2 Sy6vm PToI<<r ~e1'mc:nl 3~ reQUired: ;,efd on ";~rtemM1' ~. I QUe :or t'e\ '.....v rhe ;m:tfect C'O!t o(S) .. rndhon con- lin:u armnunn, ror 1M shoreline JIId tomme'l'lI :-he ,-'ltmmlltte ":aLl no rn.sa sn.."ly wnh the Clm 01 hu!iln@' rn:":1rment conunuln, W~lertv from rnlfOl" cone:"" or Ilhletllum. In the our lbe uU'nrened pt'Oocnle3 310n. Ihe: C3,4i1 end of th~ rrolect; I'lan~. ,lna r~e ~in:Jllzed "13",1"~ 1"1:lI1" lbe soulJ'l Side ofSvlvln n\enue. comf'lenon 0'3 ~ecUon of3 "n~h 'were "'unmlUe'j In 'he "'1Inl~lr\" 'JI ""lIen would be :mp",~lmllef., h.bUII . ,horehne tre:umenl: ~'IUr.U Resou~ 1M 3""""\31. SI' million ~ttodly s market roues: Inlll:1i I"'tannnlp~ comDleted In IddItlon '0 lhe rnvate ~In. -(ftoreune tre:ument: :&nd Aermncser tDe ora,ecl Will ensure lite lon~-umn COdnllftUln, \YO,. on mV11'1)nmentaJ PraDe7TV OWft~ :al""~ the "c3rOnmuliI:h pretel:tIOft OfPUDlictv owned 311 CTOIlon monuonn" BluJf5 olre ~Inded t~1 :1ctl\"e em"llIn _'DOl inin~,",erure .I",,! PI.nlln PI.., '"' '01> 01 the <I0D< con r<SUllln_ <""'melv S~fvan"Ye'ftUe. 9 over'''''eeomea. ~re "'Io"~. I \PIC3I1y the tm)!ectI5 beln! c~ed OUt on The MTRCA was n:GU1f't:G to ~bmll a :he l~nD ',vIII "'e '\'e:u:ml:d "'II' ;"Ie muen 35 newlY cn:aled. publicjv owned plannnl] plan ro (he MiniStrY oiNaftJnJ :1 It. ;ee1' JnG C3n r"rocnr 3 d.:Inc.!ernll~ wacrrmmr 13nd: 3nd . Resoun:cs DV 0C10ber I. 194~. J.S DIrt of 'lftlallOn mr In\One '13ndln!! Ill('! \.1."C the oro,ecr will protect Ihousands 01 me 3DPf'Ovaf procen: lor this P"U~ ,\t 10 Ihe t:lJ2: :\ r,e ',"1 ..:nuld c(1I1.;'1~c dollars ofmwu~ tIJ': b35e :uutuaJly. the 51:1ft 0; the concct)nat lanGSC:2De de'. 'JnQef 'ne JCC1Ct1 \erc:nt. 51p! onxcss. :2 protect goal 3nQ :2 ~m~ n.comDleflOn oithls I"ro,ect wli131so ofob,eocnvl:'5 "'eft est;lbt.~nea. 7he qoa! It 15 ra:~mm~lJC'lIlh31 "'-""cre lo:Un"H.lCr plV\'lde: \va! 10 crt:':Jte J. dh'cne n:uunllZea bxl.- Insr~lllna ~ IC'~ce :crm,~ lhe :":]Ck\ ,1ft! .1( Incre3.5ed ouolic :access 10 Ihe shoretlne U:'I.lnlj l'e!efter.:mon DnnC:IDles JII ~Df'rOr.nJfC ~JIC dl5t3nce ~JC:Ji.. IJTIm w'l.tenrcm: .:hal wouJd Cr'Cte 3 UAible. connecred. !ileeoc:e'('I :"'mle';t cnlldre" Jna rets 31anattuc on whlcn to c:omDlete Ine :lJ1d enhanced Wildlife haD1IJI 3m. II :.rom me I!~~. provlnclallv ,upponed Watenront was Determined thai J Y3nerv or IOpo. TRIi: g:r.m"Ie:u tC3ru~ 3nd \'C'geIJuon lone tUn and wtJdlife hab'laI eT1I1I:nCm!Ct1CS: would be reQUired, Dunn1: thr ~Ummer pI'O'Vlslon rat natural grftn5tJKe of 1 q9~. ~lIe blcxaound .1na lM\'mIOrv &ton, Utr Wllerironr. J.nQ d313 was CDllected- 3nd O1naJvzeQ. . mUlI.lftll SCXlaJ disruot1on 10 Ihe IOCIJ communu'Y The c:oftCCTtftJal ~cJlnll plan WI.. com-. plc!ed ti":l. Iftcol'T'O'r.lun, 3 rr:ul 3nd :J Wlt8t's HaDPen1ft9 With the 'C:nn 01benn5: ~'W:aje:.:J.I1d \Yetland SyIv1In Prolectln 19967 'l'e:IS. The D""hn, d"'I!" ,nelUQed. lD 1996 the MlilCA pro~ to yancrv 0;n311\e plant mi1lm3J;md Dlanl CCIIIIUaII'..Otic on the Sl'lvan :i~lme estlbh,nmenl tec:nnIQUeS. The plane list Rqmen:aon Project. Fundinll of was m~cup Of~. shru04i, wtld- n"S,'/nz/t ~\"""~~"..m", I (II rr SSOO.OOO hIS been ~es(ed for 191M. OO\l,oen. JnG wellanO :Dlan~ wllh the ~Ize ROft 8"t/iil/tr' :lJ"" LJrJ,,,. ':il~' .:irM. ~ of S~O.OOO from lhe va~'n, frnm C3hper TO b~ mol Stock .\fT'RC I. j:/f H~1fCn'. fief" ,-.hal,. PrvYmeeofOnmno l Muustry ofNaru:nJ md cumnp lar blOC'ftJlncennl- Thc \fTRCl. .;1td r,'r,,. C;UII1UIt ~i~~El~1~l~i!~~ "- - ~ ~-:::.. . ~ 'r". I.. ...-..- 1 ..-~ -.:..-,-. --~..... .'\ 1=-'==';""- , ".~ ~~,...::: I'=;~ I .;:: -~ - (L....--:"i .~i, ..... .::' ~.. .._ ~ ':) \ " ..- / " - .~ .- " .0.1 , _.-_ ~----"Ic: I - '{ - -' --:::' --',1- -- .__ , - ,",,"c; e, J'~'-,- '.. ',. . Ir.-- i ~_:~ ~~:: :~ ' ~:- '-:::::- '. ilk. =-_ : ..... ---... ::"t."~lfl"r;="';."~. -/ !~_..._.._ . '!!......~, ~!-:.'''NI ~ l~ "._."_'.' I Fnr more in(orm.rion nn lhe Sylvan Avenue Shoreline R~enerarinn Prnjact. contact :'Ii~et Cowey, ~erro R~ion Conservation. 31 (~t6) 66t~600. au. =~~, Wonflflq i ogemer ler ;- omom::w s Gr"nsoace (, II ~he metropolilan roronto and regIon conservatIon aut/1or"v ... , snml!f'lamanv~, JOW"'"'''''' ""UlfIO ~Jn ',4 .a18) 6SI.136CO ~""( 561 ':'!!99 "0 " I',"~' f.. f' ~ ';, WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 047 B..E.S... #W16/96 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1992-1996 East Point Park, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the remediation of the Beechgrove Drive gully erosion at East Point Park, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" at a total estimated cost of $200,000, subject to receipt of all necessary funding. ....... CARRIED KEY ISSUE Remediation of Beechgrove Orive gully erosion at East Point Park, City of Scarborough. BACKGROUND The backwash water from the F. J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant, owned and operated by Metropolitan Toronto, outlets into a drainage channel at East Point Park. This water flows through the Park and eventually enters an inlet pipe at the bluffs near the southeast corner of the Park (Figure 1). As part of the planned expansion of the F. J. Horgan Water Treatment Plan, the backwash flow is expected to increase by up to 75%. In early 1995, the inlet structure became blocked due to excessive ice/snow and debris build-up. The uncontrolled flow of water over the bluffs has created an eroding gully, extending approximately 30 metres into the tableland. The erosion of this gully will continue under the present situation. The existing condition is a public safety issue as well as concern for parkland and proper discharge of the backwash water from the plant. Authority staff prepared preliminary designs and cost estimates for several alternative remedial works. These were reviewed with representatives from Metro Parks and Metro Works Oepartments. The preferred alternative calls for a new buried concrete pipe with inlet and outlet structures in addition to an access trail to the shoreline. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A new inlet structure, outfall pipe and structure will be constructed that will be capable of discharging the existing and anticipated future backwash flows from the F. J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant. The Beechgrove Orive gully will be regraded and stabilized. As part of this work, provisions will be made to include a path to the shoreline for pedestrian access and to permit access for future monitoring and maintenance of the outfall structure. Improvements will be made to the existing path to link access to the public parking lot in the park. " ' , , 048 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96.ApriI19, 1996 - FINANCIAL DETAILS The total estimated cost for the proposed work is $200,000. Funding for the Authority's share will be available under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Oiscussions are currently underway with Metro Toronto Works Oepartment regarding contributing to the final cost. Account No. 222-14 has been set up for the project. Report prepared by: Nigel Cowey, Ext. 244 . ~ I '0) ~~ \' r ,}'J" WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D49 I,:: '" 'r - "U- ~ "'-'-J'.A ~ I .\i,i~ \"~'=-'.l'" ", ""i:: -c ~- :.~'q, ~-"-';"'_ \ ~ l ~~" ~ - . - ~ ,-..:. :tj'1\ ; - ,I'"~ .. ; '\' ,.,/ 'J<. '-', 0" '-.., 'II \ ~ ' . ,^. oj, '/~ (2) _ I~ . J \1 ;~ -_ ',.. #, ..... , '/-L' a :, I - ~.,-~- . ........ - I ~.. en ~ I. 1""~' . -..... /" --~ .r-~" e-... 1\ - tl . L . - ___' .-.::-:::: ,... . - -~~\ ~"""'~~ t" ~___ f"'.. ~ \~'( ; r1.... .... 1" C '- -::.-,...-': ~:",- --"., -- ~ 1...,1 \~, ..-1. ' - . .... " - -,. l.- I.r ~ - - ~..:... ~ .- / . _ J ~ ..~ - _, ". . -"" ..."...r-- '. " ~':;:',' / -, - _ _ _ -....:. ~ ~ I' . - __. 'j' /; /.';y '"' ,.. . . _ '. 'yO "w --' " . \ . 1~'11j -, '. -- - ...... a.. : ...:.:..-. ,l.-'~ . ,,\;/1' ~ '-', _ , I, J. . '~I -'. _ - '/ ---. __ c., \ " /"" , " - -. -r-JP =-- ~ roc: ;".....- / ."'.;: ./........., ~- -J- " ....,K.,/ I .$" 1 '1- J ,. r-jJ< , +- ;-~ 1/ .:..._ ~l\' 1 ('~I ....'.\,'.:::.-- J -', :f-/.J '.~?fi;, c:: H I Ie '( - . - - "' - ~ f'I - , I ~,.; J "V -, . '/ I / / . -- - ~ ' :.--',' - -::--.,' / r- /, 0 ,~j ./,1: _:::. __'__..~ ".r.) \ '_'~ I, 0 I?-;r';-~~~ ~\ ~~~-:: ~;-::;-~" J:.:. _"./i JJJf; a.. II" I -'. '" ,'- '..:: -,....,,- .",c:!/! " -. . '1,1 \ ,-' , - , ~'I / , . v I .... , ..... ... -.. I ,'1 I ~.-- ~ . '. - -~ ~l .'- ..... -. l' (. - I "\', +- --,.--- ~ - ~U,J r / ~, ~ - ':--.:- -, ..,.::.:., ~~ ~ _'::::<';:"-~I' - - - ---, ,': ~.' 'c'?-"'\ en ~ "''1/\ " d, - . - - ')'1 . II ',. II I\, - -' " - 1/1.: ~ I ~ ~ I ~ \ ~ '\-. ':'" /' - ~..... ~ ~)I, ".., , I \ ..- I.-,~ 11'\', '';,;, - ('. . UJ 1 ~ ::I "; .. J 11 -. \j., 1'\\:; __ - .. ; ; ..... - t ...:. . , ',::1 ~..' ,lV. ,I ,,~, / . ~ \.~, 1:j '_ . ,-Y ",, H!'- ':- '. - -__ - '1.; ----.I _ :=:. / ~ . -r.;' II'. "\\' . - - C\ _ '__ ~~ CD .. '" I ,k.. " J ",::'~ (/-:.-:' 'u.- I '-"F, T:~'" I" ,~.", ].~\,. -_ - >l,,-~_ X i ~~ ,'.}.rll;', ','_, ,. .. .....- '='.'ij,\ I ). \ '}, . ." I', '. ...... . " en (2) '\ ,( ;-,",11\ . Il...,'\ t''::::'''__ . ~'~'~ t: Co \L........f""... ,,-.I' \ It.,..,:~ (~.. 'I oJ." ,'I' ~ '/- .- '. -, .~ .... ~-<- 0 E 2;1 ~ -.... J ..: ~ ,I r,.. I ' . \ ::<0.........,-, -- -.~""II,I.~.... ;::-'..... I ~ -. .....~\ Co 0 .- ~ ll~ll /, I ~f ~~~. n(r~' \:~l~-:IIIr..-~ ~ '/~' '......J t/l;:~\\\' rJ:J c..:> \,..-:;r'. ....., It V \11:1 \",,'!(.,~~ ........, 'f:/.- ~ i }...,;"/' r- 1 .~,l. 'I"./" ~~ ~~;.' Iv "'-)/ 0 , )~, '\';!r~ ~ "~,i\'\'tl~~~~II" ;..~:) I J ift', '- 1 '- ..:! _liT];.., ...1':.1;' '_-- """....'"'\. ... , .. t::::!' 't' ;' ~'.J' ...:-.,-, I ; 1 :C' ~1 ['10' ~'-'t ; ...:::.,y........ ~ ;'.1&'\ (2) I LJ.-.~Jl;': It or: ~?, ::~. -....... \.i'" ~ ~ , .-. \.., I ,~\ . -.' (. 'J ;;), I nd3 ,,,;,,~~:,,,~,:~:;~, I;\\', ':~r) '!, '~~~I ~), I"~ UI,.. "--..i..1J-.:;:.--0~, ((.~ ~ - ';'I~ -:::. .-...::::- "/)'II/. 1 - -,:="~ :;, 1"~.fi-~ -- .f:; .. "\-: ,'-: Ii: , · I ' , - r-r'. .... --I .' I I 'lltf I I I It'.l.....-..-. I I \ -. , ..... ---- \ "i (rr<.,,"-' 'oJ ,Ii rl' #),,, c: _ i . - I:;, 'n l.C-- ___j "'\1': _/ 11';1 co ,.... It' J:-. ,_ '\Ill,r (./ - \-- Ir:'~14 I ,,--" ,.-..'--- --= ~ .[ :1,' II C- <..;;;:- ...... r:,~..11 ~'/r,r :::~/~' , ...:) " .... "Y. ~.f' t , I~ / 0'" ,i.!! .:,-r:/"r--.- I - ' . l( "II c: -..// I I '11,,' _ '.~ ~...\ ':,LJ)I: ""lth:ti(,~ 1M '.fl' '~ - ~"'I. ill)'" 0 1jf iJ,JI, - . "'/"- 1,- ,~I ,/, .- j ~/t:~\ \ (r-:=:./~J,~ r: 'k- -':[1 '(?'.\ t ,;)/::: c: co () ," II' ~ .' \ , ~'\ '- / -,," I ~ ....: oij - ~~. """'.-/' // ~c-.I," co .:: //0 " .' -_,,, Ilk c) /, ~<, ,:1, I'. 'n -, . ~ / ,_\l~': '- U. -::. ,\~J~ ~\~~.,::Z, ..... ' .... 1-'i~II,,\ ..Q '- ~ ) \ ...' ." I,,-:::=::> y. ~-,1', !;~ '\ ,I .... (2) I. ~ ,=",/ ---_, --{I" ..--., /'""' ~ \, .... l,~ 1 (\i "\,,0"1 r'-c::"'~~t.( -- ' ~... ,~,\~ . co ,.. ~ ...., .. . -_ _ \.I'1~' '" J ....., I, ~ ;' - tJ \.M ''I'; ; b. '"-f. " ~-'. "J\~ .;: Ql \, L::=:'I .,', _1 .',' \ ~. -::::-.~ I . _':'" ..., _ ;',\\\'/:', u. = \ ~-" ..._,lr( 1:__ ' " '_'1!/~ -- -. .'", t \ ~ ~-, " { .r \~ .....,~. .>...'- ~ '?: ,\\\ c) I -.I J "'J;"-~\<'''~': II: :-,., '- -.~ i -,' !_ '~\1,~,\' e_ , './"-."'., ,,: ' ,~-:.. <" -- '1l~' \ l u. I ~-~ -" .""-' - - ~' , , -' - - I ~. \"".',\ - =t ~~. !'~ D50 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96,April 19, 1996 - RES. #W17/96 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 3-5 Kingsbury Crescent Slope Stabilization Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Moved by: Bev Salmon Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the completion of slope stabilization work in the vicinity of 3-5 Kingsbury Crescent, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996" at a total cost of $50,000 subject to confirmation of funding approval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Continuation of the construction of slope stabilization work at Nos. 3-5 Kingsbury Crescent, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. BACKGROUND Shoreline protection work was completed below Nos. 3 and 5 Kingsbury Crescent in 1991. However, ongoing erosion of the slope and table land is threatening the long term stability at 5 Kingsbury Crescent. In 1992, funding was received from the province to proceed with the necessary studies as required, under the Class Environmental Assessment process for slope stabilization work. The geotechnical investigation and design of remedial works was completed by Terraprobe Limited. During 1993, the Authority commenced work on two of the actively eroding gullies in the vicinity of 5 Kingsbury Crescent. A rubble buttress was constructed at the base of both gullies followed by top dumping of 19mm clear stone to create a filter drain. The rubble buttress was extended along the base of the adjacent gullies followed by top dumping of filter drain stone. Top dumping of select clean rubble material was carried out in the gullies for stabilization of the filter layer. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Ouring 1996, staff propose to complete the slope stabilization measures in accordance with the Terraprobe design report. This work will consist of top dumping of a small quantity of select clean broken concrete rubble as required to achieve the final slope configuration. In addition, the rubble buttress along the toe will be covered with soil and seeded to provide a natural appearance. The construction access road will be removed and the site restored in accordance with the agreement with the property owner. Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor. '...~ .'" " . ~ '" .~;f; . ... ';:- '-'"2 ~::.J "f~' ~, t ''t" " ,~'. <,' WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/96, April 19, 1996 D51 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget to carry out the 1996 work is $50,000. Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account No. 142-14 has been set up for this project. Report prepared by: Jim Berry (392-9721) TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :00, April 19, 1996. Lorna Bissell Craig Mather Vice Chair Secretary-Treasurer pl. ',,"1 " -, I "'] , ~ , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #3/96 May 17, 1996 Page D52 The Water and related Land Management Advisory board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village of Friday, May 17,1996. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PRESENT Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair lIa Bossons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Alan Christie ...................................................... Member Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Joan King ........................................................ Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chair, Authority Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS Jim McMaster ..................................................... Member Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member MINUTES RES. #W18/96 - MINUTES OF MEETING #3/96 Moved by: Enrico Pistritto Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/96, held April 19, 1996, be approved . . . . , . . . . , . . CARRIED DELEGATIONS All delegations set out below addressed the Lake Ontario Waterfront/Proposed Acquisition Boundary Amendment And Potential Disposal Of Surplus Authority Lands, Rouge/Rosebank Area, adopted by Res. #W19/96 of these minutes. (a) Steve Marshall, Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. (b) Hubert Wank, Rosebank Ratepayers Association, 480 Rougemount Drive (c) Rebecca Wyle, Rosebank Villa Retirement Home, 534 Rodd Avenue (d) George Siragusa, Resident. 537 Rodd Avenue (e) Marian Martin, Resident, 525 Bella Vista Drive D53 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 CORRESPONDENCE (a) A letter, dated April 29, 1996 addressed to the CAO from Jean P. Aylsworth, a resident of Bella Vista Drive, Pickering regarding Item 1. (b) A letter dated May 8, 1996, addressed to D. Ryan, loci Councillor, Ward 1, from Mariateresa Siragusa, of Rodd Avenue in Pickering regarding Item 1. (c) A letter dated May 8, 1996, addressed to Chair, Lois Griffin and the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Members, from Stephen Marshall, Chair of Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. Regarding Item 1. SECTION 1 - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RES. #W19/96 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT/PROPOSED ACQUISITION BOUNDARY AMENDMENT AND POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AUTHORITY LANDS Rouge/Rosebank Community Moved by: Enrico Pistritto Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT four blocks of land, including parcels currently owned by the Authority and others within the blocks of land, be removed and deleted, from the acquisition project in the Rodd Avenue/Bella Vista Drive area of the Rouge/Rosebank Community in the Town of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, as shown on the attached Figure 2; THAT various parcels of Authority-owned tablelands, being Parts of Lot 30. Range II, Broken Front Concession and various lots on Registered Plan 233, containing a total of 1.85 acres, more or less, including five lots improved with single family homes and three vacant parcels, shown in Figure 2, be declared surplus to the future requirements of the Authority; THAT the sale of lands be on the basis that the lands are only to be used for single family residential purposes. in keeping with the character of the community and in compliance with existing R4 zoning; That preference be given whenever possible to sales or exchanges being made at market value to the following; (a) Former owners (b) Tenants (c) Remaining private owners situate within the amended acquisition boundary (d) Abutting property owners That staff be directed to negotiate with former owners. tenants, or area residents, who have expressed interest in purchase or exchange until such time as acceptable offers are at hand where upon any such offers are to be referred to the Executive Committee for further consideration, THAT in the event that staff are unable to arrive at suitable arrangements with former owners, tenants. or residents in the area, that the subject properties be advertised for sale. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 D54 AND FURTHER THAT The Town of Pickering, The Region of Durham, the Rouge Alliance, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and those attending the public meeting be so advised. AMENDMENT RES. #W20/96 Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Lois Hancey THAT staff be directed to assist and work with the community and such agencies and groups that express an interest, in expeditiously establishing a comprehensive restoration and trail plan for the remaining Authority lands; THAT staff be directed, on completion of the plan, or such portions that can be acted on in a coordinated manner, to assist the partners in facilitating and implementing the restoration plan; THAT staff be directed to utilize an amount of up to $50,000 from the proceeds of land sales towards linking the Waterfront Trail through the area and to carry out planting and regeneration in conjunction with the community on the vacant lands being retained by the Authority, subject to provincial approval; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to communicate with Pickering on the possibility of closing the westerly end of Bellevista. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Summary of the public input and staff recommendation for the proposed boundary amendment and the potential disposal of surplus Authority lands in the vicinity of Rodd Avenue/Bella Vista Drive, in the Town of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Ourham. BACKGROUND At Meeting #3/94, the Executive Committee adopted Resolution #47/94 directing staff to review the potential disposal of certain Authority-owned lands in this area, in accordance with established Authority policies. At Meeting #2/96 the Authority adopted Resolution #A35/96 directing staff to request public input into the proposed boundary amendment and potential disposal of surplus lands in the Rodd Avenue/Bella Vista Drive and report back, recommending further action to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. According to the Authority's policies for Surplus Land Sales a detailed technical review was carried out. This review identified that certain lands in the Rodd Avenue area were no longer required for the operation of the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area or to meet other Waterfront or Watershed Program objectives. The technical findings were subject of a staff report at Meeting # 1/96 of the Water and Related Land Management Board. Acting on the direction of the Authority the following actions in respect to the public input to our process were taken: D55 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 . comments were requested from the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Town of Pickering . a sign was installed on the subject lands on April 17, 1996, inviting public comment . notice of the Community Information Meeting and requests for comments were sent to the Regional Municipality of Durham, Rouge Park Alliance, The Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek, and in addition, approximately 800 copies of the information package were distributed to the Rosebank Community through the Councillors' office of the Town of Pickering . notice of the Community Information Meeting and request for public comment were placed in the News Advertiser (local paper) on April 24, 1996, and the Toronto Star on April 25, 1996 . a Community Information Meeting, a joint meeting MTRCA/Town of Pickering was held on April 30, 1996, at the Rouge Hill Library in the area, during the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., including representatives from Watershed Management, Property and Administration Services, and Facilities and Operations, with representatives from the Planning and Parks Oepartments of the Town of Pickering and Councillors Enrico Pistritto, Maurice Brenner and Oave Ryan in attendance. A copy of the information package provided at the meeting is appended for the information of the Board Members Based on the requests for comment and the public meeting the following correspondence and comments were received: 1 ) Approximately 50 residents from the Rosebank community attended the Community Information Meeting jointly held by the MTRCA and the Town of Pickering on April 30, 1996. Also, a representative from the Save The Rouge Valley System Inc. was in attendance. Following is a summary of the discussion: . the residents were very critical of the Authority's past role in assembling lands for park purposes and the negative impact it had on the Rodd Avenue neighbourhood . the residents were also critical of the lack of maintenance on the vacant lots and the lack of tree planting/regeneration on vacant or unused Authority lands . they wanted assurances that the functional greenspace lands assembled to date would be protected and enhanced . if any land was to be deemed surplus that it be sold for single family purposes only . the Waterfront Trail be routed away from the road systems through the green corridor, adjacent to the railway that links The Rouge and Petticoat Creek and the corridor, be enhanced. . there were two written requests and two verbal requests for purchases of properties which may be declared surplus through the process , ' ;;'~!': ~;;f.~ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 D56 2) The Region of Durham advised the MTRCA that we should protect the right of way for the possibility of the Bayly/Lawrence Avenue extension and ensure that there is land for the Waterfront Trail. Certain of the lands adjacent to the railway line were acquired from the Region of Durham in May, 1977, for a nominal sum. The deed requires the MTRCA to reconvey the lands required for the Extension when and if required by the Region. 3) Pickering staff have advised that the Draft Pickering Official Plan will designate lands outside the Authority's fill line in the Rodd Avenue area (excluding Petticoat Creek Conservation Area) as Urban Residential/Low Density. This is consistent with the R4 Zoning that currently exists. 4) A former owner of one of the residences being considered for disposal has requested the opportunity to purchase the property from the Authority As a result of the comments received and the consensus that was reached at the Community Information Meeting, staff are prepared to recommend that: . four blocks of land as shown on Figure 2 be removed and deleted from the acquisition project. This includes six privately-owned properties and eight Authority- owned properties including five lots improved with single family residential homes and three vacant parcels; . Authority owned lands adjacent to the railway and the block of Authority owned land fronting Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Orive be protected and enhanced as the main greenspace and Waterfront Trail link between the Rouge Park and Petticoat Creek Conservation Area; . the two residential properties municipally known as 513 and 517 Rodd Avenue, within the block fronting Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive will be retained by the Authority; and . the Authority in consultation with the community link the Waterfront Trail through the Rodd Avenue area and regenerate the vacant lands to be retained by the Authority . RATIONALE Staff feel this proposal achieves a number of objectives for the Authority and the community: . a functional greenspace linkage of the Rouge Park and Petticoat Creek is maintained and enhanced . there is provision for the Waterfront Trail connection between The Rouge and Petticoat Creek . the community will become more viable and secure . the shoreline program interests of both the Authority and the Province are recognized . there is an opportunity to work with the community and the municipality on a continuing basis to improve and enhance the area. FINANCIAL DETAILS It is proposed that the proceeds of these sales be used to acquire high priority lands under " ~ . '~, 057 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 approved Authority land acquisition projects. In addition, it is proposed to utilize an amount of up to $50,000.00 from the proceeds towards linking the Waterfront Trail through the area and to carry out planting and regeneration in conjunction with the community on the vacant lands being retained by the Authority. Report prepared by: Ron Oewell (Ext. 245) For information contact: Don Prince (Ext. 221) Larry Field (Ext. 243) ,f , \ \ \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMEN~'ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 D58 '\ L4KE ON""( AP/C RE:;, ::-;L_ :....NE CURRE:'-JT ~ ACQUISiTION PROJECT BOUNDARY SC.>L.E ., -~ 'l 1 . . . . . ROUCE . ~;:l/1oFl.K . eOUNO/1oFl.Y ::lARC:::_S ro 3E -----. "E'AC ,E: ='lCM . . AC:~:S;-iCN ::lROJECTS .a._a.. AU'''CR'-v L.lNOS ~ 'NI-",N .:.ME"'OEO oCle.:::: - 3CUNOARIES ~U--C=! -" L.lNOS ~~-!!":k -c: ;::: JE ::.AAEJ ..->.......~...... Sl.....;,:: _ _ s ~';:~:.: >--.---- -- .-- ------ ;-"';- .- -""- X:,YCE'N~:J.lX.v /Jay ~..~ --- - ~-' -~ - ---~--~- \ \ \ \ \ D59 WATER AND RELATED LAND MAN:c\..GEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 "-, ' AUTHORITY OWNED LANDS ROOD A VENUE AREA TOWN OF PICKERING HISTORY The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority was designated by the Province of Ontario in 1970 to implement the 1967 Lake Ontario Waterfront Plan within our region. The Pickering sector of the Lake Ontario shoreline is prone to flooding and erosion and the Plan determined that the most effective way to manage the hazard was to acquire the shoreline properties and create a public waterfront open space. The Authority began acquiring lands along the Pickering waterfront in the early 1970's. Petticoat Creek Conservation Area was completed in 1975. Most of the Authority- owned lands in the Rodd Avenue area, including seven existing residences were acquired in the 1970's and early 1980's. The area originally contained over forty (40) single family residential lots, a number of which were improved with single family dwellings. There has been no significant acquisitions in this area since tne early 1980's. The Authority has assembled approximately two-thirdS of the properties in the area, however we have been frustrated in our attempts to complete the remaining acquisition because the Authority's traditional funding for this location has been non existent for the last ten years. The main purpose of acquiring the land in the Rodd Avenue area was to provide additIonal recreational lands for Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. The existing acquisition boundary established in this area, defined as all the lands between Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and the Rouge River south of the CNR tracks, was very ambitious and reflected the high level of funding support at that time. These additional recreation lands are not required for the operation of Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and are not required to meet the Authority's Waterfront program objectives. As a result the Authority is reviewing the acquisition project boundary in the ROdd Avenue area. Rationalization of the boundary would also permit the Authority to consolidate the public ownership in this area into a more meaningful and useful form. Our fragmented ownership causes operational and maintenance concerns and provides very limited opp_ortunities for public use and enjoyment. Our proposed boundary amendment is generally based of the following criterialobjectives and is reflected in the attached Figure I. . provision for functional linkage between Petticoat Creek/Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and the Rouge River/Rouge Park; . provision for a waterfront trail: . recognition of the Rouge Park boundary based on 30 metres from the stable top of bank; . recognition of the Provincial Regulatory Erosion Standard along the Lake Ontario Shoreline; . protection of the minor watercourse. \ \ , " D60 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT~DVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 " ' , - 2- The proposed boundary amendment would result in three private residential properties and the Rosebank Nursing Home being removed from the project and remaining in private ownership. Also six Authority-owned parcels would be outside the amended project boundary and surplus to the Authority's requirements. Funding obtained from the potential disposition could be used to assist with the purchase of the remaining private holdings within the waterfront area. SITE DESCRIPTION The Authority is proposing to dispose of lands consisting of seven lots improved with single family homes and ten vacant parcels, with frontages on Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive. The legal description is Part of Lot 30, Range II, Broken Front Concession and various lots on Registered Plan 233. More detailed information can be obtained from the Authority offices. PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL It is proposed that the disposal of the lands be at market value. It is further proposed that the availability of the lands be publicly advertised with preference being given wherever possible to sales or exchanges involving: . the remaining private owners within the acquisition boundary . former owners . abutting property owners . tenants UTI 1I ZA TION OF PROCEEDS Whenever possible the Authority uses its surplus assets such as lands not required for Authority purposes to assist in reducing funding requirements from the taxpayers. In this case the Authority is proposing to use the funds generated from the sale of these surplus properties to assist in acquiring the remaining private holdings within our acquisition project boundaries. It is intended to keep these properties as an inventory of surplus lands to be used judiCiously as opportunities to acquire key properties occur. OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT The Authority's policy regarding amendments to project boundaries and disposal of lands of this nature requires public inp!.Jt before a final decision is made regarding disposal and the Authority invites your comments. For your convenience we have attached a comment sheet to be submitted at the Open House or forwarded to the Authority by Thursday, May 2. 1996 at 4:00 p.m. ~'~ ,,' .. \ \ 'j' \ \ D61 WATER AND RELATED LAND MA~GEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 " '" - 3 - The Authority's Water and Related Land Management Committee will consider formal submissions on the proposed amended acquisition boundary and the disposal of lands resulting from the revised boundary, at a meeting scheduled for Friday, May 17, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. in the theatre of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Visitor Centre at 1 000 Murray Ross Parkway, Downsview, Ontario. Written submissions for consideration at this meeting must be addressed to: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1 S4 Attention: Chief Administrative Officer and must be received no later than Thursday, May 2, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. To appear as a delegation at this meeting or for further information contact Ron Dewell, Property and Administrative Services at 41 6-661-6600, Extension 245 on or before Thursday, May 2, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. C:IRon\Rodd. WI'd . WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 D62 , I LAKE PROPCScQ ON-:- ,J.'=/C ACQUISIT:ON PRC..;E:-:- aCUNOARv CURRE.'Ji ACQUISiTiON ~ PRCJE:7 BCUNOARv sc..u: - . . . . . . \ """ PARK BOUNOARY .I."-OR'-' ....05 - N'....'''' ~..(~OE:: ,0C.:::' 3CUNOAR/ES .... --CRr" ~ANOS Cd :.. -S,~~ ~e:~CE::> ==:.:::- 3CUNOARIES .As.:'" :~, qoNCE"N4DC.v Aall !..9!M < );;, ~,~~,~t~.~~ , o "..' <- t .~,"i~_'~:~ )~ ... ' ;; "l'r' .. . D63 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 RES. #W21/96 - EMERY CREEK WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority support the Preliminary Design Report for the Emery Creek Water Quality Improvement Project; THAT the Authority endorse the preferred planning alternative outlined in the Preliminary Design Report; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with Metro Works to finalize a satisfactory design through the final stages of the environmental assessment process and detailed design stages of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Completion of the preliminary design for storm water quality ponds to be constructed in the floodplain at the confluence of the Emery Creek and the Humber River, on lands owned by the Authority and under management agreement with Metro Parks and Culture. BACKGROUND The Emery Creek Watershed Quality Improvement Project is the result of a recommendation from the Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy (TAWMS) studies. The TAWMS studies found that the storm water runoff from the Emery Creek catchment area was a major source of pollution to the Humber River. The study identified the major pollutants as being bacteria and heavy metals such as lead, zinc, and copper. Based on the results of the TAWMS studies Metro Works strengthened its efforts to trace illegal storm sewer connections and implement source control measures. These measures were implemented through Metro's Sewer Use By-law which outlines the parameters and enforcement mechanisms for pollution abatement measures. Through the Sewer Use By-law Metro Works also encourages industries to monitor and reduce pollutant discharges to storm sewer systems. Oespite these source control efforts, the TAWMS study advised that stormwater runoff from the Emery Creek catchment area would continue to be a major source of pollution to the Humber River unless additional end-of-pipe treatment was provided. In 1993, Metro Works in consultation with a multi-agency Steering Committee initiated a Class Environmental Assessment study to identify alternative solutions to the water quality problem and to identify alternative locations for a treatment facility within the Emery Creek drainage area. The Steering Committee is comprised of members from Environment Canada; Ministry of the Environment and Energy; MTRCA, the City of North York, Metro RAP and members of the public. The study resulted in the selection of a preferred treatment method which involves alternatives to retrofit an existing channelized reach of Emery Creek. The project will consist of a three pond system designed to provide water quality treatment for Emery Creek and associated stormwater runoff before it discharges into the Humber River. The preferred alternative also recommends continuing source control treatment methods which are currently being implemented by Metro Works. The proposed ponds will be located near the confluence of Emery Creek and the Humber River. At this location both valleys are well defined. Two ponds will be located in a linear formation parallel to Emery Creek and the third pond will be located along the Humber River (Figure 1). "<- ~<~ ~~j' ~,!. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 D64 The majority of the valley lands are owned by the Authority and under Management Agreement with Metro Parks and Culture. A portion of the valley corridor is traversed by a hydro corridor and a number of underground utilities. The valley corridors have both been disturbed by the utility easements and adjacent urban development. Emery Creek is contained entirely within a flood control channel from Weston Road to its confluence with the Humber River. No significant vegetation will be removed or disturbed to accommodate the proposed facility. As part of the study process, extensive public meetings and workshops were held to allow community residents to actively participate in the design of the proposed facility. The Steering Committee has also worked closely with Ontario Hydro and the owners of the utility easements to ensure their involvement in the design of the undertaking. The public meetings have res'ulted in the establishment of the Emery Creek Environmental Association, a network of local businesses and industries, who are now actively involved in implementing pollution control measures within the industrial area. Preliminarv Desion Reoort The proponent (Metro Works) has submitted to Authority staff a Preliminary Oesign Report (POR) which outlines the conceptual design of the proposed facility. The PDR illustrates a number of technical components of the facility which include its effectiveness in pollutant removal, impact on flood levels and its integration into the existing park setting. The proponent is requesting the Authority for approval in principal for the location of the facility prior to undertaking further detailed design studies. Authority staff is supportive of the preliminary design concept outlined in the PDR and its location within the Humber valley. The pilot project conforms with the policies contained within Section 4.3 (C) of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program for improving water quality and providing an overall "net gain" to the watershed. The proponent has complied with Phase I (Conceptual Level) of the Authority's Staff Review Guidelines for Use of Authority Owned Lands for Storm water Management Facilities. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A public meeting is scheduled for May 1, 1996 to receive public input on the preliminary design of the facility. Once comments are received, a design will be finalized. This information will then be compiled into an Environmental Study Report (ESR) and placed on public record for 30 days. If no "bump-up" requests are received during this time period, the project may proceed to detailed design. The details of work to be done include: - an archaeological investigation; - a geotechnical investigation; - finalization of a design that addresses the Authority's technical design criteria; - an easement being obtained by Metro Works for the maintenance and operation of the proposed facility; - a permit being obtained under Ontario Regulation 158. Oetailed design is expected to be completed over 1996, with construction beginning in 1997. ,,~ . ~;. ~~.~~~.~'~ , ' , D65 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 RATIONALE Authority staff is supportive of the work undertaken by Metro Works and the Steering Committee to implement water quality improvements within the Humber River watershed. The above project is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Humber Watershed Task Force for improving the overall water quality of the Humber River. The above pilot project is also in keeping with similar water quality improvement projects that have been undertaken within the Oon Watershed. BENEFITS The pilot project incorporates new technologies and design elements that maximize pollutant removal, through a series of three ponds and ultra-violet disinfection. The combination of these facilities will remove the contaminants which have been identified as being the major source of pollutants within the Humber River. These facilities are designed to: - provide spills control; - remove suspended solids, including heavy metals; - remove bacteria by ultra-violet disinfection; - be integrated into the existing park setting. The pilot project will provide an opportunity for performance monitoring of storm water management facilitates through the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring Performance Program of the Authority and its partners. FINANCIAL BENEFITS/PROBLEMS The pilot project is jointly funded by Metro Works, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and Environment Canada. It is the responsibility of the proponent to finance all restoration works and to assume all on-going maintenance and costs associated with the pilot project. The above project will have no impact on the Authority's budget. For information contact: Gemma Connolly (ext. 202) and Sonya Meek (ext. 253) , \ \ , \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ~DVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 066 '" " , '~~. " , "'~k ~.- ,: \ -;..... \. ~.' \' "'~l\' · \ V.v..... f ..... c' '\ \ ....1.. " ' '\ ~~U '. ~ \1./ ..,. . \ 11,); " i \( ~ .'. . \.:,... ,. .... , .... R - :- \ - - Ql -::: '"' =2 ::l - - 0" ~ .:;. '.-l =' '.:; r... ~.lO: - oX ~ ~ r7~~~' . ~i;; ~= . . . l i Wti'. 11.. - " ~ '- ',~. llhll II f :::-= '--"" '-~ / i '!I!r :11 :.-- .'1 ~ I 1 If 'I ~:I" " '.. I . - - ~: I' ::;: ~ \. --- """'-"'''- . ."", ',.........~ '-- ,. .... / v,,""-., .....,." ""- ~ '.. ..J;...... " "-''If:;] ;'"'""'1 i.,.J A "rJ " ....... n.~~~L....i ~ ......... ....,. . f." l' ;>l '.... -! - ;1 ....". -'" . '--'. u ........ ..... ......', '-, '--.--..-. \ .........--..-....----., ;' D 1 i r--, !/ '!J ,/0.... ,',. [j i ~ I. ~ / , . ~. .. s, q./' ~t:[J . ~)' /e/{)' /t /.' <> "t /., "t)' \. , / .. . ~ /// ~ ' , ' :,,, f;5 I.' . ; i ' \. .: ! {S. \ :' j. :- ::::::./iJ " '\ < , i )00" / i / j ..-' .- - - - - .- ;; g 3 3 ~ ~ jot ~ J:gAl~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = = ~~~~~]'$l: ~: _ ~~r-=......'::'>::'= z: 1i~'II'II~ I g: 4:.=:.t:.:...::.::...:......Q.. ..-' , ! . 'J :) 0 0 ,) ..~ ,I D67 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 RES. #W22\96 - AQUA TIC PLANTS PROGRAM Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the information related to the 1996 Aquatic Plants Program be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE To provide information on the Aquatic Plants Program. BACKGROUND In 1995, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority implemented a pilot project to encourage public participation in the environmental enhancement work of the Authority. This program, entitled the Aquatic Plants Program, was designed to provide students and other groups the opportunity to grow aquatic plants to encourage ecological restoration through the creation and rehabilitation of wetland habitats. In brief, the project requires classes/groups to grow aquatic plants from seed. The MTRCA supplies all of the materials (except water and light) and information needed to grow the plants. The students plant the seed in the classroom, and care for the developing plants. This program originated in the Hamilton area by the Bay Area Restoration Council of the Hamilton Remedial Action Plan, McMaster University Eco-Research Program, and the Royal Botanical Gardens, to assist with the Cootes Paradise Restoration Project. In 1995, with the cooperation of these groups, the MTRCA expanded the project to the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan area on a small scale to assist the MTRCA Habitat Projects in the City of Etobicoke at Colonel Samuel Smith Park. Last year, 200 plants were grown and planted by schools in the City of Etobicoke. This year, we expanded this project throughout the MTRCA jurisdiction and have had an overwhelming response. More than 960 kits are now in more than 240 schools throughout the Region. Attached is the information package which was supplied with the kits, and the information flyer which were circulated to solicit participation in the program. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In late May and throughout June, the MTRCA and participating municipal partners will be coordinating planting events to provide teachers the opportunity to take their students outdoors for hands on environmental science. These events will increase local community awareness of environmental projects in their neighbourhoods and the efforts of the MTRCA and our partners to restore and enhance the natural environment. Planting days are being organized for the following locations: . Colonel Samuel Smith Park . Tommy Thompson Park . Bluffers Park (Dunkers Flow Site) . Rouge Marsh at Rouge Beach Park . Grenadier Pond in High Park . Chester Springs Marsh (Oon River) . Harding Park in Richmond Hill . Black Creek (at Jane Street north of Steeles Avenue). , WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 D6S FUTURE BENEFITS This program has reached out into the community, touching more than 20,000 students and 900 teachers across our watersheds. It has identified an important aspect of the Authority's role in environmental protection and restoration, which will serve to build support for future environmental enhancement projects by the MTRCA and our municipal partners. FINANCIAL DETAILS For 1995/96, this project has been funded by: Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund - $5,000.00 Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan - $5,000.00. For information contact: Leslie Piercey (ext. 338) . , '. , , D69 WATER AND RELATED LAND MA~GEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 '" '\. - - --- - -' - ., - - - . ." - GREAT LAKES 2000 ~ -~ - -:: - ~ -- -- -- - ~ - ~ -'- - - -- .- CLEANUP FUND ~---- - ' - - - ~1!J'!:r.JI.-~ ---- - -- - AQUATIC PLANTS PROCjRAM Growing emergent plants from seed INTRODUCTION Over :he past century, the Metro T aroma area has suffered :l senous loss or fish md wtldlife habitat. .\5 an <::xample. :llmost ill or the wetl:mds '.vhlch used to eXIst on the Toromo water- front have been lost. md in me wate~heds wetlands have been destroyed through the ~evelopment or urban and :lgI1culru.r:Ll cemmunmes. Remammg natural :11'e:1S and the wIldlire dependent on them m: under pressure. The Metro Toronto Remedial .\cnon Plan (RAP), an organiz- anon or public md government bodies. has Idennfied tb.ese problems md h:1ve prepm:d SlI':1te~les to improve the over:tll healtb. orthe ecosystem in the Greater Toronto .\rea. The Metropolit:1ll Toronto md RegIOn Conser.'anon Autb.onty (MTRCA) is :lcnve in implementing projects that put RAP plans 111[0 acnon. The Aquatic plants progr.tm has been deve- loped to proVide mulnpie benetits to botb. human and wildlife components or the ~VlIOnment, Your participation in this progr:un will asSISt With me cre:ltlon and resto..ltlon of local natur:tl habitats md provide participants with an opporrunity for "hands on" e:tpenence in <::nvl1'0nmental SCience. The Aquanc Plmts Progr:1IllSt:1.t'tS with the growing ofwetl:md plants from seed. The ~nformanon proVlded in thIs brochure will allow::ou [0 :lccomplish dus wuhm me typic:tl classroom setting, at home. or 111 your office, Where the progr:mt ends is up to you: the plants you grow cm take you on-site to help build or restore a wetland site ne:uby. or If you cannot plant tb.e:n yourselves. you can donate them to a loc:tl project through the yITRCA. ~ V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority 5 shorenam anve. ::lownsv'ew. ontano. m3n Is4 :416\ c61-c600 FAX 661-6aSa \ \ , \ \ \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMEN~DVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 D70 " '" . ~ere are three categories of aquatic plants: emergents. PROCEDURES submergent5. :md floating-leaf aquatics. Eluergents grow up through the surface of the water and include plants These instructions contain general planting and such as cattails and bulrushes. Submergents grow under growing information. tbe water and include plants such :IS Canada waterweed and coon tail. Floatin~-Ieaf aquatics grow with their We suggest that you start growmg these seeds after the leaves on the surface of the water. like the water lily. March Break so that they can be monitored daily, If you This program focuses on growing emergent plants for need to start them earlier. someone must be able to look three reasons. First, the seeds of emergent plants are after the plants over the break. Please contact the ~TRCA held above water, making them easier to collect. Second. if you need your Iot(s) earlier. ~mergent seeds can be germinated and grown in less water than the other types. And finally, emergent plants ~ ar.e sturdier than the other types. making them easier to transport and transplant. MATERIALS J} ~ g Each kit includes: "~;:. '. , . , '::C\ L seeds: ' ~- . ' . . insrructlons I thiS handout): ~ . :.5 litres of stenlized potting soil: . 1 dishpan: and . 6 four-secnon planting pots. The materials prOVided wi 11 allow you to grow at least 16 STEP 1: Sarur:1te the SOil with water. You can use plants. Feel free to expenment with other ways of growmg regular tap water: but. as a precaution against these plants that might be better SUited to your condinons. too much chlonne. put the water into buckets Any extr:l plants you grow will be greatly apprecIated. and let it sit at least overnight before using It. The seeds you receive will be for one type of emergent plant and Will depend on the :mnual availabtlity of seeds. ~ Usually the seeds, will be for soft-stemmed bulrush (SClrpUS validus), but Ifnot the species will be identified on the seed container: and a general fact sheet about the species will be provided. Store all of the seeds in the ~ refrigerator (4.80C) until you are ready to plant them. ~ U 9) ,~ - E the SOil is a commercial potting mix that has been treated to remove most of the, organisms which can kill young seedlings. It IS impcrtant that the porting mix contain organic material and that It does not pack down too much when it becomes water saturated. Generally, any commmercial potting or seed-starting soil can be used. STEP 2: Fill each section of thepots :- ,There is nothing particularly special about the dishpans. 3/4 full with the satw'3ted ~ They hold enough water to keep the soil sarurated and are soil. Scatter a pinch ~ srurdy enough to be easily moved around. of seed on the ~ A, surface of the soil of ~~'~" 't The potS Jre used for both germinating seeds Jnd growing , ,., ~ ~ ~ " '3<h ''''''00. e",fully ._~ - " ..." plantS. Each sectlon will hold a single plant for tranSplanting. pl3<. ... po~ ""h. \' t T Seeds can be started in Jny clean container or pot which dishpan. The dishpan ,j will withstand soakIng and allow water to enter from the will hold l' po~. ~ ' . bottom. These potS C:u1 be purchased at a garden supply It ~ shop. The dishpans and potS are reusable but must be It,.., . '...~J- , washed and nosed with diluted bleach to destroy organisms ~ ,,- which are harmful to seedlings before startmg the next ~, \ ~ ,;,~,', ~ batch of ieeds. " ., ,0 \ ! \ \ \ D71 \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MAN~GEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 " "- STEP 3: Add water to the dishpan (not the pots) STEP 5: Allow the seedlings to establish themselves: slowly. The water will come up through the then remove all but the largest one. You can bottom of the pot to saturate the soil. The try to tranSplant the smaller plants that you seeds will germinate on either the surface of remove to another pot. saturated soil or when submerged. This means that as long as the water level in the dishpan is at or below the surface of the s01l. the plants will do fine. STEP 6: As the i'lants get larger. they Will send roots out of the pOtS and Into the dishpans. Clip these roots off so the growing root mass stays inSide the pot. Make sure that you keep the STEP 4: Place dishpans under or near light source. water in the dishpan at a sUitable level to keep Most of the seeds will start to grow in one or the soli saturated. two, weeks. Try to provide as much light as you can. Unless you have large (lOOOW) halogen bulbs. it is unlikely that you can \ I provide too much light. If possible use a 'combination of fluorescent (e.g. rube) and incandescent (e.g. bulb) lights. The fluores- cent lights are weak 10 the red side of the spectrum. while the incandescent lights are weak in the blue side. The comblnatlon gives a richer spectrUlI1 that more closely approximates sunlight. Use whatever lights you have avail- able. and put them close to the plants. If you can put your plants near a south-facing III window. the sunlight will help. If the plants ',... are on a windowsill. putting aluminum foil ~. . around the back on the inside Will reflect more -; . ~ .' . sunlight back on the plants. If you have a .~ timer for your lights. a siltteen-hours-on. ' . eight-hours-otT cycle (umes to correspond to . .~ when the sun is up) IS also helpful. ~":;~;?' I > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ D72 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT APVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 " "'- HELPFUL HINTS ~ Seeds Not Crowing The seeds you receIve .....111 be tor a very hardy tvpe of plant. You should have no problems getting them to grow. However. do not feel discouraged If not all of the seeds gennmate. ThIs IS to be expected. and you should not WOlTY that It'.:> anythmg you are dOing Improperiy. Some of the seeds are not well formed. .md the resul tlng seed- lings are weak and would not have grown anyway. To ensure that we plant only the strongest plants. please sort through your stock and weed out any weak lndivlduals. TRAN5PLANTINq Air Temperature For tr:lIlSplantlng ll1to a wetland. the plams should be approxImately 30 em high. Taller plants tend to be t10ppler If you can conuol the air temperamre in your growing area. and can break Junng transportation to the sIte: smaller you can try to reproduce seasonal temperamres. In June of plants may DOt survive as well. Don' t worry If your plams 1993. the average high temperature was :;:oC and the average are not 30 cm by rmd-lune. :he MTRCA can take care of low was 120C. In July of 1993. the average high was 270C . them until they reach an appropnate heIght. For plantlng, and the low was 16.C. Place a thermometer on the soil a sturdy plant with a tight root mass IS most .:>ultable. surface close to your seeds. If you are using a lot of lights. you may notice that they are he:lnng the soil several degrees You can contact the MTRC.\ U1 ytay or ~arly June to arr.lnge above room temperarure. Aim to adjust the soil surface a tune tor your ;roup to plant theIr stock .:lr tor someone to temperamre to the range of 12-27OC. pick up your "lants If you are unable to plant them yourselves. If you have any questions about th1s proJect. or would like more iniormatlon on Wetland Projects In the MTRCA area. ? please call the MTRCA office at (416) 661-6600. md . ~ ,r}-'''' :~ reference the .\quanc Plants Program. ~ ~ , ---' ~ ,.-:;;;= Rimsy Plants If the plants are growing flimsy and tall. they are either not getting enough light or are too warm (or both Y. Try increasing the light and decreasing rhe temperarore (if possible)_ ~ ~- , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority 5 shore ham drive. downsv1ew. ontario. m3n 1s4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 Established in 195; to manage me renewable natural resources IJi the ~e;pon'; watersheds. me Authority is a provinCial/municipal partnership wim pamc:pallon crom th~ f'rOVlnce IJf Onwio: The MuniCipality of Metropolitan Toronto: :he ~eglonai \lunlc:oahtles IJf S ""ntCQ.:\ unu.t1u. C.l.aa~ Durham. Peel. :lnd York: and the Townships oi \lijai:l-T IJsoronllO mu \Ionu." ' :"J rccv.::..:c p~oer .: COt\1Jt"\I 1Q", &;. '~~ 'J ' \ , \ \ D73 WATER AND RELATED LAND MA~GEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96. MAY 17,1996 ',,- WANTED: Oasses (K-OAC) to grow Aquatic Plants for Wetland Restoration :. The Conservation Authority will supply: : You supply: ~~ .:.1/", U 7latering o seeds ~.' "..~. 11 o soil i~-~ C light Cl potS ~. Uc:Ir: o dishpans (to soak planes) i,"' " o der:uled instructions It. _ o tnmsplanting ~ This is a special appornmity for classes to participate in a "lwsds-on" ~1IIIICll3i r:stOranon project by assisting in developing:l namr:U habicu: m:l within dlCr community. It is aiso a pmjec: 'Nbich c:III help achieve lII3DY le:uning expectWoos JallSS Se'ler.1i subject arcu. l'lancing kits WIll be delivered :WI' ~ Bre:1k for lmmedWc plan tint;. :mo piaup time by the: Cooservation Authority is in Ian: May/esriy June. JUd the:: may be 311 oppol'tllllicy for your ;!:US :0 belp with the planting of a local wetland project If your c!:lss would IiIa: tll puticipate. tle:ISC fill out :md fax or mail the =cbed fOIlll :0 the MTRCA at .t':'\ '\. ',' (416) 661.9043 by Friday, March 1. For more information COI1QCt L:slie P1erc:y at (416) 661-<i600 en. 338. -- ----------------------------------------------- TO: Leslie Piercey, MTRCA fax: (416) 661.9043 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1 S4 WE'll CROW PLANTS FOR WETlAND RESTORATIONI Please deliver an Aquatic Plants Kit School: Grade: Cass Size:_ Address: Close :najor intersection: __ --- TeacherlCilnt:ICt: Tel: Fax: -..----- - o My class would like to help with pl3JIting. PIe:LSC c:Ul me [Q discuss. ~ . ~ :"'!;7kCi'CRCNTO&-~N GREAT LAKES 2000 - -- -:... -- -- --:. "metra region 0" Rb"'!~I.AL ACT!Ci\l Pl-AN ClEANUP FUND ---- conser'Jation ~ .. " \ \ \ \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMEN~DVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 D74 " . , -.-- - .-- - - - ~ , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority 5 shol'8ham drive. downsview. ontario. man 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 The Aquatic Plants Program A coofJerative fJroject between the MTRCA, the Merro Toronto Remedial Action Plan, Great Lakes 2000 C1eanufJ l=und, local schools and interest groUfJS, and our MunicifJal partners. In 1995, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authorrty (MTRCA) implemented a pilot project to encourage public participation in the environmental enhancement work of the Authority. This program. entitled the Aquatic Plants Program, was designed to provide students and other groups the oPPOrtunity to grow aquatic plants to encourage ecological restoration through the creation and rehabilitation of wetland habitats. This program was originated in the Hamilton area by the Bay Area Restoration Council of the Hamilton Remedial Action Plan. McMaster University :co-Research Program, and the Royal Botanical Gardens, to assist with the Cootes Paradise Restoration Project. In 1995. with the cooperation of these groups. the MTRCA expanded the project to the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan area on a small scale to assist the MTRCA Habitat Projects in the City of :tobicoke at Col. Samuel Smith Park. Last year, 200 plants '/Yere grown and planted by schools in the City of Etobicoke. This year, we are expanding this project throughout the MTRCA jurisdiction, and are soliciting school boards, local schools and interest groups for involvement in this project. In brief. the project requires classeslgroups to grow aquatic plants from seed. The MTRCA supplies all of the materials (except water and light) and information needed to grow the plants. The students plant the seed in the classroom , and care for the developing plants. Planting of seed should occur as soon as possible following the March break. In the late spring, the MTRCA will either assist groups with arranging to planting their stock, or will collect and place the grown material at a wetland creation or restoration project site in the area. Attached is a small posterl registration form which you may use for your convienience. If you are interested in this project, or would like additional information regarding the Aquatic Plants Program, please contact the MTRCA as soon as possible. at the numbers below. The number of groups which can participate in this project may be limited on a first come first serve basis. CONTACT: MTRCA office at (416) 661-6600 or Fax (416) 661.6898 Ms. Leslie Piercey, extension 338 " 1 ~!~:'" ,~ " , " - \ \ \ , \ '\ D75 WATER AND RELATED LAND MA~GEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 " ~ . d. 0 thty 'the metropolitan toronto an region conservation au on 5 shQreham drive. downsvlew. ontario. m3n 1s4 (416) 661.6600 FAX 661.6898 . NOTICE TO TEACHERS participating in the Aquatic Plants Program Enclosed' are some information sheets regarding wetlands and the plants you will be growing. We hope that you will provide your students with copies of these to take home (for their guardians to read too) and that you may be able to use the information within the classroom as well. Information will be sent to your school in the near future regarding planting days for the plants you will have grown. The MTRCA will identify a number of specific days in early to mid June at a number of locations within our watersheds. We will ask that you register in advance for your class(s). We will try and accommodate as many classes as we can, however space will likely be limited due to the terrific response we have had to this program. We encourage you to plant your plants in your school yard or another nearby location if it is suitable, and if you have appropriate authorization from the landowner. PLEASE KNOW THAT PLANTING IN AN EXISTING WETLAND COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO EXISTING BIOTA, if you are not extremely careful to avoid excessive trampling and disturbance of existing vegetation. If you are unable to plant the materials yourselves, the MTRCA will arrange to collect the plants you have grown for use at a "needy" site, prior to the end of the school year. If you have any questions or problems, let me know. HAPPY GROWING! k0i, f?t{oU:G' Leslie Piercey / ~ Project Coordinator (416) 661-6600 ext 338 1;1/..... ;,.,... -(""\ ,......:-,..,,-: ... -- ........-,.....--: - ...,..",:- ...~.. :"'(,\., ,r; '''''f-=.' ,e. ,c, t".,rTlL.( ..IV', :: ......(-:;-:;. ,~...c;~= , \ \ \ \ \ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 D76 '" "- It- What are we growing? The seeds you are planting will develop into a wetland plant called softstem bulrush or Scirpus validus. . Bulrush stems are round and olive green. . Flowers are small, occurring in clusters at the tip of the stems . Plant height: 130cm . Habitat: grows in wet soil and in water up to 46cm deep. Resistant to water level change and wave action. . Other facts: bulrushes provide waterfowl with excellent cover for nesting and the seeds are an important food source for ducks, geese and shorebirds and marsh birds. The stems and underground parts are eaten by muskrats and geese. Lots of marsh animals will use stands of bulrush as hiding places to avoid predators or to hunt for food. Tips for growing bulrush Dried flower parts remain attached to the seed when ripe. The seeds have been separated from these parts by sieving and the seeds have been stored wet and cold. The seeds are in the small white plastic tube provided. Seeds are small and dark brown. Seeds will germinate on the surface of saturated soil or submerged under water in 7 to 14 days. Seed head (actual size) Seeds (20 x actual size) Seedling (actual size) ~ ~ , . ~... .,.~.." '-" D77 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 RES. #W22/96 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #3/96, April 25, 1996 Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #3/96, of April 25, 1996, be received .............. CARRIED KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #3/96, April 25, 1996 of the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land 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 Oon Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext 238) RES. #W23/96 - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Chair of the Authority be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as the Authority representative; THAT the Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be amended to include the Chief Administrative Officer as an alternate to the Chair of the Authority on the Don Council; THAT the Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority be appointed as the alternate to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council; THAT Mr. George Vasilopoulos be appointed as the alternate for the Borough of East York to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council; THAT the resignation of Mr. Anthony Niro be received;. AND FURTHER THAT the Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, in consultation with the Chairs of the three subcommittees, be requested to recommend a Don Watershed resident willing to serve and contribute to the Don Council until the end of its term being November 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE The appointment of members to the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 D78 BACKGROUND The Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council were adopted by Resolution #A224/94 at Authority Meeting #9/94. The membership provision included that the Chair of the Authority or other Authority member represent the Authority on the Don Council. At Authority Meeting #12/94, Mr. Bill Granger, then Chair of the Authority was appointed as the Authority's member to the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council. At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/95, Ms. Lois Hancey and Mr. Craig Mather were appointed as alternates to the Don Council. At this time it is recommended that Mr. Richard O'Brien be formally appointed as the Authority's member and that Mr. Mather as Chief Administrative Officer be designated as the Authority's alternate to the Oon Council. The Borough of East York have advised of a change in the alternate to the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council. Councillor George Vasilopoulos was appointed as its alternate to the Oon Council by East York Resolution #2.16. Mr. Anthony Niro has advised staff that due to business commitments requiring prolonged absences and hence, his inability to attend meetings of the Oon Council, he wishes to resign his position at this time. It is recommended that Mr. Niro's resignation be accepted and that he be thanked for his interest and his continuing support of the Oon Watershed Regeneration Council. It is further recommended that the Chair of the Don Council, in consultation with the Chairs of the three subcommittees, be requested to recommend a Oon Watershed resident who can contribute to the work of the Council until the end of its term in November 1997. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman (Ext. 238) RES. #W24/96 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 Kingsbury Crescent Shoreline Erosion Control Project Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the completion of the Kingsbury Crescent Shoreline Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the" Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" at a total cost of $100,000 subject to confirmation of funding approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Completion of shoreline erosion control work along the Kingsbury Crescent sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. BACKGROUND Construction of shoreline erosion control work along the Kingsbury Crescent sector of the Scarborough Bluffs has been ongoing since 1980. However, delays in finalizing property agreements resulted in no construction activity from 1982 to 1986. Limited annual funding has extended the duration of the project with final completion expected in 1996. This project has ~ D79 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 provided a total of approximately 700 metres of shoreline protection along the Kingsbury Crescent sector. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Ouring 1996, staff propose to complete the shoreline protection works in accordance to the design drawings. This work will require the addition of the top layer of armourstone to achieve the design elevation. Some sections of the maintenance road will be raised using clear broken concrete rubble material. Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor. The supply and delivery of quarry stone will be tendered in accordance with the Authority's purchasing policy. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget to complete the erosion control work is $100,000. The Authority has received funding approval from the Province of Ontario ($37,500) and Metro ($37,500). Additional funding up to the budget is subject to approval from the Province of Ontario and/or The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account Nos. 131-03 and 131-23 have been set up for this project. For information contact: Nigel Cowey (ext.244) RES. #W25/96 - PROPOSED DRIVING RANGE - LESLIE STREET AND UNWIN AVENUE (Verbal information report) Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT the staff report be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff advise the Council of the City of Toronto of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board's support of the recommendations made by the City of Toronto Executive Committee. AMENDMENT RES. #W26/96 Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THAT staff write 8 letter to Councillor Peter Tabuns in support of the position taken by the City of Toronto's Executive Committee. THE AMENDMENT WAS ............................................. CARRIED ~. .;...~' :-1. " ! WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 D80 THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED RES. #W27/96 - PROPOSED WATER BOARD TOUR OF ESA'S Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Joan King THAT the staff report regarding the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board tour of the ESAs in the eastern portion of the MTRCA jurisdiction, scheduled for June 7, 1996, be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED KEY ISSUE Proposed Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board tour of the ESAs in the eastern portion of the MTRCA jurisdiction. BACKGROUND In the past, the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board has visited various sites within the watershed relating to critical issues, Authority programs and other Authority initiatives. With the on-going update of the Authority's inventory of Environmentally Significant Areas, including the new designation criteria and the new process for adoption and landowner notification, there has been an interest expressed in visiting some of the ESAs. It is proposed that the tour would concentrate on the eastern part of the Authority's jurisdiction including the Ouffins Creek, Rouge River and Highland Creek watersheds. There are several updated and new ESAs within this area as well as a number of other projects and issues that would be of interest to the Board. A tentative agenda has been set that would start at the Scarborough City Centre. The sites that are being considered are shown on the attached map and include: 1 ) The Highland Creek (South of Lawrence Avenue). This area is an ESA and Metro Parks and Culture Oepartment is developing a trial through the reach. Some of the critical slope and riverbank works are being undertaken by the Authority. 2) The Ministry of Transportation's storm water management pond that is being built under the Storm Water Assessment and Monitoring (SWAMP) program. 3) The Ouffins Creek Marsh ESA, including the new bridge for the waterfront trail across the mouth of the Ouffins. 4) Greenwood Conservation Area and the proposals for new uses of Authority land. 5) The Cherrydowns ESA and the golf course expansion proposal. 6) The Whitevale Corridor ESA - Tauton Bridge Crossing and potential disposition of the Provincially owned lands (Seaton and the Agricultural preserve). 7) Spring Creek, a man made channel utilizing an abandoned artesian well on the Robinson Creek (Tributary of the Rouge). " --~, , ' 081 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17,1996 8) The existing flood vulnerable development in the upper reaches of the Highland Creek that is part of the proposed Special Policy Area. In addition to providing information on some of the Authority's ESAs, it is hoped that the tour will give a flavour for the Authority's involvement in the eastern portions of its jurisdiction that are going on concurrently with the considerable efforts being under taken on the Oon River and Humber River watershed strategies and the initiative on the Lake Ontario Waterfront. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 1 ) Staff to arrange transportation; and 2) Staff to prepare a more detailed itinerary and information package for the members. For information contact: Oena Lewis (ext. 225) \ \ , WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENf'ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 D82 '\. "" 3. DUFFlNS CREEK: MARSH. 2S;". JYNAMIC BEACH. REGeNE;::;"TING ~REAS. ;..RCHE':L:GY TRAIL 2. ROUGE RIVER HWY oW, - MTO: STeRM WATE;:: ?CND. ~sseSSME~jT, P!:i'lFCRMANCi: I,1CNIT::RING 1. HIGHUNO CREEK: ESA. ANSi. SL~P!: WCAKS. -RAIL ,. ,. WATERSHED TOUR .... (D WATER and RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD JUNE 21,1996 D83 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/96, MAY 17, 1996 NEW BUSINESS RES #W28/96 - ONTARIO WEEDS ACT Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Alan Christie THAT the staff be directed to prepare a report for a future meeting of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board concerning the Ontario Weeds Act and its impact on Authority o~ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :45 a.m., May 17, 1996. I ni~ r,riffin CrAig MAthAr Chair Secretary-Treasurer Please note that Res. #W29/96 has not been used ~ , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #4/96 June 21, 1996 Page 084 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, June 21, 1996. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PRESENT Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair lIa Bossons ..................................................... Member Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Jim McMaster ................................................... Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chair, Authority Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair Joan King ...................................................... Member Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES. #D30/96 - MINUTES Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/96, held May 17, 1996 be approved. . . , . . . . . . . . . CARRIED D85 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RES #D31/96 - MTRCA ROLE - METROPOLITAN TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN Potential role of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as joint lead agency with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for Metropolitan Toronto. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the Authority's proposed role as Co-chair with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to implement the Metropolitan Toronto Region Remedial Action Plan be received; THA T the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and Environment Canada be advised that the Authority is prepared to accept a joint lead role for implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Region provided that adequate provincial and federal resources are available; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to negotiate a suitable Memorandum of Understanding among the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOUI and submit the proposed MOU to the Executive Committee for approval. . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Agreement was renewed in 1978 with the purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. In 1987, a protocol to the Agreement identified 42 Areas of Concern (AoCs) in the Basin where one or more beneficial uses have been impaired. Of these 42 AoCs, 5 were shared between Canada and the United States in the connecting channel areas, and 12 were within the Province of Ontario. The Metro Toronto and Region is one of the largest and complex of these 12 AoCs in Ontario. The 1987 Protocol also required that for each AoC in their jurisdiction, the governments develop and implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) which shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restore and protect beneficial uses in the AoC. The Protocol also required that the public be consulted in all actions taken. An agreement signed between Canada and Ontario, The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Ecosystem (COA) provided a framework for systematic and strategic coordination of the shared federal and provincial responsibilities for environmental management in the Great Lakes Basin, and outlines Canadian efforts to fulfil Canada's obligations under the GLWQA. This includes the development and implementation of RAPs for which EC and MOEE are the lead agencies. Under the direction of COA, in 1991, the Metro Toronto and Region RAP Team, a collaboration of government implementing agencies and members of the public and supported by advisory groups, prepared and submitted the Stage 1 RAP Report, identification of impaired uses and their causes, to the International Joint Commission as required under the GLWQA. Subsequently, the Team developed the Report "Clean Waters, Clear Choices". This Stage 2A Report contains 53 recommendations for action to "restore the polluted waterways and waterfront in the Metro Toronto Region, from Etobicoke Creek in the west to the Rouge River in the east". Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 D86 RATIONALE It has been almost ten years since the process to develop a Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Region commenced. During that period of time, a great deal of good work has been done to identify problems and suggest appropriate remedial measures. Many important implementation projects have been completed or initiated to address critical issues. In particular, projects to deal with combined sewer outfalls and habitat enhancement have been undertaken by many municipalities. Some federal and provincial support has been available to assist in these projects. However, during the ten years, there has also been a growing frustration among the public as well as public agencies at the relatively slow pace of action to progressively restore the health of the rivers and lakeshore within the Metropolitan Toronto and Region. It is now time for renewed focus and emphasis on the importance of protecting and restoring the rivers and the lakeshore. The report, "Clean Water, Clear Choices" recommends Lead Implementors and Partners to address specific remedial actions. It did not, however, recommend an organizational structure to advocate, co-ordinate and facilitate these actions. In November 1995, the Ministry of Environment and Energy Metro RAP office retained the LURA Group to assist in the development of the necessary organizational framework. Following a review of other RAPs and discussions and meetings with various Metro RAP stakeholders, a draft proposal was presented at a multi-sectoral workshop. The proposal recommended the consideration of the MTRCA and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust as "co-stewards". This approach reflects the growing recognition of the need to address remedial actions on a watershed basis, the Authority's experience in municipal consultation, public involvement, project implementation and the experience of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in facilitation and partnership development. The consultation process and results from the workshop confirmed that a strong base of support exists within the RAP area for the Authority and the Trust to proceed as "Co-Chairs". DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A Memorandum of Understanding among the federal and provincial governments, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the MTRCA needs to be completed to set out the respective roles of each partner. An agreement has been drafted and the latest draft is attached to this communication. An overall work plan for the RAP implementation must be developed. A component of the overall plan will be a strategic plan for each watershed within the RAP area. These work plans are being developed as part of the work of the Oon Council and the Humber Task Force as well as the Rouge Alliance. Similar work plans need to be developed for the Etobicoke, Mimico and Highland Creeks. The work which is presently underway to develop an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan for the area of Leslie Street to Tommy Thompson Park is also valuable background work to identify an action plan to address the Remedial Action Plan's goals and principles. RAP implementation requires substantial commitment by the area and regional municipalities. Many important initiatives have already been taken but others are required. The Trust and the Authority propose to establish a process to involve all of the municipalities within the RAP area in the planning, priorization and implementation of RAP initiatives. Public involvement will also be important throughout the implementation process. Important opportunities will continue to be provided through watershed/waterfront task forces and councils. ." ., ' " ' - f 087 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 FINANCIAL DETAILS One of the important aspects of the Memorandum of Understanding is to secure a commitment for operating and capital funding from the Province of Ontario and Environment Canada. It is anticipated that the commitment can only be for the current fiscal year but it is also important to secure an understanding of the longer term commitments from the senior levels of government. Much of the Authority's existing activities and funding commitments are for efforts which are closely associated with the Remedial Action Plan. The funding commitments being sought from the province and the federal levels of government will address the additional costs associated with the Authority's role as one of the lead agencies for RAP implementation. For information contact: Brian E. Oenney (ext. 242) III ~~ ~ ~ " Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 D88 DRAFT 04/06/96 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between ENVIRONMENT CANADA (EC) and ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND- ENERGY (OMOEE) hereafter known as RESPONSIBLE AGENOES (RAP-RAs) and METRO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (MTRCA) and the WATERFRONT REGENERATION TRUST (WRT) hereafter known as the STEWARDS. Pw:pose: The purpose of this MOU is to identify and establish a framework for the continued planning and implementation of the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan through a consensus-based partnership with all levels of government, special purpose agencies, industry, special interest organizations and the local communities. Back~ound: 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, 5 were shared between Canada and the United States in the connecting channel areas, and 12 were within the province of Ontario. The Metro Toronto and Region is one of the largest and complex of these 12 Aoes in Ontario. The 1987 Protocol also required that for each AoC in their jurisdiction, the governments develop and implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) which shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restore and protect beneficial uses in the AoC. The Protocol also required that the public be consulted in all actions taken. An Agreement signed between Canada and Ontario, The Canada-ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Ecosystem (COA) provided a framework for systematic and strategic coordination of the shared federal and provincial responsibilities for environmental management in the Great Lakes Basin, and outlines Canadian efforts to fulfil Canada's obligations under the GL WQA. This includes the development and implementation of RAPs for which EC and MOEE are the lead agencies. > ,,f . ~~'.~\" . :~ D89 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 Under the direction of COA, in 1991, the Metro Toronto and Region RAP Team, a collaboration of government implementing agencies and members of the public and supported by advisory groups, prepared and submitted the Stage 1 RAP report, identification of impaired uses and their causes, to the International Joint Commission as required under the GL WQA. Subsequently, the Team developed the report "Clean Waters, Clear Choices". 'This Stage 2A report contains 53 recommendations for action to "restore the polluted waterways and waterfront in the Metro Toronto and Region, from Etobicoke Creek in the west to the Rouge River in the east". RAP Goals: This MOV will work toward achieving the following goals as outlined in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices", in the development and implementation of the RAP. 1. Ecosystem Health: Metro Toronto's waterfront and watersheds should be a diverse, healthy, integrated ecosystem. They should be managed using an ecosystem approach in order to restore beneficial uses of our aquatic resources. An ecosystem approach is a comprehensive and systematic consideration of the interacting components of air, land, water and living organisms, including humans. 2. Fishable, Swimmable, Drinkable: Metro Toronto and Region's watersheds and nearshore zone should provide citizens with fishable, swimmable, drinkable and aesthetically pleasing water and aquatic habitat. 3. Discharges to Waterbodies: Discharges to Metro Toronto's waterfront and watersheds should not contain harmful micro-organisms or hazardous chemicals at levels which impair beneficial uses, inhibit biota or produce other adverse impacts on the ecosystem. There should be zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals. 4. Costs of Clean-up; Cost Effectiveness: The costs associated with environmental controls and rehabilitation should be the responsibility of those who are the source of the pollution. Cost effectiveness analysis should be used in RAP development and implementation to prioritize resources for water quality improvement. 5. Public Access: The public should have sufficient access to Metro Toronto's waterfront and valley systems in order to make them a focus of public involvement, recreation, enjoyment and cultural activities. 2 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 D90 6. Sediments: The volume of in-place and transported sediments being deposited in Metro Toronto and Region's watersheds should be stabilized at near natural levels by controlling their releases at the point of origin. These sediments should be free of persistent contaminants, and contain safe levels of non-persistent contaminants. 7. Lakefilling: Lakefilling should not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated not to impair beneficial uses of aquatic ecosystems. All possible r means of improving the environment as a result of each project should be explored as part of the planning process in any development. 8. Atmospheric Deposition: The atmospheric deposition of potentially hazardous substances resulting from human activities in the Metro Toronto and Region should have no adverse impacts on the ecosystem. 9. Coordination with Other Programs: Opportunities should be created and resources identified for the Metro Toronto and Region RAP, in the spirit of cooperation, to have input to plans in other areas, such as the Niagara River or the setting of lake water levels, which have significant impact on Metro Toronto and Region's water quality. 10. Navigation and Recreation: Navigation and recreational uses in the Metro Toronto waterfront should be maintained. An on-going dredging option should be available so long as it is carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner. 11. Public Awareness and Consultation: Public awareness activities and consultation should continue throughout the RAP implementation phase. 12 Monitoring and Review: There should be a mechanism for regular review of goals and the implementation of the remedial action plan. RAP Principles: This MOV will adhere to the following principles as generally outlined in "Oean W~ters, Clear Choices" in the development and implementation of the RAP: 1. Water is a basic necessity of life and should be conserved. Its quality should be restored and protected. 2. The waterfront and watersheds should be planned and managed using an ecosystem approach. 3. The RAP goals form the basis for RAP action. 3 D91 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 .. 4. Environmental decision making and the selection of remedial options should involve the participation of all stakeholders. 5. We are all polluters and should be part of the solution. 6. Public awareness and education, including access to information are important to the success of all stages of the RAP. 7. Both voluntary action and legislation should be considered as a means of implementing remedial actions. 8. Source control should be an objective of the RAP and take priority over end- of-pipe solutions. 9. Neither dilution nor dispersion should be considered satisfactory substitutes to reducing pollution. 10: There should be zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals. 11. The RAP should encourage and review research that supports RAP principles, but research should not be allowed to be an excuse for inaction. 12. Implementation consistent with RAP goals and principles should proceed along with development of the RAP. 13. In addition to remediation, the RAP should include and encourage preservation, conservation, rehabilitation and prevention. 14. The RAP goals and applicable remedial actions should be integrated into land use planning and construction approvals. 15. A RAP implementation action should be led and coordinated by the appropriate and clearly defined and mandated party. 16. An integrated and coordinated program of environmental monitoring and reporting of progress is essential in developing, implementing, evaluating and revising the RAP. 4 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 D92 --.-.-- '.. .. .. . . Administrative/Organizational Framework for Planning, Coordination, Implementation and Reporting: RAP- Stewards Reporting through this MOU to the RAP RAs (Responsible Agencies: MOEE and DOE), and working together in partnership, WRT and the MTRCA, as ''RAP- Stewards" will assume the lead agency responsibility for facilitating the continued development and implementation of the RAP. RAP Stewardship Advisory Forum (RAP-ST AF) The Forum will assist RAP-Stewards in the planning and discharge of their responsibilities. The RAP-STAF, consisting of members of all levels of government with lead implementation responsibilities, contributing special purpose agencies and interest groups, industries and the public will provide ongoing advice and support. (Details outlined in Appendix A) RAP Support Function Reporting to the RAP-Stewards, a RAP support function for both the RAP- Stewards and the Advisory Forum will be incorporated into the Lead Agencies' organizational structures to facilitate day to day operations. Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Agencies: RAP-RAs (DOE and MOEE ) 1) RAP-RAs will retain their full international national and provincial responsibilities as defmed in both the GL WQA and COA, 2) RAs will continue to vigorously implement recommendations of the RAP for which they have lead responsibility and as available resources permit. 3) RAs will participate as full and active members of the RAP-STAF. 4) RAs will continue to provide expert scientific and other support to RAP implementation as determined by RAP-Stewards and/or RAP-STAF. 5) RAs will ensure that agency decisions affecting the Metro and Region RAP implementation are made in consultation with the RAP-Stewards. 5 D93 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 .. 6) RAs will ensure the availability of sufficient resources in a timely manner to the RAP-Stewards (at least $300,000 annually, beginning in 1996/97; plus capital funding for implementation of projects in the range of at least $2 million annually) to enable them to effectively carry out their duties and responsibilities as specified in this MOD. MTRCA and WRT (RAP-Stewards) The general role of the WRT will be to raise awareness by regional and local municipalities of their roles in the restoration and protection of the ecosystem in the Toronto and Region Area of Concern. The WRT will work to obtain renewed political commitment to actions that will contribute to RAP implementation, and to develop a plan within which those commitments, both individually and collectively, will be realized. The general role of the MTRCA will be to focus RAP implementation activities on a watershed by watershed basis. MTRCA will use established mechanisms such as watershed and waterfront task forces and councils and the Rouge River Alliance to identify policies and facilitate projects which will contribute to successful RAP implementation. The Authority will initiate and/ or encourage the necessary monitoring, planning, design and construction of projects in association with municipalities and community groups. The Authority will also use the mechanism of watershed report cards to document results and encourage participants. Specifically, the RAP-Stewards will, among other activities: 1) Assume Lead Agency responsibility for coordinating and promoting the development and implementation of the Metro and Region RAP including a process for transition to the revised RAP management structure. 2) Establish the RAP Stewardship and Advisory Forum including its Terms of Reference and appointments to the Forum. 3) Develop, in concert with the Advisory Forum, a Workplan which will; . establish priorities for implementation of projects, . provide a five-year work program for RAP implementation, . include a strategy for the establishment of partnerships to assist in RAP implementation. 6 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1-996 D94 4) Receive, assess, and if necessary, assist in the preparation of, project submissions to funding agencies for funding support for project implementation, 5) Coordinate RAP implementation activities with those of other organizations and individuals with complementary objectives for which commitments and funding exist. 6) Ensure a direct liaison among the Watershed Task Forces and between them and the RAP-STAF in their support for the goals of the RAP. 7) Provide consolidated reporting of actions and implementation of RAP. 8) Establish and implement a process to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial actions on an ongoing basis. 9) Undertake a program of public education, consultation and participation. . 10) Prepare an annual progress report on the RAP. Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority In addition to the Authority's new responsibility as a RAP-Steward the Authority will continue in its role as manager of water resources within the RAP area watersheds, including the implementation of restoration and rehabilitation activities within those watersheds and along the waterfront in support of RAP goals. MTRCA will continue its support of existing Watershed Task Forces, Councils and Alliances, and forge new ones as appropriate. Regional and Local Municipalities Regional and local municipalities are responsible for the infrastructure associated with the management of stormwater, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, park management and other environmental matters, in the achievement of RAP goals. The development and management of this infrastructure should be designed to contribute to RAP implementation. Watershed Task Forces, Councils and Alliances The Watershed Task Forces, Councils and Alliances, and any future watershed/waterfront bodies, will continue to plan, develop and implement initiatives that are complementary to and support RAP goals. 7 ~. '., , ;{;1 b') . '\ ",,.'iF ~-<~ 7~, -i ~~~:~ ~ " \e D95 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 APPENDIX A Terms of Reference: RAP Stewardship Advisory Forum (RAP-ST AF) Purpose: The purpose of the RAP Stewardship Advisory Forum (RAP-STAF) is to provide advice and guidance to the RAP-Stewards, and to be the main forum for discussion with respect to the continued planning and implementation of the Metro Toronto and Region RAP. Organization: The RAP-Stewards will act as Co-Chairs of the Forum. The Forum will receive secretariat support from designated staff at the MTRCA and WRT. The Forum may establish Special Purpose Committee(s) as necessary to provide specific expertise and advice to advance of the RAP. Membership: Membership on the RAP-STAF may include the following: The Deputy Commissioner of the WRT and the Chief Administration Officer of the MTRCA who will act as Co-chairs Director, Central Region, OMOEE Director, Environmental Conservation Branch, Ontario Region, EC Commissioner or Head of the Environmental Works Departments from each of the Regional Municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, York, Durham and Peel. Commissioner or Head of the Environmental Works Departments from each of the Area Municipality in the Toronto RAP area. Chair of the Don Watershed Restoration Council Chair of the Humber Watershed Task Force Chair of the Rouge River Alliance Regional Director, Southern Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Representatives of other watershed task forces and/or waterfront groups in the RAP area as formed Citizen representation as identified in APPENDIX B. The Forum may set specific terms for membership with respect to individuals and/or agencies/sectors being represented so as to encourage a rotation of membership. 'f Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 D96 Roles: The Advisory Forum will have the following responsibilities; 1. Facilitate information sharing. 2. Assist in establishing priorities for the Metro Toronto and Region RAP regarding program implementation. 3. Assist in identifying research needs, information gaps and monitoring needs necessary to advance the RAP. 4. Provide, in a timely and appropriate manner, information necessary to report accomplishments and progress in the implementation of RAP initiatives. S. Promote the management of the waterfront and watersheds using an ecosystem approach to restore beneficial uses to the Aoe. 6. Recommend remedial action and the formation of partnerships in areas not being addressed by watershed councils / task forces / committees. 7. Recommend partnerships to solve specific RAP issues. 8. Support and participate in public information programs to heighten public awareness. , , . . ,.~ J " -, ~ 7':,;; ,~ D97 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96. June 21, 1996 .. i ~, ), ,. APPENDIX B Public Participation Participation from special interest groups and members of the public may include: 1) Participation on Watershed Task Forces, Alliances, and Councils, whose Chairs will be members of the Advisory Forum. 2) Citizens-at-large appointed to the Advisory Forum based on approved selection criteria and for a specified term. 3) Citizen and/ or special interest group participation on special purpose Task Forces or projects as appropriate. 4) Citizen associates (correspondents) who may receive progress reports, notices of special events for information and opportunities for comment. S) Participation at an annual public meeting/ workshop to receive progress reports from the RAP-Stewards and the Advisory Forum on the implementation of remedial actions. 6) Broad communication program for the general public. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 D98 Tenn of MOU This MOU will be for five years, commencing July 1, 1996 and extending to June 30, 2001. This MOU shall be reviewed on or before March 31, 1997, and each subsequent year in consideration of agreed to written modifications. This MOU can be terminated upon one year written notice by one or more of the signatories. Concurrence with this MOU The undersigned agree to the conditions specified above. ---------------------- ---------------------- David A. Carter Simon Uewellyn Deputy Commissioner Regional Director Waterfront Regeneration Trust Environment Canada Date ------------ Date ------------ ---------------------- ---------------------- J. Craig Mather David Crump Chief Administrative Officer Regional Director Metro Toronto and Region Ontario Ministry of Conservation Authority Environment and Energy Date ------------ Date ------------ ,. 099 Water and Related Land Management Advis?ry Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 RES #D32/96 - PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM FOR MUNICIPAL PLAN REVIEW Region of Ourham and Conservation Authorities Direction to finalize a Partnership Memorandum for Municipal Plan Review between the Region of Ourham and the five Ourham Region conservation authorities that will enable the Region and Area Municipalities to efficiently and effectively make planning decisions on site-specific planning applications in the absence of input from Provincial Ministries. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to provide interim support and to finalize a Partnership Memorandum for Municipal Plan Review between the Region of Durham and the five Durham Region Conservation Authorities substantially as set out in the attached draft Partnership Memorandum; THA T the finalized Partnership Memorandum be forwarded to the Executive Committee for approval; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue discussions to develop similar Partnership Memorandums within the Regions of Peel, York and Metropolitan Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Province of Ontario has initiated a process to transfer Provincial Plan Review functions to upper- tier municipalities. Essentially, Provincial Ministries will no longer review development applications. Provincial Ministries will continue to provide input to regional planning documents, such as Official Plans and policy/urban expansion based Official Plan Amendments. The province, through the Office of the Provincial Facilitator, is at various stages of negotiation with Regional and District municipalities across Ontario. The Region of Durham was one of five regional municipalities who were part of the first round of Provincial negotiations. As a result, on March 13, 1996, Ourham Council authorized the execution of a "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Province of Ontario and the Regional Municipality of Ourham Regarding Municipal Plan Review". The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on April 17, 1996. Implementation of the MOU is being staged. The Ourham MOU provides the basis for the transfer of review from five Provincial Ministries: Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (MCZCR), Environment and Energy (MOEE), Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Natural Resources (MNR). The MOU allows for the Region to develop its own partnership arrangements with Area Municipalities and conservation authorities to deliver the transferred provincial plan review services. Consultation with Area Municipalities and conservation authorities has been on-going and has led to the development of two draft Partnership Memorandums with the Region (one with the Area Municipalities and one with the five conservation authorities). The draft Durham Region/Conservation Authorities Partnership Memorandum is attached to the staff report. It is predicated on a collective approach being taken by the five conservation authorities that serve the Region of Ourham. These authorities are the Metropolitan Toronto and Region (MTRCA), the Lake Simcoe Region (LSRCAl. the Central Lake Ontario (CLOCA), the Ganaraska Region (GRCA) and the Kawartha Region (KRCA). Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0100 RA TIONALE Why should the MTRCA and the other conservation authorities participate 7 AJ The Ourham/CA Partnership Memorandum accomplishes the objectives of the A CA 0 "Blueprint for Success" proposal and supports a watershed approach to environmental, natural hazard and water management. Rationalization of the Province's role in land use planning and development has been an issue for several years. The Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) identified the opportunities and rationale for the transfer andlor delegation of various Provincial services to conservation authorities through its 1993 "Blueprint for Success" proposal. Included within this proposal was the transfer of Provincial Plan Review Services, particularly those delivered by MNR. The rationale included the elimination of duplication of services at the provincial level and recognized the need to manage water, natural resources and natural hazards on a watershed basis. The draft Durham Region Partnership Memorandum supports these objectives. BJ The Ourham/CA Partnership Memorandum meets the needs of our watershed municipalities. The timing of the transfer of Provincial Plan Review is being driven, in part, by economic constraints. Recent Provincial budget cuts have expedited the process, resulting in an urgency to finalize how provincial services will now be delivered. The Region of Durham and the Area Municipalities are relying on the continued support of the CA's to manage the impacts of the Provincial restructuring. The recent impacts at MNR is such that Durham Region staff has requested interim support to deal with the backlog of reviews that the MNR cannot complete. CJ The Partnership Memorandum builds on the expertise and services currently available within the conservation authorities and avoids creating duplication between the CA's and municipalities. Given the financial constraints facing all public agencies, it makes sense to build upon existing strengths. The Region and Area Municipalities recognize the services that conservation authorities have been providing in the land use planning and development process. These services, including resource information and analysis, are still required, even more so now that Provincial Ministries are not an alternative. OJ The Partnership Memorandum presents an improved framework within which to support the Authority's data collection and information management initiatives and activities. The Partnership Memorandum recognizes the need to improve the sharing of information in order to improve and streamline the development approvals process. The MTRCA shares this objective and has been increasing its investment in data collection and information management for several years. These initiatives have improved the quality of the Authority's land use planning and development services and need to continue in partnership with the development industry as a whole. The Partnership Memorandum supports this objective 0101 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 What Provincial Plan Review functions, which have been transferred to the Region, will be transferred to the conservation authorities through the draft Partnership Memorandum? AJ The role of the conservation authorities pursuant to the draft Partnership Memorandum will be to identify and analyse the existence of natural heritage features and hazards on or in proximity to a proposed development site and to set out water management requirements from a CA perspective. Section 4.0 of the draft Partnership Memorandum sets out the CA's role with respect to the transfer of Provincial Plan Review. The areas of interest are primarily those associated with the Ministry of Natural Resources but have also been an integral component of CA watershed management activities. In fact, provincial interests relating to natural hazards were transferred to conservation authorities in 1986 and 1995. The Partnership Memorandum also recognizes that CA interests extend beyond the provincial functions being transferred. B) The Partnership Memorandum addresses provincial review functions for development applications only; however, it could provide the basis for an expanded partnership arrangement, with municipalities, that includes provincial regulatory responsibilities. The transfer of Provincial Plan Review does not involve delegation of Provincial permitting functions to municipalities andlor their partners. Permitting functions are being reviewed through a separate provincial process referred to as the "Red Tape Review". Conservation Authorities have an important role to play in an expanded partnership arrangement that includes permitting functions, similar to the MTRCA/MNR Don Watershed Agreement. Resolution of permitting functions was a critical component of the ACAO "Blueprint for Success" proposal. Unless and until the delivery of provincial regulatory responsibilities is resolved, streamlining outcomes will be limited. The Partnership Memorandum is consistent with existing CA services and can form the basis for collective input to the Provincial Red Tape Review process. What are the corporate resource implications and opportunities? A) The Partnership Memorandum enables the Greater Toronto Area Conservation Authorities to maximize resource efforts and to collectively advance CA interests in watershed management. The Partnership Memorandum relies on a partnership amongst the five Conservation Authorities that serve the Region of Durham. Resources vary significantly within the five CA's; however, so does the demand for land use planning and development services. The five CA's are confident that, through shared resources, the Region's and Area Municipalities' needs can be met in the short-term. Business plans, including expenditure and financing projections, are being prepared and discussed at each of the five CA's to ensure support for the program in 1997 and beyond. B) The Partnership Memorandum provides the basis for the restructuring of CA financing in partnership with the municipalities and the development industry. MTRCA expenditures are not expected to significantly increase as a result of the Partnership Memorandum. The MTRCA did not experience increased expenditures following the execution of the MNR/MTRCA Don Watershed Agreement which, as noted, includes regulatory functions not just plan review functions. A financing clause is included within in the draft Partnership Memorandum. The restructuring of CA financing contemplates user fees for a portion of both existing and resultant expenditures. Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0102 DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE The draft Durham Region/CA Partnership Memorandum needs to be further reviewed and finalized. When finalized, it will be brought forward to the Executive Committee for approval. Staff anticipate reporting on this issue in September subsequent to ratification by Durham Region Council. Provincial negotiations are underway in the Regions of York and Metropolitan Toronto. The Region of Peel process is starting in June. Staff has been included in each Region's process in partnership with neighbouring conservation authorities. Reports will be forthcoming. As noted, staff expect these negotiations to be expedited as the realities of the recent Provincial staff cuts begin to impact the development approvals process. It is recommended that the Authority authorize staff to proceed to finalize the details of the Durham Region Partnership Memorandum for approval by the Executive Committee and to negotiate similar arrangements with the Regions of Peel, York and Metropolitan Toronto. Report prepared by: Rene~ Jarrett (Ext. 315) , ji;e~ :~;~ ..,,: ,.~ 0103 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM BETWEEN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM PLANNING DEPARTMEN"E?t.> (hereinafter referred to as -the Region-) AND ::..4\- ".&.))1':/ : :i!~E~tt~1/ THE CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERV~!l9N AUlJI~~~f.>4- THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION C.g~ERVATlOMt~~tl(~~TY, ,:'~ THE LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSER~TiON AUTHQJI~.~:;'" :-:;/P THE GANARASKA REGION CONSERVA:pON AUTH9~' J(N~'~.. .~, 'Vfi THE KAWARTHA REGION .CONSERVAT1~N A~~.n; \~,~inaft8r re~ as the Conservation Au.moJIties.::k:' ' .:t8#i00" : ~~~~~"~,~~,:," ~' 1. Purpose . ::: .",:. ::::::::y;:.;::\:;;t::;:::" . ".......... .. ... . ....... .... ..... ... ::::...::..:.............:. The purpose of this Partnership Memorand,~:~~~~:~::'~:~.: .:::;~.:;..:.~~::\:;.'.;.~:.t;::';':;{::y. ....... ......... .. ...... .... a) to coordinate the implementatio~::pf,:j~~,.:~~tn.or~ndum of\J~d~rstanding Between the Province of Ontar,!*: a'rid th'e:..F,{egioiial.,Municipaiity of Durham Regarding Municipal Plan:~lew; .:.~<;'::'::."::::~:~<:~-j~..~~:,.'.'l:~~,:~:~~:'::- b) to enable the Region aq~:hthe Area Municipalities':fft"the Region to make planning decisions o,!:,:slj~specific.:.:pranning appiications in the absence of input from Provinc.i~~::,~rnlstries.~i~~d, ..:jy .:::-;';~"'. : .{ ':~..:) . ..(: . . c) to establish a~co-o.perative arr:ari,ieme~::6etween the Region and the . i~4;~Conservati:~ry1~ti,fhP.rities to ~or.:~,tog~ther to improve the delivery of ,';$.f2;iY$.]pj~nning s:~lc.e$~:~~>:~he resid'en~s.::(Wthe Region. "l~~~;i~!~~1~~,'~~,~)t, at*~\b:r~~1iY.~t~taddres~'):~~:~es of provincial interest in the decision-making ,L!fP">> proces$:6~}~t~o'i,l~ng applications; .#'" '\t:n:':?,~;:f;':\':.;~:ij'::.:..: jilt) b) to ensur~~ft,h.J::!ma:I:~mentation of Regional and local Official Plan policies in /~~f.3> the abse~f,e of provincial input; .~~W ..~. ."k c) to Sh~r~;~'hformation which would expedite decision-making; and .~tlh . ,:/;,~':~:':" . ?i'9:\{\r:t:":;~Q.l .wJo:'e~sure that each step of the processes developed to Implement the :@f.7fF\:+:'~:~"" ",l>::r:::-~~ ',:" ":'t' '. ., . . >.ffitti'ilkW,W!rm,:':>'!:L\jFOe egatlon of Review IS complementary and adds value to the declSlon- ~i~it.~i~;'.ih:i::P'making process. --:-;~~~)o~<<~ J,..- " " ' Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0104 3. Roles and Responsibilities of the Region: a) The Region is responsible for ensuring that the Memorandum of ...::::)1> Understanding with the Province is implemented. ::<t ,,:2-':.[7 , .~::iml?~/'p" b) The Region will continue to consult with the ConServation)~g.thQ1~~s on matters that affect their mandates or interests:::r.::;!~>: : ;:::Y~~E~~tVfR1h. ." :a;;T:'" ,:::024{Wt91'~if{1h . J>;: ..~. '.d ",,'l ",;:;.,r.<J.%m ",.,.,..:">.,. ..,~ ::::-:: y':":. '-..:~&..;...~.....::.:~:'3~'x ;:: .~ cl ~:i:~g~~~e;~~:~~:~~;a~~~.:~~r~~~::;;i~:~;et~~:~~,. Ont~rio and t~e Regional MUniCipality, of D~~fi~~~~ardin~ .MuniciPaP.~~~ Review", provided that the Conservation Au~n'ties>,~re willing to enter intO any data-sharing confidentiality agreements ';;.HitWthe.::.P.rovince if required. ....... ,-... . . -. . . ... ... -.. . ........ ...... .. .... ...... .. . ......... ....... ...... ........ . . ..... ................. .:::'::' ':.:, :.,':',.:.: '.. . .. ........ .. .... ...~:.:... ", :::I~.;..;:. :...~.. ::;::-~. ";." ..... .......... 4. Roles and Responsibilities of the Cons.~~~~~i.~n Author.~~.~' :;Y':t~:,:::~:':.\> .:':..;.":..:.::"';:. ":,':. :....:... . . . .... . .. ...... . ,........... ... . . . ...... ....'..... .'. . a) The Conservation Authorities will:assist;jhQj':Region in its rol~':~'s an approval authority through their regular.:,~om'm'er,.tsjb:.tti&.:'Region qn the following issues on planning apPlicat.i;~;~#;' . :~;::( :'~L~::d:.::::..::i::.::J.;:': :::.:~:,.' -information and analysjs;:~h the ex~~nce of '~~.tti~~r:-'heritage features such J ...... ..... ;.... ... as significant woodlotS~, wetlands~:'::sensitive wildlife habitats, habitats of endangered and thr.~~t~n:ed spedes, signifi~rit valleylands and areas of . .. ''';''. ..... natural and scientific.:interest o.ri;~or in proximity to, a proposed development ~f~~ site; ..j;:ff.i';:k::~:!1~r' :.fflliI~~;:'r;i~~:::::: \f?,:::.::. Ardf~;"~lbe adeqti~~v,::hf~~thrmwate~<;~ri1~~:;:;'ent plans from the perspective of the ,.<....".w~<,,;:;'^.. ~" ...... .... ....,.. . ~,+iT.+gWCohservationtAu;n6rfty; .<.~.:::;\~lTIi~i tr.it~t^*v v, ;t~ ~ :~~; ~~~ :;.~~: ~ .:~i r: :.;':~;:::. <:)~J~~~~~~!or th~\~~~~I~~n~,~~D obtain permits with respect to Alterations to ~>~1t~~~~~R~t.~~:~, Fill, Cqn~uction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations, 4:iEBtttake~~~~!y,~f~ Imprmieme~t Act, as well as the need f~r th~ applicant to "m;;V~ submlt"~t!f.~~~n~~Rompensatlon plan under the Federal Fisheries Act; ~"j' ~'%..B.;:~;; ;;::':-::">:':':~:';'?!: ~~'f -informat~~r.~6ii~~aIYSiS of natural hazards such as flooding, erosion, ,"::=:::"r ........ ........ jf!..T; unstable .~~opes and soils, existing on or in proximity to a proposed iWj~\:1 develoP.~~'nt site. ~.;.v:"::' :e.. *,-'" .",. .;::.." :::<m,%l\..t jr~?' :A5Et1:t~ b) Notniijg' in clause a) prevents the Conservation Authorities from advising the ..;:;.:.;........<. ......~~ >:<<...... :Yifj!::0Ff;&~. ._~4!.gion of any issue of interest to them, as it may relate to an application for 4'h:tfF~t$Jtr,...,~~l:':l":"'" "', I 'it....x:u=<:l:4..:~<->>:::..>~:~~,<~;ddeve opment. ~~~t..Jj}~JP~' 0105 Water and Related Land Mana,gement Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 5. Implementation a) This agreement will come into effect upon endorsement by Regional ~il and the Boards of the Conservation Authorities. . ' . b) The Region and the Conservation Authorities a.9.t~. to m ,""" ,< .~' basis to review the implementation of this ag~e.~ht, and~.!tX . ~'": opportunities for streamlining the implement,-db'n of the dQl" ^ ,~ ' transferred provincial planning review funC9RPs. ./8r'" c) The Region and the Conservation AUthOritlMr"'!fr~PIOre furt~ei' .~..-:'........ ~~'^"'" opportunities to improve the sharing of data:Z;l?0.f;~?'IT~ ":,:~~r;m.l~t:[}tffh,~ d) Fees charged to cover the costs incurred byt'he~COQ~~Jon Authority resulting from Delegation of Review shall':'birreco'",~ff6~development '%:ii;'"): ~dT^'"'""l'S" '~~) Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0106 RES #D33/96 - METRO RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Status of Metro Rural Clean Water Program Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Metro Rural Clean Water Program be received. ...................................... . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1995 The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority applied to Environment Canada (Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund) for funding to develop a rural surface water quality improvement program within its area of jurisdiction. The MTRCA was successful in obtaining that funding and at its meeting #5, held on October 6/95 The Water and Related Management Board of the MTRCA adopted in part Resolution #W68/95: "AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to accelerate the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program by pursuing alternate funding to improve water quality in all rural areas of the Authority's jurisdiction through the creation and implementation of the Metro Rural Clean Water Program. " The purpose of the Metro Rural Clean Water Program is to address rural non-point source pollution within the Metro Toronto and Region Area of Concern (AOC) over a five year period. In accordance with the Metro RAP Stage II document "Clean Water, Clear Choices" the Program targets those "actions" which relate to rural water quality improvement, namely: Action 3 - Improve controls on agricultural practices Action 26 - Promote education on water conservation and other water issues Action 27 - Promote education on the use of fertilizers and pesticides The Metro Rural Clean Water Program is also highlighted in the draft Goals and Objectives of the Humber Strategy as a means of promoting proper farm management practices including controlling runoff from manure storage and restricting livestock access to streams. The Program addresses these concerns by providing technical and financial assistance and public extensionleducation services to rural residents. More specifically it: 1) integrates soil, crop, livestock and water management issues 2) reduces nutrient, bacteria and sediment loadings to the Great Lakes from within the Metro Toronto and Region AOC 3) increases public education and awareness and 4) demonstrates technology which is transferable to other AOC's. The Program encourages "at source" as opposed to "end-of-pipe" pollution control. 0107 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 Over the past year ten remedial projects were completed with private landowners, eight of which were in the Humber River watershed. Of these eight projects one septic system was repaired, one manure storage was constructed, three livestock access restriction projects were completed and three riparianlwindbreak plantings were conducted. It was estimated that the projects reduced annual bacteria loadings to the Humber River by 2.4 X 1013 E. coli. Total annual phosphorus loading reductions were estimated to be 46.2 kg. Approximately 1.77 km of the riparian zone has either been rehabilitated or protected since 1993 and 200 m of windbreaks have been planted to reduce soil erosion from fields. In its first year of operation the Metro Rural Clean Water Program has prompted private landowners to take charge and improve surface water quality on their properties. Such participation should continue to be encouraged as it is essential to the successful implementation of the Humber River Watershed Strategy. Report prepared by: Ann Marie Weselan (ext. 323) RES. #D34/96 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Completion of shoreline erosion control work along the Fishleigh Drive sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, Lake Ontario waterfront. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the completion of the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" at a total cost of $160,000 subject to confirmation of funding approval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project was approved under the Class Environmental Assessment process in 1988. Construction of the access road to the site was completed in 1989. Construction of the shoreline erosion control works commenced in 1990 and has progressed annually and is now approximately 95% complete based on the approved design. A total of 375 metres of shoreline protection has been completed to date. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0108 In 1994, a working committee was established with representatives from the community, Metropolitan Toronto, City of Scarborough, Waterfront Regeneration Trust and local politicians to review the final details of the easterly termination of the shoreline protection. On October 24, 1995, the Authority approved, with the support of the Fishleigh Drive Working Committee, the revised design. The Committee members have met on numerous occasions throughout 1995 and 1 996 to review the progress of the work and to support its completion. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is important that the remaining uncompleted section at the easterly end be final armoured to ensure the long term structural integrity of the existing erosion control protection works. This requires the supply and placement of 4-6 tonne quarry stone to final armour the easterly headland, and the supply and placement of small cobble-size stone to construct approximately 100 metres of beach extending to the base of the bluffs. Minor grading and plantings are proposed to be undertaken to complete this project. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget to carry out the work in 1996 is $160,000. The Fishleigh Drive Working Committee continues to seek support from the province to ensure funds are provided to complete the shoreline protection works in 1996. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is currently considering its contribution given the uncertainty of the provincial funding. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account No. 138-03 has been set up for this project. For information contact: Nigel Cowey (ext.244) 0109 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 ----; --- ::.. ~ =~ .,.. .... - - .. ....... ~ - '..'-.....-- -""' ,:; 71 -: ~ ~ \ \, - -:: =.::' . \ \ , ~ ~ H~ i :: '\ - - -I =-.; .2. ~ - ~ " .. - .. 2 ~ ,; - ~ .. . T~ e . - , - - - .... ., - t "- t -..' \... -- "' ~ "0 , '\ ~ \~~ 0- ~ '" ~ " ~- _ 0 ~ci: " a-C c-= - " -; 3 .; ..-VI I -z_ I . _ Ii a.. -= I -= ; _ 'I: -- ;... :-' j :) - ",.., i-I ; . I' i..".. - - ' ' II ,.. :: : I :. !J-J..- :. - - t .: I = ~ !. 1 a. I _.~ C,.; :::... ' ~ - ~; In Ii i ~ I f- J iJ.. -:.... :.; · ~ = I;.;, ; ~ :1f~ I = CL _": i: w ~ ~ ::z: 1-. i J .- it: I - I .:- = ;.. ; ;: ::" r j !. J. : ~, :L I ..:: .:::; :.. ;- 2iX Jt. 1.1.... I -- 1_ - r ~ 1 ! I! I E 1j it. I ~ i:! = . - . ....... . ... : :....:: ... ......- ....--- Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0110 RES. #035/96 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Work Plan for 1996 Verbal Staff Presentation. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT the verbal report and slide presentation on the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Work Plan for 1996 be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED RES. #036/96 - WEED CONTROL ACT Staff is providing, as directed, a report outlining the impact of the provincial Weed Control Act on Authority operations Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the impact of the provincial Weed Control Act on Authority operations be received; THAT the Province of Ontario be asked to review the Weed Control Act in order to ensure that the provisions of the Act are consistent with efforts to naturalize open space areas; THAT staff be directed to advise local municipalities of the Authority's efforts to naturalize its properties, and that we ask municipal weed inspectors to exercise discretion in the issuing of Orders to Destroy Noxious Weeds or Weed Seeds related to Authority properties; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority ask the assistance of municipalities in educating the public with regard to its naturalization efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND At Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #3/96, staff was directed by Resolution #W29/96 to "prepare a report for a future meeting of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board concerning the Ontario Weeds Act and its impact on Authority operations". The Weed Control Act. R.S.O. 1990. Chaoter W.5 requires the owners of lands to destroy noxious weeds located on their property. Regulations made under the Act list twenty-three plants which are considered "noxious weeds". These include Canada thistle, wild carrot and milkweed. In addition, the Act allows for the designation of further "Iocal weeds" by municipal by-law. For the most part, plants were designated because of deleterious effects on agriculture, however a few designated species, such as poison ivy, are potentially harmful to humans. It was not the intent of the Act to require the destruction of weeds for aesthetic reasons. II .~ " " 0111 Water and Related Land Management Advis.ory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 The WAArI ~nntrnl Act requires municipal councils to appoint weed inspectors to enforce the Act. Under Section 11 (1) of the Act, where an inspector finds a listed weed, the inspector rDa.'fl order the destruction of the weed. Once an order is issued, if the owner does not carry out the destruction of the weed, the municipality may do so at the owner's expense. It should be noted that, in addition to the provincial WAArI ~nntrnl Act, municipalities generally have in place property standards by-laws which are used to require the cutting of properties. Unlike the WAArI ~nntrnl Act, these by-laws may be based on aesthetic considerations. The origins of the WAArI ~nntrnl Act go back to legislation enacted in 1866. The intent of this legislation was to control the spread of Canada thistle and the reasons behind it were clearly related to agricultural considerations. Virtually all jurisdictions in North America now have separate weed control legislation for urban and rural areas. Ontario is unusual in that it uses the same piece of legislation, the WAArI ~nntrnl Act, to cover agricultural and non-agricultural settings. DISCUSSION To all intents and purposes, most public lands in urban areas have been exempted from the Weed ~nntrnl Act in that municipalities do not issue weed control orders to themselves. The Authority is an exception to this however, in that it is generally treated in the same way as any private land owner. In the past few years, the Authority has received an increased number of weed control orders, with most of these coming from the City of Vaughan and the Region of Durham. This has been driven by two factors: . Subdivision development has increased the incidence of residential development adjacent to natural areas owned by the Authority. In most cases, the Authority owned these lands prior to development being initiated. . In recent years the Authority has endeavoured to renaturalize many of its properties, in particular those which are not used for active recreation. These efforts have taken the form of changes to maintenance practices and the planting of native species. These two factors have led some members of the public, particularly adjacent homeowners, to complain to their municipality. Concerned parties have sometimes used the provisions of the Weed ~nntrnl Act as a lever to ensure that properties are cut. The Authority has received orders to destroy weeds from municipalities and has had no option but to cut the property, or to have the municipality carry out the work at a much higher cost. This has meant reallocation of limited operating budgets, drawing resources away from other high priority activities. Since enforcement of the WAArI ~nntrnl Act is generally complaint based, the number of weed control orders received by the Authority varies from year to year. In general, approximately five orders are received each year. In addition, the Act does not require an order to be issued for properties of less than one acre. This means that, from time to time, the Authority does not receive an order, but receives an invoice for cutting, after the fact. More significant than the actual orders received, is the general impediment to naturalization efforts presented by weed control legislation. The WAArI ~nntrnl Act and municipal weed control by-laws are out of step with contemporary trends in park landscaping and maintenance. As the maintenance practices of the Authority and municipal parks departments continue to evolve toward greater naturalization, conflicts related to weed control legislation are likely to increase. ;:;..., "".% ..>.,~ " . 'I . .... ,-.~. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0112 DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE To date Authority staff has pursued revision to the Wp.p.d Contrnl Ar:t through discussion with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the Ontario Parks Association and other interest groups. Thus far, OMAFRA staff have been reluctant to consider revision to the Act to make it more consistent with naturalization initiatives. Staff feel however, that these changes to the Weed Control Act would be consistent with the efforts being made by the current provincial government to streamline regulation and reduce "red tape". Staff will continue to pursue this option along with ongoing discussions with municipal weed inspectors and various measures to educate the public regarding the value of natural areas. Report prepared by: Andy Wickens (ext. 252) RES. #37/96 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #4196 (April 2, 1996), #5/96 (April 30, 1996) and #6/96 (May 28, 1996) are provided for information. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #4/96 (April 2, 1996), #5/96 (April 30, 1996) and #6/96 (May 28, 1996), be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Memher!';hip Sp.lp.r:tion Rp.porting Prnr:p.dllre!'; and Term!'; of Referenr:e for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandatp. of thp. Hllmhp.r Watp.r!';hp.d Ta!';k Fnrr:p. "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related land Management Advisory Board." Copies of the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #4/96 (April 2, 1996), #5/96 (April 30, 1996) and #6/96 (May 28, 1996) are provided. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (ext. 331) .', ~ C t,ee' 0113 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 RES #038/96 - CANADIAN HERITAGE RIVER SYSTEM To establish a Nominating Committee to promote the nomination of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. Moved by: Jim McMaster seconded by: lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to establish, in consultation wih the Chair, a Nominating Committee to assist with the nomination of the Humber River under the Canadian Heritage River System. AMENDMENT RES #039/96 Moved by: Lois Griffin Seconded by: Lois Hancey THAT the Chair of the Humber River Watershed Task Force be appointed as a member of the nominating committee to assist with the nomination of the Humber River under the Canadian Heritage River System. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND On May 31, 1996, some MTRCA staff and Humber Task Force members met with representatives of the Canadian Heritage River System to discuss the feasibility of nominating the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. A presentation was made by CHRS staff detailing the process and requirements for the nomination of a river in the Canadian Heritage River System. MTRCA staff responded with a presentation detailing the background research, strategy development and public consultation process (including constituency building) which has been undertaken for the Humber River Watershed since late 1994. As a result of this discussion, CHRS staff were fully supportive of the MTRCA continuing to work towards the nomination of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. WORK TO BE DONE The Authority needs to establish a high profile Nominating Committee composed of individuals from political, professional and private sectors who are committed to securing the nomination and designation of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. Report prepared by: Madelyn Webb (ext. 331) Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #4/96, June 21, 1996 0114 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:35 a.m., June 21, 1996. Lois Griffin Craig MathAr Chair Secretary-Treasurer Ipl ~ -- , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #5/96 September 13, 1996 Page D 11 5 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, September 13, 1996. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair lIa Bossons ................................................ Member Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Joan King .................................................. Member Jim McMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES. #040/96 - MINUTES Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Lois Hancey THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/96, held June 21, 1996, be approved. . . . .. CARRIED 0116 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 RES. #041/96 - WATERFRONT PROGRESS REPORT Slide Presentation Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THA T the verbal report and slide presentation on the Waterfront Progress Report be received .................................................. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #042/96 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 Continuation of the site development at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke. Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1996 development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at a total cost of $410,000. AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to complete the development of the south basin wetland and the interpretive trail at a total cost of $100,000. . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority completed the installation of conduit, wiring and pole bases for the roadway and parking lot lighting in 1994. In addition, approximately 800 metres of pathway base was completed providing linkage to the Metro Waterfront Trail and the public promenade. The Promenade and Weir Bridge Contract was completed in the Summer of 1994. Tree and shrub plantings were completed along the Promenade in late August 1994, including the installation of an irrigation system. In addition, benches were installed in November along the public promenade. t:-o'~) .; Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0117 - Final grading and landscaping of the wetland area in the north easterly portion of the lakefilled site was completed in 1994 with implementation of "interpretive trails" in 1995. In addition, final grading and landscaping of an additional wetland area adjacent to the east edge of the boating basin was also completed in 1994 and 1995. In 1995, the parking lot and road was paved. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The major development components proposed for 1996 are set out on a priority basis. A brief project description is as follows: Site Develooment Activitv (1 ) Interim Site Management The northerly portion of the park was originally opened to public use in the summer of 1992. The Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Culture Department will continue with interim maintenance of this area in 1996. The M.T.R.C.A. continues to monitor and maintain the south portion of the uncompleted park area. This work includes site security, general cleanup and monitoring of the outer shoreline beaches and headlands. The total budget for this work is $20,000. (2) Site Grading and Final Landscaping The initial phase of landscaping, including tree and shrub planting, topsoiling and hydroseeding was completed along the westerly arm in 1995. In addition, interim landscaping was completed to link the area between the easterly end of the Promenade and the wetland creation along the easterly interior arm of the boating basin. The work to be carried out in 1996 includes completion of landscaping within the northerly park area; landscaping of the berms; paving of pathway sections; topsoiling and seeding; and tree and shrub plantings. The total budget for this work is $115,000. (3) Design and Analysis For Final Shoreline Treatment To carry out an assessment of the shoreline profiles and alignment and complete a design for final shoreline armouring. A consultant will be retained to undertake a coastal engineering analysis of the outer beaches, headland structure and entrance breakwater. The total budget for this work is $25,000. ~ _'1o!jt. 0118 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 (4) Final Armouring of Hardpoint 4 Subject to recommendations from the coastal analysis and final designs for the outer exposed shoreline, it is proposed that final shoreline protection works be extended in 1 996. Total budget for this work to be completed in 1996 is $250,000. Natural Habitat Area South Basin Wetland The Colonel Samuel Smith Park South Basin Wetland Project received funding in the amount of $100,000 from Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto RAP fund to create wetland habitat adjacent to the south shore of the boat basin. Construction began in March 1996. The MTRCA nursery planted 2,104 shrubs and trees this spring. This summer Environmental Youth Corps students and volunteers have planted over 100 cattails, 200 soft-stem bulrush and 1,125 other wetland plants. Also, five fish habitat structures were placed in 18 feet of water within an embayment of the boat basin. Final hydro seeding and other final touches are expected to be completed in the spring of 1997. Total budget for this work is $100,000. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget for the 1996 site development components is $410,000 under Account No. 204. Funding in the amount of $100,000 for the Natural Habitat Areas will be provided by Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and the Metropolitan Toronto RAP. This work will be carried out under the "lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999, approved at Authority Meeting No.1 /94 , March 4, 1994. For information contact: Nigel Cowey, Ext. 244 -' \. - ,( J; <A Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 D119 -- RES. #043/96 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 1996 Waterfront Monitoring Program Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue the implementation of the Waterfront Monitoring Program at an estimated cost of $90,000 in 1996, to be funded under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995- 1999". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) has conducted environmental investigations to describe the physical and biological conditions associated with selected waterfront locations. The results of the various monitoring programs are included in Technical Reports, Management Plans, Data Summary Documents, Fish Compensation Plans, and Park Master Plans. The objectives of the program are as follows : . Augment the present state of knowledge of lake processes by further research, data collection and analysis. . Ensure that Authority projects comply with the environmental standards of regulatory agencies. . Generate waterfront development plans that integrate enhancement opportunities into the design, and guarantee the environmental integrity of the site is maintained or improved. . Seek to integrate the monitoring efforts of various agencies to avoid duplication and provide maximum benefit from collective efforts. Within the scope of the MTRCA mandate, the Waterfront Monitoring Program supports many aspects of the Watershed Management Division including: . Shoreline Management Plans; . Project Planning; . Fish and Wildlife Management and Research; . Tommy Thompson Park (Interim Management, Master Plan Implementation); . Plan Input and Review; . Metro Toronto RAP (Coordination of Waterfront RAP Projects); . Coastal Environmentally Significant Areas. ~ 0120 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE The 1996 Waterfront Monitoring Program will investigate environmental conditions along the shoreline with specific efforts directed within Col. Sam Smith Waterfront Park, Tommy Thompson Park, East Point Park, Scarborough Shoreline, Eastern Beaches, and various Coastal Marshes. Environmental monitoring will be conducted within the Coastal Marshes at the mouths of the Humber River, the Rouge River, and the Duffins Creek. Where applicable, monitoring efforts will be directed at investigating as many components of the waterfront ecosystem as possible. Baseline monitoring typically includes investigations into sediment quality, water quality, sediment deposition rates, fish habitat assessment, fish and wildlife community assessment, and benthic invertebrate collections. Special studies slated for 1996 include; marsh bird monitoring, waterfront herptofaunal survey, and a waterfront littoral habitat survey. The Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program has provided insight into the complex ecosystem of the lake Ontario shoreline, and assists in the development and implementation of many of the Authority's shoreline regeneration projects. The monitoring program is critical for establishing baseline environmental conditions for the planning and implementation of future projects like the proposed Motel Strip, Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Program, and Integrated Shoreline Management. This environmental information provides a foundation of knowledge that allows the integration of habitat and environmental enhancement opportunities into Waterfront development projects. The habitat enhancement opportunities outlined in the lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Projects, 1995-1999 are a direct result of knowledge gained through the Monitoring Program. The Authority has become a resource of environmental information on the waterfront which is extensively utilized by government agencies, public interest groups, and academic institutions. The Authority has also coordinated joint Environmental Monitoring Projects and collaborated with outside agencies on projects with mutual interests. The Waterfront Monitoring Program is a critical activity that provides a valuable perspective on the ecosystem of the lake Ontario shoreline. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget to implement the 1996 Waterfront Monitoring Program is $90,000 and is comprised of the following components: labour $45,000 Vehicle and Equipment $20,000 lab Analytical Services $25.000 Total $90,000. , ~'I Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0121 -- The program is funded under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995- 1999" under Account no. 240-01. For information contact: Gord MacPherson, Ext. 246 RES. #044/96 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK POSTER To provide details on the development of the Tommy Thompson Park information poster. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the information related to the Tommy Thompson Park poster be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1996, staff designed and produced an information poster for Tommy Thompson Park. The objectives for this project were as follows: . Promote the Park as a unique urban wilderness and highlight its natural and physical characteristics. . Highlight the roles of the MTRCA, Friends of the Spit, Environment Canada and any other "partners." - Provide general information to the public about habitat, conservation and land ethics, and other natural processes. . Foster partnerships with organizations such as Friends of the Spit in order to focus their role in the future management and implementation of Tommy Thompson Park. The poster distribution was officially launched at the Tommy Thompson Memorial Day organized and hosted by Metro Parks and Culture on June 29, 1996. As part of the ceremony, a framed copy of the poster was presented to Mrs. Beryl Thompson. The production of the Tommy Thompson Park poster was a partnership of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Environment Canada - Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Friends of the Spit, Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan, and Metro Region Conservation. 0122 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Copies of the poster are currently available for distribution to the public at Tommy Thompson Park, the MTRCA Head Office, Kortright, and at Access Metro. Announcement and further distribution of the poster will be achieved through mailings, hand-outs at various corporate events and display, and information in the Tommy Thompson Park Newsletter. FUTURE BENEFITS The Tommy Thompson Park poster will assist the Authority in identifying and highlighting its role in watershed management and habitat creation and restoration. The use of the poster to promote sites such as Tommy Thompson Park, and highlight the ongoing habitat protection and enhancement will help to build support for future environmental enhancement projects by the MTRCA and our municipal and local partners. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for the Tommy Thompson Park poster has been provided as follows: Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund $5,000 Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan $5,000 For information contact: Scott Jarvie, Ext. 31 2 RES. #045/96 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK Habitat Creation/Restoration Projects 1996-97 To provide information on the habitat creation/restoration projects to be implemented at Tommy Thompson Park in 1996-97. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1996-97 Habitat Creation/Restoration Projects at Tommy Thompson Park be approved. . . . . . .. CARRIED Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0123 - BACKGROUND In 1995, staff prepared three proposals outlining specific habitat creation/restoration projects for Tommy Thompson Park. These proposals were submitted for funding consideration under Environment Canada's Great lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and received verbal approval on July 10, 1996. The purpose of these projects is to create, enhance and rehabilitate terrestrial and aquatic habitats at Tommy Thompson Park through a multi-year implementation program. The projects will be designed to enhance and protect the significant habitat features that have previously evolved at the Park; link habitat features through the creation of nodes and corridors; provide critical habitat features for a variety of wildlife; and, evaluate specific soil conditioning techniques and land treatments for consideration during ongoing restoration activities at this site. The implementation of these projects provides an excellent opportunity to undertake habitat creation and enhancement using techniques and principles that are consistent with the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan, and that are in keeping with the unique characteristics of the Park. The goal and objectives of these projects are as follows: Goal To enhance and diversify the terrestrial and wetland habitats along the Toronto Waterfront and specifically at Tommy Thompson Park through conservation design and the implementation of specific habitat components. Obiectives - Create functional habitat for a variety of wildlife including regionally rare, threatened and endangered species, through structural habitat diversity. . Establish a variety of native terrestrial and wetland plants and promote the development of successional plant communities through soil conditioning. . Coordinate habitat rehabilitation with other organizations using a cooperative approach and partnerships. The overall guiding principle in these habitat creation projects is the philosophy that "diversity of habitat, promotes a diversity of wildlife communities". The function of this philosophy is that habitat diversity will provide the following conditions for both resident and migratory wildlife communities: .' 0124 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 . important nurturing areas for immature, and juvenile individuals. . reduce predation by improving shelter. . provide high primary production. . shelter from harsh conditions. . significant foraging areas. A brief description of each project is as follows: Terrestrial Habitat Creation/Enhancement Project This project will involve the rehabilitation of an area at Tommy Thompson Park that has been lakefilled and abandoned as part of the Park construction. The project site is located in an area currently leased to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners as part of the ongoing lakefilling operations at Tommy Thompson Park. The project will be designed to enhance and protect the habitat features that have previously evolved in the project area; link other habitat features at Tommy Thompson Park through the creation of nodes and corridors; provide critical and functional habitat features for a variety of wildlife species; and evaluate specific soil conditioning techniques and land treatments for consideration during ongoing restoration activities at this site. Implementation will include landform grading, tree and shrub regeneration, and the inclusion of structural habitat features using a variety of aggregate and woody materials. Embayment 'c' Habitat Enhancement Project The site specific goal of this project is to enhance the existing habitat within Embayment C in order to create a structurally and biologically diverse shoreline, wetland and littoral habitat and to increase the abundance and sustainability of native wildlife populations through the provision of specific habitat components. In order to achieve this goal, implementation activities will include the construction of underwater shoals and reefs in this location and diversify the shoreline area through wetland plantings. Aquatic structural habitat diversity will be created by providing a diversity of substrate types and conditions. Aggregate material (rock, gravel, rubble) will be strategically placed in a manner that provides vertical relief and maximizes interstitial spaces. Woody material (brush, logs, roots) will be anchored in deep water and/or partially submerged in order to provide fish refuge, basking and loafing areas for turtles and waterfowl. A variety of emergent, submergent and terrestrial vegetation will be established in nodes along the project area shoreline. The site will be inoculated with plant material through the use of seeds, cuttings, propagules and transplants. The use of nodal planting will assist natural successional processes in the development of a wetland habitat feature along the shoreline. Natural Resource Area Habitat Enhancement Project This project involves the integration of small habitat features and critical habitat components into the existing habitats within the Natural Resource Area at Tommy Thompson Park. The emphasis will be placed on creating and restoring habitat features that will diversify the overall mosaic of habitats present at Tommy Thompson Park, and provide critical habitat function for target wildlife species including amphibians, reptiles, fish, small mammals and resident and migratory birds. ,;i~'w};~ '> . i,,,, Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0125 Structural habitat enhancements will include seasonal and permanent pond areas, cover areas that provide protection from predators; and logs, stumps and flat rocks to provide cover, loafing and basking areas. Seasonally and permanently flooded areas will be diversified using a variety of suitable aquatic plants. Techniques for collecting and transplanting wetland plant materials will focus on plants salvaged from area slated for development within the Portlands, using volunteers to grow wetland plants from locally collected seed, and nursery stock planting. DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will initiate the detailed planning and design preparation upon receipt of written approval from Environment Canada. Details on design, habitat and community types, target species and vegetation species selection will be developed through a design workshop to be held in late August 1996. Based on this workshop, detailed design drawings, grading plans and planting plans will be developed. Site preparation and grading will be undertaken from mid-September through January 1997. Structural habitat features and components will be incorporated at this time. Vegetation planting (aquatic and terrestrial) and regeneration will be undertaken during the 1997 spring planting season. Planting plans and habitat designs outlining the location and extent of various habitat features will be developed to ensure that the components of the habitat project fulfill the objectives outlined above. The designs will be planned so that the function of each component will be enhanced by the close proximity of another component. Volunteer support will be solicited from interest groups to assist with various components of the implementation and monitoring of the project and community outreach will be achieved through public planting activities and participation in other components of the project implementation. FUTURE BENEFITS The anticipated results and benefits of this habitat enhancement project are as follows: . Creation and enhancement of approximately 75 hectares of terrestrial and wetland habitat. . An increase in the abundance and richness of both adult and young-of-the-year fish, bird life, mammals and herptofauna. . Increased public awareness and educational opportunities related to habitat enhancement techniques and the specific habitat requirements of fish, bird, mammal and herp species. . Foster ongoing partnerships with interest groups and agencies related to habitat management on the Toronto Waterfront. " .~ 0126 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 . Advance the science of habitat creation/enhancement for transfer to other AGC's or areas within the Great Lakes Basin. This project represents one of the long term implementation goals identified and approved in the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. Habitat projects like these will assist the Authority in highlighting the ongoing habitat protection and enhancement of lands within its jurisdiction and will help to build support for future environmental enhancement projects by the MTRCA and our municipal and local partners. FINANCIAL DETAilS For 1996-97, funding for these three projects has been provided by Environment Canada's Great lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan as follows: Terrestrial Habitat Creation/Enhancement Project Environment Canada's Great lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund - $ 50,000 Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan - $ 50,000 Embayment ~C' Habitat Enhancement Project Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund - $ 50,000 Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan - $ 50,000 Natural Resource Area Habitat Enhancement Project Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund - $ 50,000 Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan - $ 50,000 Total $300,000 For information contact: Scott Jarvie, Ext. 312 RES. #046/96 - CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES PROGRAM The Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program 1995/96 Annual Report. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated August 28, 1996, on the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program be received. . . . . .. CARRIED Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0127 - BACKGROUND In 1991 the Authority produced a Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan which identified bacterial pollution sources, estimated their impact on water quality and presented remedial options necessary to improve water quality in the Centreville Creek (within the Humber River watershed), Bruce Creek (within the Rouge River watershed) and East Humber River watersheds. At Meeting #8/91, held on November 29, 1991, the Authority adopted Res. #242/91 which states in part: "THA T THE Authority enter into a five year agreement with the Ministry of Environment to implement the Clean Up Rural Beaches Program to improve water quality within the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority watersheds; II Under the CURB Program residents were eligible to receive financial assistance to control livestock access to watercourses, properly dispose of milkhouse washwater from dairy operations, construct manure storage and repair or replace faulty septic systems. The Program focused on rural watersheds with downstream beaches. Funding for the projects was cost shared between the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy and the landowner. The Authority has completed the fifth year of the five year program. Over the course of this final year, 11 applications were submitted by interested residents within the three target watersheds. These were reviewed by a local committee made up of representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Peel and York Region Health Units and Peel and York Region Soil and Crop Improvement Associations. A representative from the York Region On-Site Sewage System Branch also attended the meetings to provide input. The distribution of projects amongst the watersheds, committee approvals and completion status of the projects were as follows: Seotic Svstem Livestock Access Centreville Creek 1 approved/not completed 1 denied Bruce Creek 2 approved/one completed East Humber River 2 approved/not completed 1 approved/completed 4 denied In addition to project implementation, staff continued to be active in the rural community by participating in tours, agricultural meetings and local fairs. Water quality displays and flyers were utilized to publicize the program and further knowledge of rural water quality issues. 0128 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 Routine and project-specific water quality monitoring was conducted from May to August. Samples collected at swimming areas under wet weather conditions generally had higher bacteria levels than those collected under dry weather conditions. For Bruce's Mill it was found that geometric mean levels of f.. ~ bacteria (dry and wet weather) exceeded Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO's) for recreational use. Geometric mean levels at Albion Hills were below Provincial Objectives but did exceed the Objectives on three occasions during precipitation events. Wet weather geometric mean levels within Boyd Conservation Area were above PWQO's while dry weather events were below. Many benefits have been realized through the implementation of the MTRCA CURB Program. In addition to a reduction in bacteria loadings to local watercourses, the CURB Program has fuelled the local economy by creating jobs. The Program has also brought water quality issues to the forefront in the rural communities and strengthened relationships between the Authority and local landowners. FUTURE WORK In November, 1995, the Ministry of Environment and Energy announced the cancellation of the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. The MTRCA has always recognized the need to improve water quality and at its Meeting #9/95, held on October 27, 1995, the Authority adopted Res. #A244/95 which states in part: "AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to accelerate the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program by pursuing alternate funding to improve water Quality in all rural areas of the Authority's jurisdiction through the creation and implementation of the Metro Rural Clean Water Program. " Staff have received approval from Environment Canada (Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund) to implement the Metro Rural Clean Water Program for a second year. This program addresses rural, surface water quality impairments within the Metro Toronto and Region Area of Concern (AOC). In addition, staff continue to pursue partnerships with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, other provincial and federal agencies and private citizens to further surface water quality improvement. Report prepared by: Ann Marie Weselan, Ext. 323 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0129 RES. #047/96- GTA FLOOD WARNING COMMITTEE Status of GT A Authorities streamlining of FLOOD Warning Systems. Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on the GT A Flood Warning Committee be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to work with other conservation authorities in the GT A to coordinate and streamline flood warning activities. .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Conservation Authorities within the Greater Toronto Area have been working together to define areas where a streamlining of services and functions would be beneficial in ensuring a consistent level of service and eliminating unwanted duplication of services across the six Authorities within the GT A. Previously, each Authority worked independently in forecasting of flooding events and in warning the municipalities within our area of jurisdiction. With this independent approach, there was little or no consistency in technical capabilities, techniques used, data collected or the manner in which FLOOD messages were worded or sent out. These differences have led to some confusion in municipalities with two or more Authorities. Occasionally, one Authority would issue a FLOOD alert and the other would not. In addition, each Authority utilized different wording within their messages to describe the forecast event which could also lead to confusion, such as calling the message a FLOOD Alert or a FLOOD Advisory. Under some circumstances, a Municipality which had two or more Authorities within it could get messages with conflicting information relating to amounts of rain expected or timing of the event. A further area of evident overlap deals with the annual updating of FLOOD contingency manuals. Within those municipalities with more than a single Authority, the same information was being requested by each Authority, in some cases up to four times. While it is recognized that each local Authority has specific knowledge relating to flooding along the watercourses under its jurisdiction which necessitates the forecasting continuing to be done at a local level, many areas of duplication and streamlining are available to be acted upon. The GT A FLOOD Warning Committee has been actively working towards these goals. STATUS The committee dealing with the FLOOD Warning components within the GT A has been meeting to streamline components of FLOOD warning. To this end the following actions have been taken; 0130 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 Terminoloav At present, the six Authorities within the Greater Toronto Area use terminology within their FLOOD messages and name these messages somewhat differently. This Authority used the term ADVISORY for advising of a potential FLOOD while other Authorities used ALERT. Within municipalities where an overlap in jurisdiction occurs, this has lead to confusion. . Message names (all Authorities have agreed to use the following titles for FLOOD messages: - FLOOD Alert (Municipal message) - FLOOD Warning (Municipal message) - FLOOD Safety Advisory (School message) The Authorities have also agreed to ensure that the terminology and content within the messages will be consistent. The use of consistent terminology and naming of messages will eliminate confusion at the Municipalities which have overlapping Authorities and allow for a more effective response to a FLOOD emergency. Distribution of FLOOD Messaaes To show consistency and co-operation between Authorities within the GTA, the following actions have been taken.: . Spring FLOOD Messages ( as a group, The GT A Authorities issued a consistent GT A message in March this year, a similar message will be issued annually) . Press contacts (we have agreed to continue to issue independently as there is only marginal overlap and duplicate messages to the press were not considered a significant problem). FLOOD Contact Lists To eliminate duplication of effort at the Municipal and Authority level: . Municipal Contacts (The GT A Authorities have streamlined the contact list for both FLOOD Message delivery and for contact in relation to updating manuals. One Authority has been designated as principal contact for either or both of these issues. A letter will be sent to each Municipality outlining the process and their principal Authority contact prior to the next FLOOD Warning Manual update in January of 1996). ~"' \"" Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0131 -- Weather Data . The GT A Authorities are developing alternative sources of weather forecast data and developing protocols for data sharing amongst Authorities. Maintenance . The GT A Authorities are investigating the potential to share maintenance capabilities across our watersheds. Forecasting . The GT A Authorities have agreed to ensure a minimum level of Forecasting capability across the GT A. The MTRCA lotus model will be used as the basis for this approach. FUTURE DIRECTION The above issues are short term and should be implemented before the fall. The committee have also broached the subject of long term(future) GT A considerations, these will include: . Development of a generic FLOOD contingency plan. . FLOOD warning and forecasting system information seminars for the municipalities. . FLOOD data base development to ensure consistency in information available to our municipalities. . Emergency preparedness training. Implementation of the future works related to streamlining the GT A FLOOD forecasting and warning process will lead to a more effective and efficient level of FLOOD emergency planning and response. For information contact: Don Haley, Ext.226 0132 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 - RES. #048/96- DON V ALLEY BRICK WORKS FUNDING Request to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for release of remaining capital funding. Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Valley Brick Works Regeneration Project be amended to increase the share for Metropolitan Toronto from $2,250,000, by $250,000, to coincide with the total amount from Metro for the Project of $2,500,000 as shown in the Authority's multi-year capital forecast; THA T Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve this increase as part of the 1997 capital budget process; THAT The Conservation Foundation for Greater Toronto be thanked for its tremendous success in surpassing the target for fundraising; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to seek additional funding to further the development and enhancement of all aspects of the project including but not limited to the stabilization of the heritage complex and the interpretation of the site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1993, the Authority adopted the Don Valley Brickworks Regeneration Project. The Project was designed: "To protect, enhance and rehabilitate the provincially significant natural and cultural heritage site through provincial, local and private sector commitment to environmental, cultural and economic renewal within a strategic section of the Don River green way corridor. To demonstrate government commitment and public support to restore the Don River Watershed. To open for public use, education and enjoyment a 16.5 ha (40.7 acres) greenspace area in a densely populated portion of the province. To create 2590 person weeks of employment." In 1994, the Province and subsequently The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto confirmed funding for the first phase of the project. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto had initially identified $2.5 million for the project. $250,000 of this amount was reserved when the Foundation of Greater Toronto agreed to raise a portion of the funds. The final funding formula for Phase One of the project was: Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0133 - Province of Ontario (jobsOntario) $2.25 million Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto $2.25 million Conservation Foundation .6 million The $5.1 million (including $100,000 to offset the expenses of the Foundation in fundraising) has enabled a substantial amount of work to be undertaken on site. This has included the regeneration of the landmark valley chimney, the removal of a number of structures, the refurbishment of a two pavilions for outdoor event use, the opening of Mud Creek, the stabilization of four buildings including masonry, foundations, roofs and windows; the development of one building to provide amenities for visitors to the site; environmental audit; and clean up and site servicing. The Conservation Foundation, community members and the staff of the Authority have continued to seek additional sources of funding recognizing that the initial $5.1 million represents only the first phase of work. The Foundation has recently advised that in addition to meeting the target of $600,000, a further substantial donation in excess of $500,000 is anticipated. The Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund has provided $120,000 to enhance the wetland areas and the opening of Mud Creek. Members of the community are also mounting innovative campaigns to assist in funding key features that can not be accommodated in the original $5.1 million funding envelope. RA TIONALE The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto originally allocated $2.5 million dollars in the Authority's portion of the Metro capital forecast for the Brick Works Project. Only $2,250,000 has been requested thus far. The Metro report dated June 1, 1994 to Council at the time of the earlier request stated: "The 1994 to 1998 Capital Works Program adopted by Metro Council provides for an amount of $2,500,000.00, for this project, of which $2,250,000.00 is now being requested for approval." The currently available funding falls short in terms of the stabilization of a number of the buildings on site which should be carried out prior to the completion of Phase One work. It is estimated that approximately 1 million dollars in additional funds are required to carry out essential structural work, masonry, and roofing for 3 of the oldest buildings on site. The Authority requests that the additional $250,000 be allocated during 1997 to the project to enable the work to be completed prior to the site opening. Authority staff will continue to seek other sources of funding including donations from corporations, other levels of government and the public to achieve the completion of major building stabilization. The contributions from Great Lakes 2000 combined with the higher than expected contributions to the Foundation, more than matches the additional $250,000 requested from Metro. f #, , ~ ~..,. ....I,!" l ~ -, ': 0134 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 - FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS The completion of the stabilization of the buildings on the site is essential for their protection. Delay in this work will result in escalating deterioration. If the buildings are not stabilized a larger portion of the site will require fencing detracting from the public use and enjoyment of the site. For information contact: Adele Freeman, Ext. 238 RES. #049/96- DON WATERSHED REGEN ERA TION COUNCIL The minutes of Meeting #4/96, June 27, 1996 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #4/96, of June 27, 1996, be received.CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land 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, Ext 238 '~ Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0135 -- RES. #050/96 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE Minutes of Meetings #7/96 and #8/96 Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #7/96 (June 25, 1996) and #8/96 (July 23, 1996), be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Membershio Selection. Reoortina Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board." Copies of the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #7/96 (June 25, 1996) and #8/96 (July 23, 1996) are provided. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Madelyn Webb, Ext. 331 0136 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 RES. #051/96 - NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED The Rouge Park Alliance initiates the implementation of an integrated Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Program for the Rouge River watershed. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the attached Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Program for the Rouge River watershed be receiQItRRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #10/95, held on December 18, 1995, the Rouge Alliance adopted resolution # 109/95 that states in part: '7HA T The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to develop a three year, integrated Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Plan (1996-1998) for the Rouge River Park and report back with the details of the Program to the Rouge Alliance in January/February, 1996; THA T the Program be developed in partnership with the Rouge Alliance, watershed municipalities, local interest groups, provincial and federal agencies, and watershed residents. " The Authority established an advisory committee comprised of representatives from the watershed municipalities, MNR and Save the Rouge Valley System, Inc. Together, this committee assisted the Authority with the development of the Program. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0137 The purpose of the Program is to assist with the implementation of management recommendations in existing planning documents to protect, conserve and enhance the resources of the watershed. The advisory committee recommended four priorities for action including: . the consolidation of all existing archeological collections for inventory, cataloguing and assessment; . the re-establishment of vegetation, particularly riparian zones; . the removal of in-stream barriers to fish migration; and . the improvement of water quality/quantity. Priority subwatersheds and reaches were also identified where management activities should be targeted. The Advisory Committee concluded that a Program Manager would be required. The Program Manager would coordinate the program's progress and report to the Alliance via the Rouge Park Manager. 0138 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 -- FIGURE 1: Program Management Structure Cultural Heritage Project WATERSHED PROJECTS Commun~y Outreach Project Rouge Plk Alliance Rlpa"an Zone RevegetatIOn Project Rural Land Stewardship Program ~ Upper Rouge River Bayview N, Rehab, Pro), Rouge Park Manager Elgin E & W Rehab Pro, ~ Bruce Creek . LeGnce Pond Rehab Proj SUBWATERSHED Little Rouge Creek PROJECTS Little Rouge Ck. Retulb. Proj. Program Manager ()tJ ~ Middle Rouge\ Beaver Ck Beaver Ck Rehab, Proj Toogood Pond ParkVIIIW Dam q ~ Lower Rouge MommgSICle Tnb. Study & Proj. Robl1son Ck. Pro) Milne Dam Park. Rloanan Pro), Natural and Cultural Heritage ~ Delta Marsh Implementation Sub-committee ROll\le Rover Oena Marsn Rehab Pro,. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0139 -- The implementation of this Program will: . provide a coordinated and planned approach to implementing natural and cultural heritage projects within the Rouge River watershed; . complement and support the work of local municipalities, community groups and other organizations participating in this Program; . provide the community with the opportunity to participate in education and planting projects; . provide an inventory of the Cultural Heritage resources of the Rouge watershed; . communicate the good work that is being undertaken; . contribute to the delisting of the Rouge River watershed as identified in the Metro Toronto and Region RAP; and . meet the goals and objectives in the Rouge Park Management Plan and other Rouge River watershed planning documents. At Meeting #5/96, held on June 26, 1996, the Rouge Alliance adopted Resolution #83/96 that states: "THA T the appended Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Program for the Rouge River watershed be received for information; THA T the Rouge Park Alliance formally create a Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Sub-committee and that this sub-committee be charged with assisting the Program Manager; THA T a Program Manager (previously approved by Resolution #48/96) be hired and then instructed by the Alliance, under the direction of the General Manager, to develop a process for: . prioritization of Rouge Alliance Projects in consultation with the partners; . developing funding criteria and formula for various types of priority projects with the Rouge Park; . developing guidelines for the delivery of in-kind services and volunteer commitments, and; . developing guidelines for planning and design studies before projects are eligible for Alliance funding. THA T the Program Manager report to the General Manager, and the General Manager provide progress reports to the Alliance on a quarterly basis, providing details on projects proposed for funding, and detailed summaries of projects initiated and/or completed in the proceeding quarter; AND FURTHER THA T the Rouge Alliance allocate $197,500 to the following projects subject to the other partners providing their contributions as set out in the Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Program, dated June 18, 1996: 0140 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 . Cultural Heritage Project: $185,000 for the period ending March 31, 1998; . Community Outreach Project: $9,500 for the period ending December 31, 1996; . Riparian Zone Revegetation Project: $3,000 for the period ending December 31, 1996. Resolution #84/96 was also adopted that adds the Toogood Pond project to the last clause of Resolution #83/96. A sum of $448,000 has been allocated for the period ending March 31, 1998. Furthermore, the funding is subject to the Town of Markham providing a report to the Rouge Park Alliance with respect to the details of the Toogood Pond project for final approval no later than Meeting #8/96, September 18, 1996. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Program identified a three-year budget totalling $ 7 ,431,000. Partnerships would be critical to the successful implementation of the suggested activities. Over thirty-five different partners have been recognized in the Program, including agencies, local schools, fishing clubs, service clubs, foundations, and private landowners. As the Program develops many more partners will be discovered. Endorsement of this program does not obligate the partners to provide the estimated project costs. It is recognized that actual contributions will be subject to budget approvals and confirmation by the partners. The Rouge Alliance has allocated a total of $197,000 to complete the Cultural Heritage Project ($185,000) and initiate the first year of the Community Outreach Project ($9,500) and Riparian Zone Revegetation Project ($3,000). An additional $448,000 has been tentatively allocated to the Toogood Pond Barrier and Rehabilitation Project subject to an acceptable plan being provided. Additional Rouge Alliance funding will not be available until the Program Manager and Sub-committee are in place and have prioritized other projects. DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 1. Hire a Program Manager to assist in developing detailed site plans, coordinate the delivery of projects between the partners, and report the progress of the Program to the Rouge Park Manager on a regular basis. 2. Establish a Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Sub-committee. 3. Initiate priority activities identified in year one (1996/97) including: the Cultural Heritage Project, Community Outreach Project, and the Riparian Zone Revegetation Project. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0141 - 4. Through the Program Manager and the Natural and Cultural Heritage Implementation Sub-committee: . identify priority projects in consultation with all other partners; . develop funding criteria and formula for various types of priority projects within the Rouge Park; . develop guidelines for the delivery of in-kind services and volunteer commitments; and . develop guidelines for planning and design studies before projects are eligible for Alliance funding. 5. The Rouge Park Manager will report quarterly to the Alliance providing detailed summaries of the projects initiated, completed, and proposed in the next quarter. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, Ext. 211 .rr;:~ . ~c 0142 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 -- ROUGE WATERSHED NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM EXeCUTIVE SUMMARY JUNE 18, 1996 " , " .'.~ ".~ -<~' ~- . . ~~.,.f'. , , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board _#5/96, SePte~ber 13, 1996 0143 ROUGE WAmRSHED VATT.'ltAL - cut.7T11fAJ. HEMTAGE tNI'U:MfJNT'ATrON ,."Or;t/AN 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMJ'yfAR Y Over the last scver:tJ ye:ltS ml1nY studics :md plans havc been produced to direct effortS to protect. conservc and rehabiliwc nlltul':1l and cultur:11 resources within the Rouge River warcrshcd including; . :l watershed str:Ucgy t Comprehensivc Basin MlIlllIgement Str:uegy for the Rouge River WlUC:rshed. 1990). . Arcluleologic:11 Herit:1ge Slr:1Icgy tpan of the Gn:enspace Plan for the Greater Toronto Region. 1989); . the Rouge River Fisheries M:magement Plan (RRFMP) (1992); . the Rouge P:1l'k Ml1nllgement Plan ( 1994); . the Town ofMlIrlcham NatUr:l! Fe:ItUreS Study (1993); . the Forested Watershed Coordirnltion and Monitonng Progr:un (1995)::md . the Rouge P:u-k Tmil :md Vegetation Management Plans (in prep:U':1tionl. E:1ch of these documents provIdes recommendations for the prolCC:lon. conserv:ltion and eM:lnCement of resources within the w:ltershed. In 1990. the Provinci:1l government recogmzed the import:lllce of me nlltUr.t1 and cultur.tl resources within the Rouge River watershed. dec!:lnng it Cl1n:ld:t's IlIl!;est uroan park. Many government :lgenclcs :md interest groups havejunsdictlon:md mterest 10 the oper:1tion Ot"thIS park. Therefore.:l Rouge P:u-k Alliance. compnscd of government l1nd interest group represenwlves. hIlS been est:1blished to oversee activities within the e.'tisnng park :md the Rouge River watershed. The Rouge P3rk Alli:mce :1t their Meeting ~I 0/95. held on December 18. 1995. :ldopted resolution =190/95 ;wing: THAT Th~ "'{~rropolitan Toromo and Regzon Cons~rv(1l10n .-iwhorzty be requested to d~v~lop a thr~e y~ar. inregraJed .Vatural and Cultural H~rltag~ "'Ianagem~nt Program (1996-1998) for th~ RDuge River Park and r~porr back with the details of the Program to the Rouge Alliance m January/February. 1996: THAT the Program be developed in parmershlp with tire Rouge Alliance. watershed munlclpalilles. local Imeresr groups. provmClai andjea'eral agencl~S. and watershed r~sldents: THAT subJecr ro approval by the Rouge Alliance. and the <I\o'allaiJility offunds.funding b~ provided to The .\t/erropoliran Toronto Q1Id Region Corrsen'arlon Authorltyfor mdr.:ldual projects developed und~r Ihe Program: AND FURTHER THA T on an annual basIS. rhe Awhorlty r~porr to the Aliia1lce. providing d~tailed summarIes of the projects Initialed and/or compi~red m rhe preceding year. With this directive in mind. the Authority est:1blished an advisory committee comprised of watershed municipalities. the MiniStry oDlatural Resources. and Save the Rouge V:1lley System Ine.. :l10c:11 community group. Together. this committee assisted the Authority WIth the development of the Program. An over:l!1 framework w:1S developed With each committee member being requested to submit their projects to be included in the overall Program. The result of this worle is contained in the RDug~ WaJersh~d NaJurai and Cultural Herllag~ Impl~m~maJion Program. The MTRCA presented the 'Rouge Warer.fh~d .Varural and Culrural Herllage Implememallon Program to the Rouge P:u-k Alliance:lt theIr meeting #3/96 held on ivIl1/'Ch :0. 1996. Resolution :47/96 states: THAT rh~ fol/owing... r~p()rl as preu1fled ro rhe Rouge PtJ1"k .-il/lance be rr!f~rred to ail Roug~ Park AliiuncC! Parmers for comm~nrs m writmg b.v .\"fay I. 1996: IWUCE IUVER WA7USHED P:1ge I 0144 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 -- - ftOUCE WA1&:RSHED ,VATURAL - cuc:ruWAL HDUTACE tM1't.EMENrAT1ON f'ttOC1tAM Resoluuon #48/96 swes: THAT Ihe RDup Park A/limrcl: hin a Program MtzllQF 10 worlc with tM General ,lIfDna~r of tM RDuge Parle and co-ordinaze projects which need to be dDnc wIthin tM RDup Parle: THAT 1M a1I1fJIDi saiary for the Program .'danapr be 545.000.00: AND FURTHER THAT Ihe Gtlnerai Manapr work with Met1'Opolit/11l Toronlo and lagion Conse1'YaziDn AUlhomy Human Resources to develop ciDssijictmon and pay raufor the position of Program .'danger. The MTRCA :md its partners received comments from the Rouge P:uk Alliance P:u'Ulers and present a revised RDuge W'azenhed Narurai and Cultural Heritap Impiemenrazlon Program far c:onsidcr:lIion. The revised Progr:un contains projects for ccnsidemion by the Alliance. that will be implemented between 1996 :md 1998. All of the individual projects :ue in keeping with the feder:rJ m:mcWe of the Rouge P:Il'k as outlined in the Rouge Park .'vIanagement Strlll:~ and Funding Report fWRT. 1995j. The purpose of the Progr:un is to implement recommend:uions m:1de by the Vl1l'lOUS Rouge River wutershed plannmg documents mentioned above. The :uivisory commiaee concluded that the top four priorities for :1Ction :ue: . the c:onsolid:ltion of all e."tisting :lI'Chacologicai collections for inventory. c:1cloguing, :md :1SSessment. . the re-establishment of vegetation. particularly ripari:m zones. . the removal of in-stream barriers to fish migr.1tion. :md . the improvement of water qualityiqWllltity. In order to :u:hieve this purpose. the Progr:un has been divided into two components: W:uershed Projects and Subwatershed Projects. including reach projects. The Progr.un will be Implemented with the assistl1tlce of a Progr.un Manager :md a Natural:md Cultuml Heritage Sub-committee. The Sub-committee's role is to provide ~uid:mce :md recommendations to the Progr:un Manager. ensunng that the implementation projects undertaken meet with the goals :md objectives outlined by the Rouge P:Il'k :Vlanagement Plan :md all other applic:1ble planning documents. The Sub-.:ommittee will have representation from Metro Parks:md Culture. local municipalities. MnCA. MNR. :md interest groups. Other members will be added as partnerships e:<.p:md. The Progr.un M:mager's primary responsibilities will be to co-ordinate the progr.un's progress:md report to the AlIi:mce via the P:uk Manager. The Progr.un Manager's responsibilities will also include; prioritizing projects in consultlIion with the Sukommiaee. developing a funding formula that will ensure fair :md equitable alloc:1tion of funds. :md developing guidelines for the provision of in-kind services :md volunteer commiunents. Each of the projects undertaken by the Progr.un will have :l designated parmer overseeing the project's administrl1tion. implementatlon:md communic:uion to the Program Manager. E:wnples of projects with estimated budgets :md suggested funding opportUnities :ue contained within this proposal. This is not a complete list. new projects will be forwarded to the Program Manager :md the Sub-committee for review and if appropriate included in the Implementation Plan. ROUGE IUVER WAiERSHED Page:! ~ Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0145 ::....an. -.aqe "">lOCI 'NAldSiiE::::' ?RCJECTS :.:-nrv Cunac: ~ Rc~ge ?crk Allicnce ,,- :....~- "- l' ~.... U/llI s-... ~ . Uc:er Rouge .=iver ~ N ~....~." Rc~ge ?Crk Meneger SqIn : !. ',-I "'MaG. ~..,. l' :n:Cl! C.~ -............... ~-~. . SUSWAiC~S:-:::' :..:me Rouge ':;~l( Prcgrer7", rvleneger ~ PRCJE.:iS -=- ~ouq.":;'" =tenaa. ~. II - Mic:le Rc\;Cel :eaver C:C 3...... 0.. ~.ftu. ~~ 7ca;c:a P-:.".l: 0 _ c.... q - L..-wer ROl:;e '_-"".!lI:Cv&~. ~oamcn ':4.. ~. \IMe :am ~".. . =,g,aftaft ~. Nc;t;rc: ere :~trurCl ~erite;e - ::etta ~larsn 1rr:~le~e::rcrtcn SU=-::~(iaiiee ~OW;. .owr .:.. '.~arsl" ~8ftliD. ~"OZ. There are two types of projects within the Progr:un: those that will be implemented :u:ross the watershed and those that t:lrget :l subWlltershed or rc:u:h. The Progr:un recognizes that cultural heriClge. eduC:1tion. and stewardship have =ific::lIions throughout the entire Rouge River watershed. Within the Progr:un. these projects have been identified:lS Watershed Projects and will be co-ordin:ued by the MTRCA and MNR In partnership with municip:1lities and community groups. The Rouge P:1rk Manngement Plan and the Rouge P:uk Management Structure and Funding Report recognize Cultur.ll Heritage:lS an important component of the PlU'k and the watershed. This project will undert:1ke to inventory. consolidate. and manage the :Il'ChacologiC:1i collections of the Rouge River watershed. In addition. this project proposes to take an :lctive role in the development of:l cultur.11 interpreution progr:un that will assist in the future development of an interpretive cenrrc for the Rouge P:uk. This project will be co-ordinated by the MTRCA in partnership with the Royal Onurio :Vluseum and Metropolit:ll1 Toronto P:uits and Culture Dep:1l'tl1lent. The Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan. identifies and prioritizes reh:1biliution :lctions for subwatersheds of the Rouge River. SpecifiC:1l1y. it identifies the re-est:1blishment of vegetatIon. the remov:l1 of in-srrc:un barriers. and the improvement of water quality/quantity :IS priorities for :u:tion. Within the Rouge P:arIc Management Plan. Little Rouge Creek and Momingside Creek (a tribut:1l'Y within the Lower Rouge Subw:uershed) have been identified :IS priorities for :u:tion. B:lSed on these recommend:1tions. a fim priority for this Program will be the development and implement:1tion of rehabilit:1tion projectS for the Little Rouge and Momingside Creeks. In addition to these projects. rehabilitation projects will be implemented within the Upper Rouge. Bruce Creek. Middle Rouge/Beaver Creek. Lower Rouge and Delta Marsh Subwatersheds. The Forested Watershed Co-ordination and Monitoring Progr:un identifies :!OS km of sue :un lacking a riparian zone:. This comprises 31 % of the Rouge River. Of this. 63 km (of which 11.5 km is found in the cold water production zone) is found in the LIttle Rouge Creek and 36 km is found in the: other cold water production zones. This Progr:un will contribute to the re5tol'lUion of riparian zones within the: Rouge River by wgeting the Little Rouge Creek and cold water production zones.' <<OUGE /UVER WAn:RSHErJ P3ge 3 0146 Water and Related Land Manageme:..~t Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 IfOUCE WATGRSHED VATt"ltotL """ cur.roI<<L HEtUrACE tM1'UMENrAT70N t>/JOGtl.AM The RRFMP identifies over 50 in-stre:un bamers to tish migr:ttlon. A key component of this Progr.un is the mitiganon of these in-stre:IJTt b:amers. The removal of these barriers will significantly conaibute to the rehabilitation of the subwatershed and the entire Rouge River watershed.. In ! 996. projects that will be iniriar.ed include: LeGrice Pond. Toogood Pond. and P:u1cview Golf Club. In 1997 and 1998 additional bamer projects will be initiated. such :1S the Milne Dam. In adclition to these large barriers. the Program will mitigaze scver:Lt smaller b:amers and weir SU'Uctures through the implement:1tion of subwaterShed and reach projects. Rural land use practices have resulted in reduced human use. reduced forest and riparian cover. degnsdarion of benthos. fish and wildlife habicu. and eutrophication ofwuer bodies. Working with landowners to address these problems. this Program will incre:ase forest and nparian cover. improve water quality for human, benthos. fish and wildlife use. and improve aesthetics. The implementation of this Program will: . provide a co-ordinated and planned approach to implementing natUral and cultural hentl1ge projects 'within the Rouge River watershed. . complement and suPPOrt the work of local municipalities. community groups and other organizations panicip:uing in this Progr.un. . proVIde the commumI: WIth the opportUnity to participate in .:ducation and planting projects. . provide an inventory or the Cultural Hentage reso= of the Rouge watershed. . communicate the good work that is being undert:lken. . conaibute to the delisting of the Rouge River watershed:1S identified in the Metro TorontO and Region RAP. and . meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Rouge P:1rk Management Plan and other Rouge River watershed planning documents. The Program recognizes partnershlps:1S vital to the successful implement:1tion of this Program. There is the potential for over thirty-tive different partnershIps in the Program. including; Alliance members. watershed municipalities. provinCial and federal agencies. the MTRCA. schools. fishing clubs. social clubs, Foundations. and priv:1te landowners. The Program identifies a three ye:xr budget totalling Si.361AOO. As funding penn its. other partners have been estimated at conaibuting S3 A 16.900 With the Rouge P:1rk Alliance conaibuting S...O 1...500 between 1996 and 1998. The budget and work plan figures arc estimates based on the best available infonnation. Prior to projects being implemented. more derailed budget and work plan figures will be provided to the Rouge P:u-k Alliance. It is understood that endorsement of this Progr.un is not an obligation to provide funding. Conaibutions from the parm.:rs will be subject to 3pprovals by their respective administr:ltions. IfOUGE If1VE/t WAn:RSH.EO ~ge4 ',. f:~1 ,. ~ f '(.; Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0147 , - is 18 .818181818181818 !818 : I ~ r l~mlll~I3I~~13 i~1 . _ I" iiiiF-l:e! a::l:!: - -1- -~ i ~! ! II n II ~ I 18 ,8 i~181 ;8~ ! m ~ ISI3I ~~I~ I - -~- I i ril (~ I : : f- :B j8i8iTs 1.8 I ," I , :J I~I~I j ! l~ I - Ia :=It::'Il.=: = - -;- -, - I r-I i II,. II' . ; ,I LI III , ; I , , II I' ~! i j ~ -1- ~I .J II ~I a~ !::I L _ _ Cl " I' ,I I ' II . I :! I , I ': I I Ii ~ ,I ~: 11,1 21:~ I~ ft ... I ' !1 [oO' . · ;; 1"', V1 u !~I ~ 'I I 11 !~1I i ~ 1 Q", I Ivl- ~ I :ql'!I",,1 · tc '~'" 'II h' S! fit ~ .' 18: !~!fl' I It 11".1 ;J~ ~ t:Q, a: II.. Ia: 'jO:l ~: i I ill:1 !I Iii I] 11 Im~l: !l !;j ~ ~ ! Ii i!lii I~II~~! l! iilH JI ~ .. ~ I' ''''' ,:1.. i r ~ p 'Il ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ i It II~! ! III~I :fll ! i II ~ <5 Q:: 0 ~x > ~~~I' i 51 I~ I r , i ::; .. Q", . : t I lC '"" ' I I 1"'1 I :t ::; :i~ 1..~~5! i~1 i~' ;~II :li I ',! ~ ~,. ftU I ~i I~l !~! i~l ! Iii I ~ c.! ~I d~~l.]L1i ~I I.. 0148 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 - - ow ~ ee 00 ~ 'CiI= !!~ ~~ 0" .=" !O ..e =~ .~ e8 - ~~ ~~ ~ -= j;; ..1_ j - ~:: -g I Q,l - I ~ =z .~ ,.. -- A- I ' w - ~ ;., ~~ "":l I Q,l -- !It -- . > U;::: ii5 z.w - ~ I - - QZ ~ 11 Q,l s , !II z~ ~ a~ j <~ ~ tl ,~ N - - , c:1 <=- !U S! -- = I ;~ :D I . - u: I - < I z I I ~ I I I I: " i E ~ .~ :: = .. C' t~ 1 .. ! .. ~ .i I it~ ...'" "'- ~",.., -a'i 2s~~ :;:;':=: : 2 i ~::~~~ ~ ~ ~'>')<DD .!~....<.... '" I ~ < Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 0149 ~ - The $5.1 million lincluding $'00.000 to offset the lIXDeI_ of the Foundation in funcirIIiSng) nu -.bled a IUtla8miaI amount of work to be unda".ken on... This has includad the ~tion of the IMdmarK vaIIev c:himney, the r8m0Yal of a number of SDUCUItaI. the r~ of a two pavilions for 0UId00r event ~. the opening of Mud Ctwek, the srabiliution of four buildings including ma-.y, ~ roova and windows; the development of one building to 1lI'0vida amenities for viIitDrS to the site: environrnemal audit: and clean up and sita servicing. The Con.rvation Foundation. community members and the smff of the AuU10rity have cominued to __ additional ....-ces of funding recognizing that the initial $5.1 million rej)o..-.tI only the first ... of worK. The Foundation nu recemty advisacl that in addition to meeting the target of "800,000, a funhw subftamial donation in lIXCUS of $500.000 is amicipned. The Great LaItu 2000 Canup Fund has provided ., 20.000 to enhance the watland .,... and the opening of Mud Creek. Members of the community ant also moum:ino innovative campaigns to uaist in funding key features that can not be accommodated in the original $5.1 million funding envelope. RAT10NALE The Municipality of Meuopolitan Toronto originally allocated $2.5 million dollars in the Authority's portion of the Meuo capital forecast for the Brick Works Project. Only $2.250,000 has been reQuested thus far. The Metra report dated June 1, 1994 to Council at the time of the earlier reQUest stated: "The 1994 to 1998 c.pita( Works Program adolJt8d by Metra Council provides for an amount of $2,500,000.00, for this project, of which $2,250,000.00 is now being reQUawd for approval.' The curremty available funding falls short in terms of the Stabilization of a number of the buildings on sita which should be carried out prior to the completion of Phase One worK. It is estimated that 8IlPfOXimanly 1 million dollars in additional funds are required to carTY out -aat stNctural worK, maonry, and roofing for 3 of the oldest buildings on site. The Authority ntqUUZS that the additional $250.000 be aDocat8d during 1997 to the project to enabla tha work to be comDletad prior to the sita opening. AuU10rity smff will continue to seek other sources of funding including donations from c:orporwons, other levels of govemment and the public to achieve the completion of major building stabiraation. The conuibutions from Greft Lakes 2000 combined with the higher then expected contributions to the Foundation, more than matches the additional $250.000 reQuested from Metro. FUTURE BENEFTTSIPROBLEMS The completion of the stabilization of the buildings an the site is essemial for their protection. Delay in this worK will rault in escalating deterioration. It the buildings are not stabilized a laroer portion of the site will require fwncing dlltrllcting from the public use and enjoyment of the site. For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext. 2381 Date: 1996.08.29 I'IIc f:Ia\llUllliCl\__sae .' 't.~:. ,t~~ T'''';\..~ 0150 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #5/96, September 13, 1996 -- TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:00 p.m., September 13, 1996. Lni~ Griffin Cr::lig M::lthpr Chair Secretary-Treasurer Ipl o ,~"i~ ~ -- , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #6/96 October 18, 1996 Page 0151 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, October 18, 1996. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair lIa Bossons ................................................ Member Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Joan King .................................................. Member Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS Jim McMaster ............................................... Member Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority RES #D52/96 - MINUTES Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Lois Hancey THAT the Minutes of Meeting #5/96, held September 13, 1996, be approved. . CARRIED 0152 Water and Related land Management Advisor~ Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 PRESENTATION Mr. David W. Scowcroft, Research Director of Angus Reid Group, conducted a slide presentation with respect to the Angus Reid Report on public attitudes, see Res. #054/96. RES #D53/96 - PRESENTATION Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: lIa Bossons THA T the above presentation be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES #D54/96 - ANGUS REID REPORT The Don watershed survey on public perceptions, attitudes and stewardship. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don watershed survey on public perceptions, attitudes and stewardship within the Don Watershed be forwarded to its member municipalities concurrently with the publishing of the Don Watershed Report Card; THA T the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be encouraged to use the information contained within the report in the subsequent development of its 1997 work plan; THA T staff be directed to utilize the information incorporated in the report in the development of corporate and Don Watershed communications; AND FURTHER THAT consideration be given similar surveys to tailor communications and programs for other watersheds and throughout the Authority's area of jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1994, the MTRCA endorsed Forty Steps to a New Don, the report of the Don Watershed Task Force. Don Council members have been extremely busy in developing the Don Watershed Report Card and developing a number of public education and awareness materials. , , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0153 It became evident that with the limited resources available for this work and in general the work of the Authority, it was critically important to develop a strategic communications plan for the Don. Part of that work included the development of a better profile of the attitudes and perceptions of the people that live within the Don Watershed their current stewardship activities and the degree to which they support efforts to regenerate the Don. Concurrent with this work, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council's Watershed Monitoring and Reporting Committee identified a critical need to report on public use and perception of the watershed as well as scientific measures of watershed health. The Angus Reid group was retained to administer a questionnaire to 600 heads of households within the Don Watershed. Specifically the questionnaire in its final form was designed to investigate the following issues: - Levels of use of the Don River for Recreation. - Levels of "environmentally friendly" attitudes and behaviours. - Awareness of and attitudes to the watershed and the Don River - Awareness of and support for regeneration programs currently underway - Awareness of and support for the MTRCA and its activities - Support for and effectiveness of various ways of communicating information about Don regeneration programs. The survey results will be presented by a staff member of Angus Reid for the information of the Board. Some of the key findings of the study include: . Less than 25 % of those surveyed were able to define a watershed correctly. . When asked what is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear Don River", 47% responded with "pollution" or "dirty". . 43 % or respondents report having visited the Don river or its tributaries in the past year. . 57% of respondents who knew of regeneration programs in the Don, could not identify any agency or group actively involved. . Of those respondents who did not mention the MTRCA as being responsible for the regeneration program, 75% report having heard of the MTRCA. . Almost all respondents support the MTRCA working to regenerate the Don. . There was strong support for efforts to clean up the watershed through a small fee being added to the water bill. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Completion of the Don Watershed Report Card including development of a communications strategy for the Report Card. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, Ext. 238 0154 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 RES #D55/96 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1996 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM Approval of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1996 for the continuation of waterfront regeneration activities within the Regional Municipality of Durham. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1996 in the Regional Municipality of Durham be approved; THA T the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the project, including the execution of any documents; AND FURTHER THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Towns of Ajax and Pickering be so advised. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND Technical and funding approvals of the Authority's ongoing waterfront development activities have been initiated through the adoption of multi-year development projects by the member municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Separate projects covering the periods 1972-1976,1977-1981,1982-1986,1987-1991 and 1992-1994 have all been approved. In 1995, a separate project was approved for the Regional Municipality of Durham waterfront activities. At Meeting #7/95 held on August 25, 1995, the Authority adopted Rp.!,: #A H1795: '7HA T the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan be endorsed; THA T the Master Plan required under the Waterfront Agreement with the Town of Ajax be amended to incorporate the strategic direction and vision outlined in the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan; THA T the Revised Master Plan provide the basis for subsequent multi-year capital projects for the Durham Waterfront within the jurisdiction of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; AND FURTHER THA T the Town of Ajax, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised. 11 , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, Octobe,r 18, 1996 0155 1996 Project Implementation Objectives and Priorities The following are the implementation objectives related to planning, regeneration and acquisition for specific segments of the Durham waterfront: Rougp./Ro~p.hank Arp.a - complete waterfront trail linkage - shoreline regeneration in accordance with the shoreline management strategy Pp.tticoat Crp.p.k Park - complete acquisition (Fairport Beach) - regeneration of Fairport Shoreline Frp.nchman'~ Bay - implementation of initial regeneration efforts as outlined in the Frenchman's Bay West Concept Plan - continue acquisition of key lands - initiate Frenchman's Bay Management Plan with partners - continue waterfront trail linkage Duffin Crp.p.k Watp.rfront Area - continue implementation of master plan with wildlife observation, fish habitat enhancement and environmental interpretative trail - complete associated waterfront trail initiatives Ajax Waterfront Area - land acquisition - maintenance of existing Authority lands not under agreement - waterfront trail linkages - tree and shrub planting 0156 Water and Related Land Management Advisor~ Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 The 1996 Implementation Priorities are as follows: Pickering - regeneration initiatives with community groups - acquisition of key land for public purpose waterfront trail linkages Ajax - waterfront trail linkages - maintenance of Authority land not under agreement - tree and shrub planting - Pickering Beach property acquisition RATIONALE The Authority has prepared the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1996 for the Regional Municipality of Durham to reflect the priorities in the municipalities of Pickering and Ajax as part of the regional waterfront open space system. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon approval by the Authority, the Authority will be working with the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Towns of Pickering and Ajax to take action on the 1996 priorities. Specifically, the Town of Ajax and the Authority will be pursuing an immediate activity of extending the waterfront trail in the vicinity of Harwood Avenue. FINANCIAL DETAILS With the exception of minor maintenance work, the project will be funded on the following basis: The Regional Municipality of Durham 50% Other Funding 50% The Regional Municipality of Durham has approved a 1996 Budget of $48,630. , , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, Octobe~ 18, 1996 0157 No Provincial grant is available in 1996. Staff are continuing to explore new sources of matching funding from the municipalities, private sector, service clubs and Federal funding (i.e. Great Lakes Clean-up Fund 2000). Land sale revenues may be available to help with the acquisition components of the project. Report prepared by: Larry Field, Ext. 243 RES #D56/96 - TOWN OF CAlEDON AGREEMENT Mayfield West Natural Features Study MTRCA staff have undertaken an inventory and evaluation of the natural features within the Mayfield West area and prepared an Existing Conditions Report with accompanying GIS products for the Town of Caledon. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated October 10, 1996, regarding the Mayfield West Natural Features Study agreement with the Town of caledon be received for information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Town of Caledon is undertaking a comprehensive community development plan study for the Mayfield West settlement area. The study area contains parts of the Etobicoke Creek, West Humber River, and Fletcher's Creek watersheds, the dominant natural feature being the Etobicoke Creek and its valley system. In support of this Community Development Plan there is a requirement for an Environmental Background Study. The work program for the Environmental Background Study consists of four phases, as follows: . Phase I: Data Collection, Review and Description of Environmental Features and Systems . Phase II: Analysis and Synthesis . Phase III: Recommendation and Draft Report . Phase IV: Evaluation of Planning Scenarios and Final Report. "'r 11-- 0158 Water and Related Land Managerylent Advisory, Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 Authority staff were approached by Town of Caledon staff with a request for assistance in conducting portions of the Environmental Background Study. Traditionally, the Authority has collected the type of information outlined in Phase I at a watershed scale. Authority staff entered into an agreement with the Town to carry out the duties outlined in the terms of reference for Phase I of the study. The information collected is of mutual benefit to the Town and the Authority. In order to assist the Town in this capacity, additional contract staff were required to conduct portions of the Mayfield West Natural Features Study. Phase I responsibilities involve reviewing existing information, conducting field investigations to complete the inventory of natural features within the study area and summarizing the information in an "Existing Conditions" report and providing the Town with natural features mapping suitable for integration into the Town's Atlas Geographical Information System (GIS). DETAILS OF WORK DONE . Field investigations and preliminary analysis of the natural features on site. . A draft Existing Conditions Report and accompanying GIS products have been forwarded to the Town of Caledon. Authority staff are awaiting formal comments. The Town of Caledon will complete the Community Development Plan utilizing the environmental information provided by the Authority. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Town of Caledon forwarded the sum of $18,421.00 to the Authority to complete the Mayfield West Natural Features Study. This amount was determined to cover costs for the Authority to hire additional contract field staff and produce the products. For information contact: Sandra Maleic, Ext. 217 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0159 RES #057/96 - ONTARIO STREAMS INITIATIVE Palgrave Dam Fish Habitat Restoration Project Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated October 10, 1996, regarding the Palgrave Dam Fish Habitat Restoration Project be received for information; THAT staff be directed to acknowledge receipt of the Town of Caledon's resolution and continue to work with Ontario Streams and the partners to explore alternatives; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND Ontario Streams has initiated a project to investigate fish habitat restoration opportunities for the reach of the upper Humber River currently impacted by the Palgrave Dam and associated Mill Pond. The MTRCA, along with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Friends of the Environment, the Izaak Walton Fly Fisherman's Club, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministries of Natural Resources and Transportation, has been identified as a partner for the Palgrave Dam Fish Habitat Restoration Project based on similar interests in environmental conservation. The Palgrave Dam was originally constructed in the mid 1800's as a power supply for a mill operation. The Authority owns the dam. The dam was constructed in the community of Palgrave within the Town of Caledon, on the upper Humber River, an area supporting cold water fish species. Today, the dam is no longer required to operate the Mill but maintains water in the Mill Pond. The Mill Pond has a surface area of approximately 2 ha and has developed into a local ecosystem supporting a variety of wildlife a warm water aquatic community. The effects of this local feature on the natural function of the upper Humber River are observable for several kilometres. Resident brook and brown trout are still found within the upper Humber River outside the zone of influence of the Mill Pond. In the spring of this year Authority staff were contacted by Ontario Streams and introduced to the Palgrave Dam Fish Habitat Restoration Project. At that time, Ontario Streams requested that the MTRCA partner with various public and private groups in support of this study. After reviewing the terms of reference for the study, Authority staff expressed their interest in being identified as a partner ~or the project. The project has been initiated and is being managed by Ontario Streams. Ontario Streams is a registered, non-profit organization with goals of enhancing the health of streams and watersheds in Ontario. Palgrave residents were initially introduced to Ontario Streams and 0160 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 this project by means of correspondence in July, which has been followed up by personal and telephone communication and subsequent letters. The intent of Phase I of the project is to investigate restoration alternatives with the goal of improving fish habitat within this portion of the main Humber River. Public input is being sought in various ways, including public meetings October 17 and November 14, 1996. The Authority is interested in this project as a landowner and a commenting and approval agency. Authority staff have expressed support for the process of investigating alternatives and have emphasized to Ontario Streams the importance of public involvement and the need to incorporate the social and cultural values of the Palgrave Dam and Mill Pond when investigating options to enhance fish habitat. The alternatives to be investigated will include "do nothing", full removal of the Dam, and a spectrum of options somewhere in between. On September 23, 1996, Town of Caledon council passed the following resolution; '~..the Town of Caledon gives notice to the Ontario Streams organization and the MTRCA that it will not support any remedial action plan to improve fish habitats that would include the elimination of the Palgrave Dam or the mill pond." Authority staff has conveyed to the Ontario Streams Project Manager the need to address the Town's resolution in the Phase I report. Although the Authority supports the objective of improving fish habitat, we must be assured that specific projects address environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts. Authority support of the preferred alternative will only be provided with confidence that this process was followed, appropriate public consultation has taken place, and the Town's resolution has been addressed. An alternative of this nature would be consistent with the objectives of the draft Humber Strategy which looks to protect social, cultural and environmental features and functions within the watershed. This reach of the Humber River, its features, functions and attributes, has been identified as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #45). Ontario Streams is aware of this designation and the Authority's objectives of protecting the features and functions of ESAs. FUTURE DIRECTION The draft phase I report is scheduled for completion by the end of this year. This report will summarize the alternatives investigated and recommend a preferred alternative based on public input;-agency -consultation and detailed investigations into the environmental, social, cultural and economic investigations of the existing condition and the various alternatives. .r Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0161 FINANCIAL DETAILS The MTRCA has not been identified as a funding partner for this project but rather as a partner in conservation. At this time, Ontario Streams has allocated funds to complete Phase I of the study, concluding with a recommended preferred alternative. No funds have been secured for the subsequent phases of this project including: II - Detailed Design, III - Implementation, and IV - Monitoring. For information contact: Sandra Malcic, Ext. 217 RES #D58/96 - JULY 1996 FLOOD Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean Region, Province of Quebec Review of the Quebec flood and consequences of a similar flood within the MTRCA. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated October 10, 1996, on the 1996 Quebec Flood be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND On July 19, 1996, a major storm system stalled over the north shore of the St. Lawrence River in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region. Weather forecasters had predicted heavy rains from the system issuing Heavy Rainfall Warnings. The expected 50 mm of rain turned into significantly more when the system stalled. For approximately the next 36 hours heavy rains inundated the area depositing upwards of 270 mm. The consequences of this amount of rain within the relatively small time frame falling on the watersheds draining the Canadian Shield in this area was massive flooding along all the rivers and streams within the region. Roads were washed out, bridges destroyed or isolated and dams were overtopped or outflanked. Some of the most serious and spectacular flooding occurred within the community of Chicoutimi where a dam was overtopped and outflanked sending floodwater into the community located partially below the structure. When the flooding subsided, 10 people had lost their lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in flood damages had occurred within the region. The overall extent of the damages caused by this flood may take years to fully comprehend. 0162 Water and Related land Management Adviso~ Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 The Quebec Environment Ministry has undertaken an analysis of the storm and published the rainfall distribution comparing it with Hurricane Hazel. The two storms had very similar rainfall totals, but were very different in their distribution as can be seen on the attached rainfall accumulation curves. Staff have undertaken an analysis of the Quebec storm to see what the consequences of such a storm on our region would have been. The rainfall from the Quebec storm was input to the Authority's hydrologic models for the Don River, Humber River and on the Rouge River to compare the Hazel (Regulatory) flood to that which would be expected from the Quebec flood. In general, due to the difference in rainfall distribution, the rainfall of Hurricane Hazel produced much higher peak flows in the order of 70 -100% larger; however, the Quebec flood resulted in a significantly longer flooding event. On the Lower Don River, the peak flow of the Quebec flood was approximately 50% of that of the Regional flow, but the length of time that flooding would occur was close to 2.5 times as long, flooding from Hazel being an 18 hour event in the Lower Don with the Quebec flood lasting near 43 hours. The flooding which would occur from a storm of this magnitude on our watersheds would cause flooding lasting up to 4 days (Humber) and resulting in flooding of several hundred residences with a potential for evacuation of up to 1500 people. Even with all the flood control works in place, while significantly reduced, flood damages would be extensive. In comparison, as stated, Hurricane Hazel would result in higher flooding levels within all our watersheds and a potential for in excess of 12,000 evacuations; however, flooding would be limited to one and one half to two days. For information contact: Don Haley, Ext. 226 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0163 Q CQ 100. !1 Q ~1 ,... %1 ~! ~, en 81 ~ ~i a. a:1 Q < ~! <C a:: g' Q' l!j\ ..., C) I >1 i, 0 ::1 a:: 2. a:' 0 01 100' Q 0> CDI u; 10 -~ I: a:::e w: ::I; ~a:: a, I - zO III ... O~ .c en Q - W(.J ~ CD ::' E ~W ~' i= <m ..Jw 8; ~:::J :51 > a:: 0 ::' ...1 Q w M wO r >z -< w a::..J ~ Zw i2 O~ II: ::l :: Q O~ N W Z < ~ a:: Q a:: ... :::J :I: - Cl Q Q Q Q Q Q Cl Q Q Q Q Q Cl Q Q Q 8 8 Cl Q Q Q Cl CQ 10 ~ M N ... (sp) MOI~ 0164 Water and Related Land Manage..lJlent Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 RES #D59/96- INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay To act on the recommendations from the ISMP Steering Committee for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan "Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay - MANAGEMENT STRA TEGIES' be received; THA T staff be directed to present the ISMP to the councils of the waterfront municipalities within the study area for their review and comment; THA T the MTRCA investigate with the waterfront municipalities and interested agencies the need, terms of reference, and membership, for a Waterfront Council to assist in the management of the shoreline; THA T staff be directed to report back to the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board upon completion of the municipal review; AND FURTHER THAT MTRCA staff be directed to work with all shoreline management partners to implement the six concept sites subject to all necessary planning and funding approvals. AMENDMENT RES #D60/96 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Joan King THA T through the municipal review process, an outline of interested community groups be identified; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority invite the involvement of these groups and that staff stress the need, fot financial.-support-as part of community. involvement. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRI ED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED t(~ "" ,,~I .r ~, '. t' ,,' ~ -4(;1 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0165 BACKGROUND At Meeting #5/93, held on June 25, 1993, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 1 ?A/~~: "THA T staff be directed to work with the regional and local waterfront municipalities and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the development of ... a Shoreline Regeneration Plan from Tommy Thompson Park (City of Toronto) to Frenchman's Bay (Town of Pickering); AND FURTHER THA T staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board on the specifics of the Terms of Reference, budget, funding and partnership arrangements. II On this direction, staff developed a Terms of Reference and entered into a partnership (Province of Ontario, Metro Toronto, City of Toronto, and the City of Scarborough) for the development of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan. The Terms of Reference represent the collective input from all the partners and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. As outlined in the Terms of Reference the objectives for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP) are as follows: (1 ) To identify the features, functions and processes which comprise the shoreline ecosystem. (2) To develop an understanding of the dynamics of the shoreline ecosystem as a basis for initiating and evaluating proposals and measuring changes. (3) To minimize danger to life and damage to property from flooding, erosion and associated hazards. (4) To assess the health of the shoreline ecosystem and identify measures to monitor system health on an ongoing basis. (5) To identify the human and natural stressors and ways to reduce them. (6) To establish criteria for assessing impacts of development and public use. (7) To develop solutions to site specific issues within a broader shoreline context. (8) To provide opportunities for wise public use and enjoyment. (9) .'.-Toidentify roles and responsibilities'of agencies with an interest and role in shoreline management. (10) To identify research and monitoring needs. (11 ) To identify priorities for shoreline regeneration. '0 . s. " ., 0166 Water and Related Land Management Advisor~ Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 In addition, the Terms of Reference directed the formation of a Steering Committee to administer and direct the ISMP process. At meeting #2/95, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 71/~!i which states: "THA T the membership selection and reporting procedures for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee be approved; THA T the staff be directed to request The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto and the City of Scarborough to appoint a council member and an alternate to the Steering Committee; THA T staff be directed to invite applications from residents to participate on the Steering Committee with (2) City of Toronto residents and (4) City of Scarborough residents to be selected; THA T staff be authorized to take all other necessary actions to form the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee. 11 A Steering Committee for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan was then established. The Steering Committee is composed of representatives from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto, the City of Scarborough, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Conservation Council of Ontario, four City of Scarborough and two City of Toronto residents, an Authority member, and chaired by Brian Denney, Director Watershed Management Division. A public information session was held on Thursday, March 23, 1995, and was attended by over 45 residents. Applications to join the Steering Committee were circulated to all interested citizens, and in response, 28 applications were received. In total, six Steering Committee members were selected, two representing the City of Toronto and four representing the City of Scarborough. To assist with the development and management of the ISMP, Letters of Interest were solicited from the consulting industry and detailed proposals were submitted from selected firms. At Meeting #5/95, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 147 m!i which states: '7HA T the consulting team led by Fenco Maclaren Inc. be retained for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay).. .. 11 ", , ":;t ,'~, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0167 The Fenco MacLaren consulting team developed a Phase I Report (Characterization of the Shoreline Ecosystem) and a Phase II Report (Integrated Shoreline Management - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay). Phase I provided an inventory of shoreline features and processes. Phase II involved the development of a series of planning recommendations. In addition to the ISMP reports, the consulting team and Authority staff conducted workshops and open houses and met with waterfront stakeholders and community groups. Public involvement and participation played a significant role in the development of the ISMP. Initially, the Project Team held a workshop in October 1995, to introduce the ISMP process to the public and solicit information about shoreline conditions and concerns. A series of individual meetings with the same purpose were held with shoreline interest groups throughout the fall of 1995 and the early winter of 1996. To assist in the development of the shoreline "Visioning" workshops were held in Scarborough and Pickering during March 1996. The ISMP Executive Summary was also presented to the public for review and comment through a series of Open Houses held in June 1996 in the City of Toronto, the City of Scarborough, and the Town of Pickering. The ISMP Steering Committee met regularly throughout 1995 and 1996 and was a valuable component of this project by providing significant direction and guidance throughout the various aspects of the plan. The Steering Committee directed the development and context of the overall Shoreline Management Plan. A Technical Advisory Committee was also established and provided significant direction to the ISMP. The Phase II report represents the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan. The major components of the Plan are as follows: THE VISION STATEMENT - OUR GREAT LAKESHORE To assist in the development of the ISMP, a shoreline context in the form of a vision statement was drafted with assistance from the general public, through a workshop. The vision is outlined in the attached ISMP Executive Summary. THE SHORELINE OF TODAY This section provides a brief synopsis of current shoreline conditions. It outlines the ecosystem components and how the diversity of land form provides a variety of habitats for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as residential, commercial and recreational areas for people. Public access to the shoreline has been improved and safety from hazards has been minimized in some locations. Overall, the ISMP shoreline of today still contains a large number of small and large natural areas. It is a place that offers plenty of opportunities to actively enjoy the outdoors, to relax or to learn about the history of our natural and culturai heritage along the lakeshore. Despite the amount of urbanization, the shoreline is still relatively natural in its overall character. 0168 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 THE SHORELINE OF TOMORROW To achieve the vision of the Shoreline of Tomorrow the ISMP contains three broad strategies: . Shoreline Treatment and Public Safety . Natural Heritage . Public Use The ISMP process resulted in the division of the shoreline into twelve unique and distinct shoreline management segments. These segments are the foundation for delivering the Shoreline Management Strategies. The strategies provide management recommendations applicable to the entire shoreline, as well as specific direction for individual segments. 1) Shoreline Treatment and Public Safety Direction is outlined for future shoreline protection structures including innovative techniques that fulfil the multiple objectives defined for the waterfront. The management of existing shoreline is detailed including recommendations for monitoring specific waterfront areas. In addition, maintenance recommendations for shoreline structures were developed for each segment. Management of shoreline hazard lands was established through the delineation of the Regulatory Shoreline and Waterfront Management Zones. The municipal planning documents are fundamental to implementing this strategy. 2) Natural Heritage Strategy The key recommendation of the Natural Heritage Strategy is the development and protection of a Natural Heritage System stretching along the entire study area shoreline. The Natural Heritage System consists of a mosaic of large and small terrestrial and aquatic habitats and the following shoreline habitat types: Natural Core Areas; Natural Corridors; Local Linkages and Local Core Areas; Supplementary Habitat Areas; Buffer Areas; and Habitat Restoration Areas. 3) Public Use Strategy This ISMP recommends that more public access and enjoyment of the waterfront be encouraged, but it should be balanced with other natural heritage and public safety objectives. The overall concept of the Public Use Strategy is defined in terms of facilitating access and guiding recreation uses through gateways, recreational nodes, and a waterfront trail. Due to the diverse nature of the shoreline's local topography, it is recommended that the Waterfront Trail follow a variety of alignments through the study area. Trail alignment will include different options for users along beaches, at the top of the bluffs, at the toe of the bluffs, along streets; and through or around natural areas. INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT STRATEGIES The individual segment strategies provide a general guideline and direction based on the analysis of the overall shoreline context. For each segment this section outlines the Shoreline's Characteristics, Management Challenges and Opportunities, and Key Management Recommendations for the shoreline (see attached Executive Summary) Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, Octobe~ 18, 1996 0169 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING This section outlines various recommendations for ISMP implementation including: . Development of Waterfront Management Zones in concurrence with existing municipal policies. . Encourage and support the involvement of private organizations, neighbourhoods, and individuals in the management of publicly owned lands. . Private land stewardship and land management activities be considered a desirable implementation tool for a number of the shoreline management recommendations. . A Waterfront Council to promote and ensure implementation of the ISMP should be established (details to be worked out). . That monitoring of the shoreline as outlined in the ISMP be delivered by a variety of agencies and public groups. Community monitoring is encouraged. . It is recommended that the Council prepare State of the Environment Report Cards and evaluate the implementation progress of the ISMP. . Detailed action plans should be conducted for the six concept sites identified within this ISMP: Bluffers Park; Gates Gully, Guild Inn Ravine, East Point, Port Union, Frenchman's Bay. ISMP STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS After extensive review of the ISMP recommendations the Steering Committee at meeting #5/96 (September 10, 1996) endorsed the following recommendations: liTHE ISMP STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE WA TER AND RELA TED LAND MANAGEMENT BOARD THA T the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan "Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay - MANAGEMENT STRA TEGIES "be received; THA T staff be directed to present the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan to the Councils of the waterfront municipalities within the study area for their review and comment; THA T the MTRCA investigate with the waterfront municipalities and interested agencies the need, terms of reference, and membership, for a Waterfront Council to assist in the management of the shoreline; AND THA T staff be directed to report back to the Board upon completion of the municipal review; AND FURTHER THA T the MTRCA staff be directed to work with all shoreline management partners to implement the six concept sites subject to all necessary planning and funding approvals. " These recommendations are presented for Authority approval and will assist staff in the review and implementation of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan. 0170 Water and Related Land Management Advisor'( Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE On Authority approval staff will: . Present the ISMP to our partner municipalities; . Develop a Terms of Reference for the Waterfront Council and seek concurrence from our partners on the role, mandate, and administration of this Council; . Foster the development of Action Plans for the waterfront Concept Sites, with our waterfront partners. To assist with this transition stage of the ISMP staff will extend the tenure of the ISMP Steering Committee to provide a continued level of guidance and direction. For information contact: Gord MacPherson, Ext. 246 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0171 ~ = OJ : o T~ ~ ~ d \I~ - , ~ ~ OJ1 0-; OJ. ,-.f ~ ~ = -oIl~" ~ ~ o ~ VJJ ~ "i: tIl ~ ,-,\ ~ = ~ ~ rC "'WI ~ ~ g .T1l ~ ~ ~ ~; = rC ~ ~ r;..S ... ~ 90~ ~ O~ \~ ~ \3 ~ g MO ~ ~E u g E TIl ~ f2 .~ ~ ~ \..1...1.. r-~ ~ ~ '-'-J. "C ~ ~ ; ."",- ~ = ............- -' - ~ .~ = ~ ~ = '"'" ~ ~ '-oJ ~ ~ ~ ~ = V:}rn ~ ~ ,.....-.., a = ~ .. - ~ '+-.;. C'\1 "S \3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ '+-.;.~ ~~ Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay Manll~emellt Strategies 0 Integrated S. orelille Mallagement PIa" .... pl,ase 2: Execlltive SlImmary --.I N , TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE Vision INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1 ~ III r+ THE SHORELINE OF TODAY ..............................................................................1 CD ... III ::J TilE SIIORELINE OF TOMORROW .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0- :0 CD SHORELINE TREATMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY iii ................... ...... .... ....... ............... ..4 r+ CD 0- r NATURAL IIERIT AGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III ::J 0- PUBLIC USE ........................................................................................6 s: III ::J III INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT STRATEGIES SEGMENT 1: Tommy Thompson Park ........................................................................ 10 2: Ash.bridges Day ............................................................................... 11 3: Eastern Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4: B1utfs West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CD 5: Bluffer's Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 0 6: Bluffs East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 III ... 0- 7: East Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ~ 8: Highland Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (J) - to 9: Port Union. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 (J) 10: Rouge River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0 0 11: Petticoat Creek ............................................................................... 21 r+ 0 12: Frenchman's Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 a CD ... .... IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 00 .... to CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 to (J) VISION FOR OUR GREAT LAKESHORE The Lake Ontario shoreline Crom Tommy TllOmpson wetlands tllat occupy mucll oC the shoreline. ,~ ... CD ~ p"k 10 F,eoclnoaus Bay pmviJes a special 'Iu.lily of ... Ql liCe Cor residents, a source of recreation and beauty for Protectecl natural areas stlcll as tile Rouge Park will proville :J a. visitors, and a unique identity Cor adjacent connections tllrougll tile city in wOOllell valleys. Many oC us will :D CD communities. TIle Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy visit sr,ecial places along dIe sllOre to watcll llOw the birds change iii' ... (pre~ared by the Watedront Regeneration Trust), witll tIe seasons, or to take Hart in educational tours about the CD a. ,Ilich includes tlis and adjacent shoreline areas, calls for a geolofiical history of tile blu Is or tIle lisll spawning along the open r Ql 'aterfront tllat is clean, green, accessiblt!, connectell, open, useable, coast ine. :J a. I iverse, affordable and attractive. But urban shorelines are subject s: The waterfront will be a greener r,lace than now, in part because Ql o many forces oC cllange. Ensuring a sustainable Cuture, reflecting :J ommunity, environmental, and economic needs, will be a mucll of tile erodin~ Scarboroug 1 Bluffs lIas been replaced by more Ql CD Ilallenge. FiC~ years from now, what kind of waterfront will our gently sloping WOOl cd hillsides. Along die toe of these Ilills, a 3 CD hilllren anll ot er forms oC liCe share? varie~ oC shore protection works Ilave tamellthe force of the waves. :J ... In a ew places such as tile Needles, where IlOuses are set well back )> Jarts of the waterfront will be busier, and more crowded with a. from the top of tile bluffs, natural erosion processes will maintain < iii' !uman activities, dlat is certain. New waterfront resillential ami the steep bluff face as an example of tllis former shoreline feature. 0 ommercial communities will Ilave emerged at urban nodes SUCII as Man~ of us will be clrawn to tile shoreline to plaYb espeCially to tile aJ \Toodbine, Port Union, and Frenchman's Bay, as part of a 0 Ql egional population grown to twice its current level. Waterfront beac les and tile clusters of marinas ancl boat clu s. Some of us a. I eif.hllourllOods will offer a cllOice of attractive residential seuinfi' will come to quietly explore the walking trails along tile sllOre ed~, I 'It: m 'IC uding quiet, well-treed streets, and other more lively areas wit I incluclill natural patlls tltrough near-wilderness sections where t e -.. (0 distinctive cllaracter such as the Beaclles community. bustle 0 tile city seems so far away. Or we migllt hring our m families to cycle along the Waterfront Trail, as it links the scenic 0 0 'be water's edge and bluffs will he a vital focus for communities parklands along the top of the bluffs, and loo&s down to the water's ... 0 CT long their lengtll, nurtured hy volunteer involvement in eclge in several places. Some of us will come y car, but for most, CD ... -generation sroLects and waterfront events and festivals. For convenient rapidtransil or saCe, attractive cycling trails will provide .... co oung and 01 , t e waterfront will have a special sense of place, better alternatives. .... Ilere pride in the tast is reflected in active use of heritage (0 As we visittllis Cuture waterfront, we are likely to he struck bZ its (0 uildinfs SUCII as tIe Guild Inn, and wllere new facilities are both m rforda Ie and of tile highest quality. contrasts, from quiet havens of/reen to lively neigllbourllOo d from sweefting vistas of lake an skU to slleltered walks in woo ed 'art of the quality will be the result of improved environmental parks. Fi ty years from now, we wi I value that waterfront diversity mJitions, with waters clean enough that children can swim or fish even more than now, and our communities will be committed to Ifely, ami with a heahllY mix of native Cish and wildliCe living and working together to cnsure the waterfront's continued ecological tigratiut along dIe sllOre. Tllat willllife will be able to move Creely healtll, economic vitality, and unique sense of place. ,"0 oug rib ons of green connecting the regenerated Corests and " .... " ' , ...... w '..r- Inlegraled Shoreline Managemenl Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary 0 .... ....., INTRODUCTION: ~ I Integratell Shoreline Management Planning. The Metropolitan Toronto and Refion Conservation Authority (MTRCA) togetller with tile Cily oC Scarborough, City oC Toronto, the Town of Pickering, the M unicipa ity of Met~o[olitan Toronto and various agenci.es, groups,: resi(lent~ and iml!vi(luals have lleve!oped an.lnter!~ted SllOreline Manage~ent p. an (lSMP) for t~e La.ke O,ntario shorelllle stretclung Crolll r om my rhompson Park, III tile City 0 I oronto, to Frenchman s Bay, III tile Town of Plckenn~. rllis :E planning process was initiatcd to provi(le gui(lancc to agencics and indivi(luals when consi(lcring erosion control and shorc inc QI ... III protection, public use ami access, fish an(1 willllife Ilahitat, and water quality. The slanning rocess was broken (Iown into two phases. ... QI phase 1 provi(led an inventory oC sllOrelille features ami processes. phase 2 involve the deve opment of a scries of planning :J a. recommendations. ::0 III or ... This is an Exccutive Summary of tile final report entitled "Tommy Thompson Park to Frenclunan's Bay - Integrated SllOreline", that III a. r documents tile results of the planning proccss. Following a hrief s~nopsis of current shl?reline conditions, the plan outlines QI :J recommendations for tIle future manar,emcnt of the shoreline. T lis summary is intended to provi(le a synopsis of the ISMI' for a. s: agencies and individuals, and outline t Ie overall Shorcline Management Strategies, and tile strategies for individual sllOreline segments QI :J developed through this process. III III 3 TI-IE SHORELINE OF TODAY: III :J ... l> a. < Tile ISM P sllOreline represents an ecosystem composell of diverse laml uses, ami provilles a variety of habitats for terreshial and iii' 0 aquatic wilcllife as well as residential, commercial ami recreational areas for people. Tile current shoreline cllaracteristics are a result of OJ more than 150 years of continuous development. 0 III ... a. ~ Since the arrival oC the European settlers and tile establishment of the Town oC York, human activities have Ilad a tremendous effect CJ) - (0 on the shoreline ecosystem. As early as tile 1850's, major lakefillillg has create(1 additionallamls for inllustrial, commercial, CJ) transportation ami recreational purposes (ie. Tommy T lOmpson Park). OLllCr shorelinc mOllifications Ilave been undertaken to protect 0 n public ami private propedy from erosion, ensure public safety, ami crcalc sllClLerellllarlJOurs. ... 0 CT III ... Many of tile nalural features of tllC Ilistoric lamlscape Ilave been significanLly altercd or Ilave disappeare(1 allogetllCr. For example, .... co .... (0 (0 CJ) Metro Region Conservation Page -1 g.... In.egra.ed Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary ~ 01 r+ approximately 430 ha of wetland at Asllbri(lges Bay, once (Iescribed as tile largest freshwater wellallll in Easlern Canada, has been CD ... 01 completely replaced b~ lakefill for commercial and industrial pur~oses. On tile other Ilaml, llUlllan activities have also resulted in the ::J Q. introduction of new s lOreline features. For instance, Tommy T lOmpson Park is an arlificial peninsula that has develope(1 into a :II CD Iligllly diverse natural area providing excellent wildlife Ilabitat and viewing opportunities. iii' r+ CD Q. Overall, the ISMP sllOreline of today still contains a large number of small ami large natural areas. Despite tile many alterations, it r 01 ::J remains a highly dynamic environment, fulfilling numerous ecolofical functions. It is a place tllal offers plenty of opportunities to Q. ~ actively enjoy tile outdoors, to relax and to learn about our natura and cultural herilage, along the lakeshore. Tile (Iemands of urban 01 ::J expansion Ilave made tile shoreline very different from tile shoreline ecosyslem of lhe 1800's. Despite tile amount of urbanization, the 01 sllOreline is still relatively natural in its overall character. CD 3 CD ::J r+ THE S I-IORE LINE OF TOMORROW: > Q. < Shoreline Management Strategies. iii' 0 CD To help pre~are the ISMP, tile shoreline was divided into twelve unique and distinct shoreline management segments based on their 0 01 ... pllysical, cu tural and biological features. These segments are the foundation for tile SllOreline Management Strategies and are g. ~ displayed in Map 1. Ol - <0 Ol The Inte,rated SllOreline Manajement plan conlains tluee broad strategies: 0 0 r+ . S lOreline Treatment an Public Safely 0 CT . Natural Heritage ~ .... . Public Use 00 .... <0 The strategies provide management recommendations applicable to the entire shoreline, as well as specific direction for individual <0 Ol segments. 0 .... -...J C1l Metro Region Conservation Page -2 0176 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 - c:>- 00 c:cc -!" en C:C - C I (DO <D EE E i (DoC 0> I OU <D ! oC en >- ! c:~ - C ~ au.. <D I ~.2 c: i E 00 I >- ! - (!)~ <D i'~ "" ..~ Q) ! g. .!; 2 0> 0'" Q) w ~ 0 ..Ill -c (3 ! ~ (DC C "'0 E" - : III ....0 0 ~~ -g- '" C III II Ocn ~ c c w ~ B .co. t~ ~ Cl)E <D 'S . I "00 C Z'!;; CXi I <D c J:; Q)oC /'-;W _I- ... Cl 0>- 0 :::l 0 ....E oC E ~E '" \~ .f;.Q 'li; \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... g ~ a. E B >- ~. Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary :iE III SHORELINE TREATMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY r+ (I) ~ III :J I 0- where tile water's edge is in' a natural comlition al1(1 wllere every effod be made to ensure tllat protection works fulfill as :D !!. tllere is no need or desire to alter' its present state, it is many objectives of tile ISMP as lossible. Innovative metllods III r+ (I) recommended that it he kept dlat way. This includes a section sucll as near sllOre armouring an headl creation should be 0- r immelliately west of Bluffers Park in Segment 4, an untreated used wllere possible, as they mimic natural and historic III :J se~tion of Segment 6 near MeadowcliH Drive, and portion.s of shoreline conditions. 0- ~ East Point (Segment 7). III :J Ongoing monitoring is required wllere Ilardened shorelines III (Q wllere the sllOreline has heen hardened ami requires (I) exist, to ensure tllattlle structures are r.roviding all equate 3 (I) maintenance, or wllere a recommemlalion is made to build protection. Sethack regulations (Regu atory Standards) that :J r+ shoreline structures, severalmetllOds are availahle. In general, control sllOreline activities Ilave been developell as pad of tllis )> 0- across tile Great Lakes sllOreline, standard revetments ami ISMP. These are general guillehnes which will require a < iii" seawalls fall shod of fulfilling tile multiple objectives defined for propedy-by-properly analysis, as the regulatory line will shift 0 tile waterfront, and fail to address the ISMP Vision. over time as conditions chani.e. Detailed slloreline treatment OJ 0 and public safety recommen ations are found in llle individual III ~ 0- Tllis strategy recommends that these trallitional methods of segment strategies. ~ (J) shoreline protection be used only where necessary, and tllat -- <0 (J) 0 NATURAL HERITAGE STRATEGY 0 r+ 0 tT (I) . ~ .... Tile key recommendation of the Natural Heritage Strategy is . Natural Core Areas co tile development and protection of a Natural Heritage System Areas of significantllabitat dlat provide stability and .... <0 stretching along the entire study area shoreline. The Natural integrity to the shoreline ecosystem. <0 (J) Heritage System consists of a mosaic of large anll small terrestrial and aquatic habitats all linked and connected by . Natural Corrilkn corridors and migration routes (f\Wl 2). The Natural A:ceas Lllat rovide connective links between major and Heritage System consists of the following shoreline habitat significant labitat areas. types: 0 .... --.J Metro Region Conservation Page -4 --.J t, 0 ~ -.J , metro regIon (Xl conservation Map 2 Integrated Shorellt1e Management Plan ~ Tommy Thomp6on Park to Frenchman'€) Bay III .-+ CD ... III Natural Heritage System ::) 0- :D !!. III .-+ CD 0- r III ::) 0- j \ Study Area Boundary . Corb/C~rrldor Habitat 0 n .-+ . Local Link/Local Habitat Feature 0 0- CD ... ~ D Supplementary Habitat (Xl ~ co co m 'r Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary ~ Ql ... ~ages ami Local Core Areas Habitat Restoration Areas CD . . ... Ql Smaller scale llabitats ancllinkages tllat provide local,ly Tllese areas represent tIle location for recommendecl habitat :I a. si~nificant sllOreline llabilats, and play an imporlant restoration activilies. :n CD ro e in the local slloreline. or ... Tile fundamental priority of the Naturall-leritage Strater is CD a. ~emental:Y Hahitat Areas that natural features and processes not only he protected ut be r . Ql :I Areas tllat are not significant as habitat in tlleir resent managed towards achievinf a biologically diverse and a. ~ form but represent green open spaces tllat are ab e to sustainahle system. There ore, .lhe emsllasis along the entire Ql :I rovide some ecological function and may he suitable waterfront sllOulcl be on protecting an restoring shoreline Ql or habitat enhancement. habitats. Tile strategy makes further recommendations for CD 3 specific priority restoration projects. The Final Report also CD :I Buffer Areas outlines aclclitionalnatural heritage recommenclations and can ... . )> Areas surrouncling sensitive habitat that protect tIle be found in the individual specific segment strategies. a. ~. function of the habitat by providing a cusllioning effect (II 0 -< from outside stressors. CD 0 Ql ... PUBLIC USE STRATEGY ,a. I~ 0> - Tllis ISMP recommends that more public access and appropriate in some areas than otllers. For example, sensitive CD 0> enjoyment of the waterfront be encouragecl, in an appropriate natural core areas ami corridors sllOuld primarily accommodate 0 0 manner, at select locations. It shoulcl be balanced with other low intensity, r.assive recreational uses. Local core areas and ... 0 natural heritage and public safety objectives. The overall supslemental labitat areas are more suitahle for some e- CD ... concept of the Public Use Strategy is defined in terms of mo erate, intensive/passive uses and local links. .... Q) facilitating access and guiding recreation uses tluough gateways, .... recreational nodes (Map 3) and a Waterfront Trail. (Map 4). Gateways are key public entrance ways to the waterfront. CD CD They range from re~ional gateways with public transit and 0> Recreation and sublic use should be focused at nodes, rather major roads, to loca community gateways provided by local tllan distribute along the entire shoreline. Since much of tile roacls. open space system for public use consists of the same parks anJ Due to the diverse nature of the shoreline's topograpllY, natural corridors as the Natural Heritage System, this strategy recommends a hierarcllY of uses, with some uses being more features, erosion and wave action, it is recollunencleJ tllat tIle 0 .... ...... CD Metro Region Conservation Page-6 0180 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 '"<<. s::. 0'"<<. "<$II.J \) 0 ~\t 1""':"-:; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -; o ~ ~ -z. ,~ ~ s: 'o",.J ~ .s -a 0 .~ s: --- ~ 0 ~ ~ .--.. ~ . \.. ~. 0 _Om :::;. 'C ~ ~ ;;- .,-... ~(J)~ ;;- ~ ~ i Jt' ~~ -~ ~ ~ IS\ /') ~ ~s: ~ ~~ ~ ~c ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~-S6 ~ ~ ~s: ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~u.- ~ ~ ~o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~> ~ ~ _\.. ~ Cl!l - ~ 0 ~ ~~ z ....s: ~ 00 0 s:. IS\ - cS)~ ~ .-.~ ~ ....., 0 \- ~~ ~s:. ~ .s.~ ~T- ~ i~ .... ~ -~ ~~ i~ ~ ~ E,U ~ 0 lio. - T- ~- Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary :E Dl ... 1lI T rail follow a varietr of al1.mnents tluough the stUlly area. ... Dl :J T rail alignments wil inclu e (liHerent options for users along a. beaclles, at tile top of the bluffs, at the toe of tile bluffs, along :D 1lI iii" sheets, and through or around natural areas. Tile trail will be at ... 1lI water's edge where possible, but will often split and Sllift inland a. r for users requiring smooth, easy to manoeuvre trails, leaving tile Dl :J adventurous trail users to llike footpaths. Trail alignments will a. s: also shift to control construction and maintenance costs, . Dl :J include cuIturallleritage sites, avoi(l sensitive natural areas, and Dl 1lI respect private uses of the shoreline. 3 1lI :J ... The proposed Waterfront Trail system is ma(le up of four types )> a. of trails: < iii' 0 A) wide rimary multiple-use path (paved or boanlwalk 2.7 OJ 0 m wi e minimum), Dl ... a. D) narrow primary patll (paved or boardwalk 2.1 m I It 0) minimum), -- (0 C) secon(lary hiking trail (unpaved 1 m minimum), and 0) 0 D) si(lewalklbicycle lanes. 0 ... 0 CT Tile Waterfront Trail will complement the system of gateways CD ... .... and recreational nodes, to bring the communities along tile ED sllOre to their waterfront. Detailed recommendations for .... (0 gateways, nodes and trail alignments can be found in the (0 0) individual segment strategies. 0 ,'::So' , .... '7.-,.- "'~"" en ; .... Metro Region Conservation Page -8 0182 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 ~ _ I i ~ ~ f i I ~ ~ 'U ~ i ~ ~CSJ:.2 ~ 'C - (J en ~ J: 6 > c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ <<~ i i ~-e;Cl~ ~ - I -:' <:~ Cl i B ~ i~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ _== _ ~ en ,g~ < = U 0 j !U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . rnrn rn c ~ o - _ 8 ~ ~ - ~ c Q) E Q) ~ - 0) QQ a5 o .rn E C 8 5 o E ~ ~ i3 ~ Q) a5 ~ c u: ~ - 0 en - - cS: Q) ~ , - .... - o ~ ~ .r::. c: - cc en 0 5 ~.g "0 Ci ~ ~~ Q) E ~ 0(1) -,g == =~ 0 I- .. (1)0 - >- ~ E(,) O)E a. ~, ~~~ ft- Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary INDMDUAL SEGMENT allradive regiollal recreation 1l00le ~ . III r+ lD ~ STRATEGIES . Challenges anJ Opportunities: III ;:] a. :D enhancement oC water and sediment quality lD . iii The individual segment strategies provide general fuillelines r+ Maintain anll enhance tile natural charaderistics of the lD . a. and diredion based on tile analysis oC tile overall s lOreline. park r- III Specific site development requires detailed plans tllat builll sustainaMe sllOre stabilization (east side) . ;:] . a. upon tllese recommendations and integrate the Public Use, . estal,lisll appropriate public information and education s: III Naturallleritage, Shoreline Treatment ami Puhlic Safety features ;:] III to Strategies. lD 3 . Key Management RecommenJations lD ;:] Segment 1 r+ ~ Foster bi~lliversity through the im~lementation of the a. . < Tommy Tllompson Parl~ iii' Tommy 1 hompson Park Master P an, in particular: 0 - maintain natural plant diversity by maintaining a wide CD Tommy Tllompson Park lIas been planned primarily Cor passive spedrum of successional stages; 0 III ~ recreation lurposes (ie. walkers, bicyclists, I,inl watchers, etc.), - estahlisll core preservation areas wllich are closed to a. I ~ nature stu y and wildlife habitats. A Master plan for Tommy public access. CJ) -- to Thompson Park is being implemented, and the ISMP CJ) recommendations are in keePin~ with the Master Plan. . Maintain the potential of the eastern edge ("Toronto 0 0 LakeCiIl activities continue on t Ie southeast sille. Scarp") as coldwater fisll habitat (lake trout). r+ 0 a- lD ~ . Segment Characteristics: . Establish only those uses consistent with the Master plan ~ 00 document including: ~ excellent pellestrian and vehicular access to - Park Visitor Centre, sllelters, washrooms, to . to CJ) segment/waterfront - 'I' rail network (primary and secondary trails, and bicycle . very high biological diversiJ: pall.) alllllookouts. . provides a blend of natural abitat and low intensity recreation . Provide interpretive signs that are complementary to the . very severe wave climate on east side urban wilderness park concept; 0 ~ Metro Region Conservation Page -10 00 (.oJ ~ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary 0 ..... Develop link willI water's edge trail (see Segment 2) excellent pellestrian an(1 vehicular access (X) . . ~ proposed to run alon, soutllern properly boundary of Main . regional recreation no(le provitles a variety of active and Sewage Treatment Pant. ' passive recreatioh opportunities . current efforts are underway to enhance aquatic habitat . Formalize/upgrade Leslie Street between Lakeshore Blvll diversity and the park entrance as a regional tateway ami provide an . major resitlential development in progress at Greenwood adequate trailhead facility at the par entrance, anlI pulJlic lamls ~ high sediment deposition zone III transit. . r+ m major seware treatment plant outfall; several combined ., . III ::J . Monitor erosion along east and south shorelines. sewer outfa Is Q. :IJ m Establish a structure (revetment/breakwater) along tile east . Cllallenges and Opportunities: iii' . r+ m side to reduce tile need for continuous filling. This will Q. r enhance coldwater fish habitat qualities. improve water quality and sediment quality III . ::J Q. . enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitat diversity ~ Support all measures to improve water quality including . establish natural links with Segments 1 and 3 and inland III . ::J III improving (lischarge water quality Main Sewage Treatment green spaces 9 Plant, amI Don River ~ater quality. . enhance opportunities for experiencing landscape history m . establish water's edge trail link with Segments 1 (Tommy ::J r+ Thompson Park) and 3 (Eastern Beaches) )> Q. minimize (Iredging requirements < Sefrnent :2 . iii' establish pe(lestrian links with new residential development 0 . As bridges Bay at Greenwood lands m 0 III ., Key Management Reco~menJations: Q. Developments at Ashbridges Bay (e.g., Main Sewage Treatment . ~ (J) - plant and Ashbridges Bay Marina) have resultecl in intense CD Support all measures aimed at improving water and (J) pressure on, and cllange to local natural systems while . . sediment rality (ie. improving treatment plant effluent 0 enhancing active recreation opportunities. 0 r+ quality anc elimination of combinell sewer overflows). 0 cr m Characteristics: ., . ..... . Improve halJitat diversity and the natural system: (X) ..... CD CD Page -II (J) Metro Region Conservation ~/ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: ExecuCive Summary :iE Q) ... CD aquatic Ilabitat within CoatsworLlI Cul; Segment 3 ... - Q) naturalize sections of AshlJridges Bay Park and grOlllHls :) - Eastern Beaclles a. aroun(l Melro's Main Sewage Treatment plant (could :D !!. include developing wetlan.d and woodlotllabitat wiLllhl Q) ... CD Ashhridges Hay Park}; Tile Eastern Beaches are perhaps the best known and most a. r establisll a continuous natural water's edge corri(lor visite(1 segment of the ISM P sllOreline. TIlis segment is Q) - :) between Tommy Thompson Park and tile Bastern culturally and commercially diverse and lIas an active a. ~ Beaclles; community link to the shoreline. Q) :) include construction of a wetland on slleltere(1 Q) - CD sllOrelines and provide a naturalized water's edte; . Cllaracteristics: 3 CD provide a natural habitat corridor belween Ash ridges :) - ... Bay Park and lhe Greenwomllands; integrate provides an array of recreation opportunities )> . a. stormwater pond witll park design. easy!,e(lestrian access to water's edge < . iii' 0 . boar walk along water's edge -< . Improve recreational quality of Asllbridges Bay Park as a . stable mix of residential, commercial and open space land OJ 0 regional recreation node: uses; stable communities Q) ... a. - construct a water's edge trail along tile soutllern edge of . commercial focal point at Queen St. East with links to 'tt CJ) Main Sewage Treatment plant; wi(len trail corrhlor over waterfront -- <0 Coatswortll Cut will. buffer plantings helween the trail r.ublic parking limite(1 CJ) . 0 ami LakesllOre Blv(1; . arge park lands n ... provide dedicated pedestrian link between the shoreline 0 - e- CD and new residential development; . Cllallenges and Opportunities: ... ... maintain Woodbine Avenue/Lakeshore Blvd. as regional co - increase habitat and species diversity without compromising ... gateway. . <0 <0 recreational qualities CJ) . Provi(le interpretive signs describinr the history of . improve natural inland linkages, and natural waterfront Ashbridges Bay and development 0 Toronto Waterfront; corridor functions . extension oC waterfront hail (lJOardwalk)to R.C. I-Iarris . Provide lakeCill at southern edge of Main Treatment plant Filtration plant properly to reduce maintenance dredging ami improve . establisll trail links with neigllbouring segments navigation. . long-term shore stability uncertain 0 ... co U1 Metro Region ConservaCion Page -12 ~ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary 0 .... 00 improve puhlic parking Develop long-term self-sustaining sllOreline stabilization (J) . . program; options include: a) lakefill in the central area . Key Management Recommendations: aroun(1 Leuty Lifeguard Station, or b) extension of local headlands at eastern end of boardwalk between Silver Birch . Develop a vegetation management plan for the upper Avenue allll Nursewood Avenue (lower priority). section of Glen Stewart Ravine; investigate restoration of ~ the middle and lower sections of ravine. Segment 4 III ... (ll ., Naturalize parklands in selected locations, providing natural Sc~r])orougll Bluffs West III . :J 0- corridors. :JJ (ll This segment is best recognizee) for the aesthetic quality o{ the iil ... Continue moniforing efficiency of in-ground detention (ll . Scarborougll Bluffs geologic {ormation. 0- r tank. III :J . Cllaracteristics: 0- Continue WaterfTont Trail as "beacllwalk" from Silver s: . III :J Birch Avenue on to R.C. Harris Filtration plant. . unique and provincially significant bluff features III (ll . difficult pe(leslrian access along water's e,lge lluough much 3 Provide stairs at easlern en,1 of R.C. Harris Filtration plant of the segment (ll . :J properly for access to beach at west end of Segment 4. ... . steep slopes divide the shoreline from inland areas ~ 0- . sllOre protection hy revetments an,1 groynes tluoughout < Develop regional visitor management scheme, in particular, iii' . mucll of the segment 0 aim to improve public parking within segment. . tableland characterized IJY me(lium density residential l:Il development and stalJle communities 0 III ., Develop/upgrade Victoria Park Avenue/.R.C. Ilarris 0- . ~ Filtration plant as a rcrional gatewaywitllin the constraint . Challcnges antI Opportunities: (J) -- (0 of the site (Le. trailhea( facililies, interpretive display, etc.). (J) . maintenance of hluf( feature 0 0 Maintain non-commercial, informal recreational use along provision of water's edgc trail allll/or pedestrian access to ... . . 0 CT water's edge. the water's edge (ll ., .... . lraillinks with neighbouring segments 00 . Monitor beach profile and sediment size. . long-term slope stability .... (0 (0 (J) Metro Region Conservation Page -13 ~ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary . Key lvlanagement Recommendations: . Monitor effectiveness of revetment slructures and establish ~ III nearshore annouring lo enhance slope stabilily in r+ lD .., Preserve the Nee(lIes (ormation as an erQ(ling geological unprolecle(1 seclions (high priority). III . , j 0. (eature. :D Segment 5 !!. III Improve aquatic llabitat along existing revetments hy r+ lD . Bluffers Parl~ 0. introducing additional rubble (ill at toe of revetments; r- III j (Ievelop welland Ilabitat inlaml of existipg revetments. 0. Bluffer's Park is a focal point of regional significance (or ~ III Designate primary multi-use trail along si(lewalk or streels j . boating ami recreation, witll tremendous aeslhetic and location III belween Vicloria Park Avenue amllllu((er's Park. The advantages. lD 3 exact alignment to be determined through public lD j consultation. r+ . Characteristics: }:- 0. < Designate a seasonal secondary trail (beachwalk) at water's substantial boat mooring facilities iii' . . 0 edge between Victoria Park Avenue and Fishleigh Drive . passive parkland area located in proximity to the Needles OJ (feasibility to be confirmed ie. beach width and elevation, geologic formation 0 III .., access and liability issues). a small beach area located on the east side of the segment 0. . "*= . excellent vehicular access (ahhougll overused on peak Ol - Investigate links hetween tile Fisllleigll Drive revelment alld <0 . summer days) Ol Bluffers Park tllat do not conOict will. the objective lo 0 maintain the Needles features (options include ferry, fixed 0 . Challenges amI Opportunities: r+ 0 or removable bridge/causeway). CT .lD .., .; - pedestrian and cyclist safety along Brimley Road .... . CD Develop FislJei~II Drive access as a local gateway will. . . . seasonal vehicular congestion on Brimley Roa(l .... <0 appropriate trail lead infrastructure. . waler's edge trail connection to neigllhouring shoreline <0 Ol In the long term, upgrade groyne structures to meet segments . . links will. economic activity along Kingston Road corridor provincial ~olicy for design storm protection (i.e. (ill with . water quality willlin emhayments gravel; mo erate priority). . tableland management 0 Page -14 .... Metro Region Conservation CD '-l ~ Integrated Shnreline Mnn.gement Pl.n Phase 2: Eucutive Summary 0 . Key Management Recommendations: service vellicles) lluring peak summer montlls. -' CD CD Improve water luality witllin the embayments tllCougll I Construct sidewalk pellestrian access and bicycle lanes down . . information/ e ucation of boaters and enforcement of Grimley Roall to avoid conflicts with vehicular traffic. marina use regulations. . Depending on outcome of conceptual plan/traffic study, . Improve aquatic habitat by "softening" tile water's edge in transform portions of parking lots into multi-functional ~ lese exposell sections hy introduction of features such as areas (ie. green surfaces insteall of aspllalt) apd/or mixed Cll ,.. root walls or log tangles. Target species: small mouth hass, commercial activity to increase visitor attractions. CD ~ Cll large moudl hass. ::l Co . Monitor beacll profiles on east side to determine extent of :D Maintain good open coast hahitat at outside ellge of facility CD . sediment hy-passing and continue the monitoring of lakefill iil ,.. and imlrove tllCougll introduction of suhsurface features CD structures. Co (ie. un erwater groynes). Target species: coldwater lish r- Cll ::l such as white fish. Co Segment 6 3: Cll Estahlish rimary trail between Brimley Road ami Gates ::l . Scarborougll Bluffs East Cll Gully (Be lamy Ravine) along local streets; exact alignment CD 3 to be lletermined. CD ::l Tllis is a long stretch of shoreline with many important park ,.. }> Establish secondary trail (beach walk) at eastern eml of features througho~t. Co . < Bluffers Park to link with Segment 6 (feasihility to he iii' 0 lletermined). . Characteristics: CD 0 Cll Conduct concett stUlly to resolve tra((ic issues and steep slopes diville tile sho~elim: from inlaml areas; ~ . . Co :at improved links elween Bluffers Park and Kingston Road opportunities to walk down to water's edge limited m -. (ie. provide tarking on tablelands ami shuttle hus . water's ellge access through much oC the segment on to m connection etween Kingston Roall ami Bluf(ers Park, or recently constructell revetments 0 0 provision of TTC Ims loop). Consiller closing gencral . many park arcas of various size on top of hlu((s r+ 0 sllOreline almts largely resillential communities CT vehicle access to Brimley Road Crom Kingston Roall (ie. . CD ~ limit access to boat launch users, delivery/llrop-of( ami . aquatic halJitat is open coast -' CD -' to to Metro Region Conservation Page -15 m g, Integrated Shnreline Management Plan Ilhase 2: Executive Summary ~ II) . Challenges and Opportunities: the public uses of tile shoreline below. r+ (l/ ... II) ~ . inland trail connections Develop headland at base of GuiMwood Ravine to provide Q. . :D . lin1 waterfront trail with neighbOUrinj segments for water's edge destination point (ie. formal viewing, (l/ iil enhancement of terrestrial habitat an corridors in silting) . r+ . (l/ Q. parklands and alon{ revetments r II) . enhance aquatic ha itat along revetments . In addition to headland develotment at GuiMwood Ravine, ~ Q. . increase recreational use pf park locations such as tile Guild develop spawning beds and peb Ie/cobble/sand beach ~ II) Inn habitat. ~ II) . develop self sustaining shoreline stabilization program; (l/ d" I" h Establish primary waterfront trail (on revetment) loop 3 preserve untreate natura reac es . (l/ ~ . improve parking for regional users between Gates Gully and Guildwood Ravine. r+ ~ Q. Continue primary trail from Guildwood Inn east along local < . iii' 0 . Key Management Recommendations: roads (potentially Guildwood pkwy, Greyabbey Trail to lD Greyabbey Ravine); obtain easement along south side of 0 II) . I mprove aquatic habitat along existing revetments hy CN tracks to link widl Copperfield Road (Segment 7). ... Q. introducing additional rubble fill at toe of revetments; ~ 0> Develop secondary trailJbeachwalk between Bluffers Park -- promote wetland development, inland of existing . 10 0> revetments. and Gates Gully (feasibility to lie detenllined). 0 0 r+ Develop Gates Gully (Bellamy Ravine) as a local gateway Complete tile Sylvan Avenue erosion control project and 0 . . CT (l/ with appropriate trailhead infrastructure (provide public provide a connection (beachwalk) to tile Gates Gully. .. .... , , parking at Kingston Road). 00 , ',~ .... 10 10 . Develop the Guild Inn lands in acconlance with the 0> recommendations of lhe Guildwood Park Advisory Committee, ami to promote the Guild Inn as a local gateway (Guildwood Parkway) with ar.propriate trailhead infrastructure (ie. expanded parking aciliJ at Guild Inn, '? "'; signage) to 1in1 the public use of the Guil Inn lands with 0 t~'~;~~: .... 00 Metro Region Conservation Page -16 10 ...f. "'- ' 'r Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: EJ:ecutive Summary 0 Segment 7 compromising terreslrial habitat quality -"' (0 0 East Point Parl~ . maintain ami enllance tile function of aquatic and terrestrial habitats . formalize access to the water's edge This segment includes a large residential and commercial area . location suitable for recreation facility such as boat launcll ))etween the shoreline ami Kingston l~oad; a significant natural area and a regional sports field complex. . Key Management Recommemliltion&: :E III r+ . Characteristics: CD ., III . Develop a management plan for natural areas with emphasis ::I Q. . gOOI) vehicular access; no Cormal pelleshian access along on: :xl CD water's edge -. habitat restoration/enhancement; iii r+ CD . presence of a large AN S I ami ESA on top of the Muffs - vegetation management (maintain wide spectrum of Q. r . (lividing [oint between east and west littoral transport successional stages); III ::I . location as been umler review as potential location for - visitor management (trails, interpretive signage, core Q. s: boating facility . preselVation areas). III ::I . orn coast environment, significant fish habitat in the form III o offshore boulder pavement and shoreline profile . Establish primary waterfront trail alon~ the shoreline (on CD 3 . Eortion of tile near shore open space has playing fiellls; the tile tablelamls) with formal link to Big llaml Creek Trail. CD ::I r+ arger lanll area is usell for informal passive recreation )> Potentiallocalion for a boat launch faCility in the area, Q. . informal trails throughout natural area . < iii' . historic illegal dumping of garbage subject to an Environmental Assessment anll review of 0 -< . spectacular vista of the lake from the shoreline specific local factors. CD 0 III Construction of any "in-l~ke" structure to take existing ., . Challenges and Opportunities: . Q. ~ higll quality cold water (ish habitat into consideration (i.e. 0> -- (0 . enllance connection with tile community maintain open coast llabitat). 0> . provide trail links with neighbouring segments 0 0 increase opportunities for experiencing landscape ami . Develop access corridors and community gateways into the r+ . 0 CT cultural history area and proville appropriate trailhead infrastructure CD ., increase and diversify recreational opportunities, wilhout (parking, information, signage, comfort station). -"' . 0) -"' (0 Metro Region Conservation (0 Page -17 0> ~ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary Segment 8 . Comf.leLe formal trail link Lo inlaml areas along west side of ~ III lligll and Creek, include inlerpretive signage on landscape ,.. lD I-ligllland C ree~~ ... Ilislory . III :J a. Establish hail connections between Ilighland Creek and :Xl Natural corridor with a remnant coastal wellaml an(1 significant . !!. III creek valley containing diverse animal and plant communities. East Point under CN Rail bridge on west side of creek and ,.. lD a. Pod Union crossing south of railway tracks (agreement r- III . Cllaracteristics: will. CN Rail in place). . :J a. s:: segment rimarily in natural state provilling for (liverse Support all measures designed to improve water quality in III . . :J III plant an( animal life walershe(1 (ie. best management practises to improve surface lD . some informal recreational activity occurs in tile form of 'run-of( quality; municipal sewer separat!on programs; end 3 lD :J hikinf.' nature viewinp and canoeing of pipe actions; improved waste water treatment elficiency ,.. l> . High and Creek Trai and waterfront linkage are umler ~t Highland WPCP; and e{(ective RAP initiatives). a. S. construction III 0 . Support removal of upstream fish barriers. -< . Challen~es and Opportunities: I OJ 0 Rail line will require additional protection over long-term; III . ... ,a. . improve water quality of Highland Creek ""!II aterfront Trail structures shouM be against the railway I~ Ol -. . estaLlisll access to inland areas (along Highland ami embankment to protect the beach, were possible. <0 Ol Centennial Creek) 0 . provi(le pedestrian link to Segment 7 Segment 9 n ,.. 0 . provide pedestrian link over Higlllaml Creek to Segment 9 CT Port Union Road lD ... . preserve natural river mouth and beacll Ilabitat , in as ... natural a state as possible (X) ... Large residential communities and extensive lormer industrial <0 <0 . Key :tvlana~ement Recommendations: area currently undergoing redevelopment. Ol . Focal point lor habitat restoration: implement 1.aLitat . Characteristics: restoration! en1.ancement program lor Stephenson's Swamp. . excellent regional road access; excellent access via public 0 - Metro Region Conservation Page -18 ... -" <0 ... 'r Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary 0 .... transit (GO Station) trail alignment, local traffic com!ilions, an,l habitat to N . access to tile shore hlocke,l by CN rail line restoration. . development/planning of major residential areas ami miXe(1 use "village common" in progress . Establisll naturallinka3es between lake and green spaces . Waste Disposal Facility near waterfront north of the CNR within new residential evelopment (ie. extend open space line. arouml proposed school site and Port Union Community Centre soulh to lake front). :iE . Challenges and Opportunitie$: Ql ... lD Potenliallocation for a boallaunch facility in the area, ... . Ql potential location for high quality regional gateway willl subject to an Environmental Assessment and review of j . Co regionally significant recreation/lourisl (Iestination point specific local factors :I:J lD iiI . development of viable commerciaVresidential community ... lD provision of le~estrian access to and along the water's edge Develop Port Union Road as regional t.ateway and trovide Co . . r resolution 0 rail use conflicts including pedestrian and destination oriented activities at water ront (ie. at-s ore Ql . j vehicle crossing of the CN rail line recreational facilities, such as pier, viewing platform). Co ~ . enllancement of nalural habitat along sllOreline Ql j establishment of natural inlan(llinkages and integration Improve open coast aquatic habitat diversi~ in context of Ql . . lD with new residential developments developing water's e(lge traiVpier structure/ aunching 3 lD . development of self sustaining shoreline stabilization facility. j ... program }> Provicle primary waterfront trail along the entire water', Co . Review with tile community the possibility of integrating . < iii' lhe Waste Disposal Facility into the public use\green space c(lge, soulh of lhe train tracks. 0 system. to Provide pedestrian access to waterfront trail from f1roposeJ 0 . enhance traillinka~es with neighbouring segments . Ql ... enhance visual qua ity ami visual access to walerfront village common (i.e. provide access across CN Rai ). Co . '*t m - to . Consider purchase of private homes on south side of rail m . Key Management Recommemlations: line for purpose of establishing commercial-recreational use 0 n ... al Clleslerlon Shores. 0 0- Develop site-s~eCific concept plan for waterfront, lD . ... -' integrating ur an development, tourism and recreation, OJ -' to to Metro Region Conservation Page -19 m ~,. Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary . Suprrt continue,l monitoring of the Waste Disposal . Challenges allll Opportunities: :E II) r+ Faci ity and wilen comlitions permit, investigate in CD ... consultation with the community the appropriateness of improving tile Rouge River water quality II) . ::l Q. public use of tllis site as' part ,of the open space system. . implementation of the Rouge Park Management plan ::II CD . integration of ISMP with Rouge Park Management plan Di Improve pedestrian access to tile waterfront from the Go r+ . . preservation of sand bar feature at mouth of river CD Q. Station parking lot with a link to tile planned village . hail connection to Pod Union Road, Segment 9 and r II) ::l common, Chestedon SllOres and Waterfront Trail. Segment 11 Q. s: II) . Encourage CN Rail to participate in preparation of long- . Key Management Recommendations: ::l II) term shore management. CD 3 . SljPort implementation of the Rouge Park Master plan CD ::l Segment.IO an integration with the ISMP. r+ :r> Q. < Rouge River . Support all measures designed to improve water quality in iii' 0 the watershed ~ie. best management practices to improve OJ The Rouge River system is an important natural area with surface run-of quality; municipal sewer separation 0 II) ... species and habitat diversity second to none in the study area. programs; end of pipe solutions). , Q. I~ A Management plan for the Rouge River is being implemented, lJ) -- Monitor development of samlbar ami erosion at headland to and the ISMP recommendations are in support of the Plan. . lJ) Tile system provides an excellent natural corridor with a diverse on the east si,le of the mouth of tile Rouge; stabilize 0 n array of passive recreation opportunities. headland (east side), if required. r+ 0 CT CD ... . Characteristics: . Establish primary trail link south of CN Rail line with ~ (Xl Segment 9. ~ most significant habitat corridor within the studt area to . to lJ) extending inland through a number of municipa ities . this segment is part of the Rouge Park Master plan area, consisting of some 5,800 acres of land in Scarborough (with substantial valley connection to additional parklaml/habitat located north of Steeles Avenue). 0 ~ Metro Region Conservation Page -20 to w ~ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary 0 -a SU[Port all measures ,Iesigned to improve water quality (0 . .j:>. wit lin waterslled (ie. best management practices to improve Segment 11 surface runoff quality; municipal sewer separation programs; eml of pipe actions; improved waste water Petticoat Creel~ treatment efficiency and effectiveness; and RAP initiatives). . Enhance Whites Road as a regional gateway. ~ This is a largely residt:ntial segment with significant natural III ... CD . . ., habitat and recreation areas associate,1 with Petticoat Creek . Recognize Petticoat Creek Conservation Area as a Regional III :3 Conservation Axea. Petticoat Creek is one of three major Recreation Node. a. :JJ natural inland corridors within tile study area. CD iii' ... Provide a greater degree of pedestrian/bicycle ... . CD Characteristics: a. . access/connection to inland areas (along Petticoat Creek). r- III :3 a. . excellent vellicular and pedestrian access to waterfront and . Maintain primary trail along the top of the bluff (brow ~ III recreation opportunities at the Conservation Axea trail). :3 Dl . Petticoat Creek system represents one of the three most CD si~nificant natural corridors within the plan area, extending . Maintain trail link along residential roads between Petticoat 3 CD in ami beyond the study area boundaries Creek Conservation Area an,1 Frenchman's Bay (i.e. along :3 ... ~ . good passive recreation opportunities Park Cr., Surf Ave., West Shore Blvd., and Beachpoint a. < Prom.). iii' 0 . Challenges and Opportunities: Provide innovative methods for shoreline treatment at m . 0 shoreline protection without impacting beach nourisllment Fairport Beadl, such as ncrar-sllOre annouring, and profile Dl . ., a. in Segment 12 adjusting revetments. ~ (J) improving the water quality of Petticoat Creek - . (0 Reinforce natural headlands to protect/stabilize beach ill (J) . 0 . Key Management Recommendations: Segment 1 () (low to moderate priority, depending on . n ... 0 monitoring results at Rouge River mouth). a- CD Naturalize portions oC Conservation Area to enllance ., . -a Protection oC existing residences (currently unprotected) eX) natural corridors alul habitat diversity. . -a (0 (0 (J) Metro Region Conservation Page -2 J It- - Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary sllOulcl be Iligll priority or purchase homes over long-lerm. ~ III r+ CD ... Key Management Recommendations: III Segment 12 . . ::J a. ::0 Develop with a detailed conce\ plan for the entire Bay area CD Frenchman's Bay . iii' r+ as a regional recreation node; y actions may include: CD a. - concentration of commercia uses on east side; r- III ::J This is a (liverse area with a large residenti!ll community, habitat protection and restoration; a. - commercial uses, marinas, beaches, and public parks. It is a use restrictions on the water and bay shores. ~ - III focal point of regional significance for recreation. Significant [urchase properties at end of Beachroint Promenade; ::J - III welland features and prominent bay. lock vehicular access at west end 0 Promenade and CD 3 provide for parking and trail head facilities; CD ::J . Characteristics: designate waterfront trail spur along Beachpoint r+ - }> Promenade; a. < very accessible for local and regional visitors move the existing boat launch from the west to the east iii' . - 0 . extensive marina facilities side of Bay; OJ . contains a diversity of wetlands and fish habitat establish pedestrian link between west and east shore 0 - III ... . poor water quality (sedimentation willlin the Bay) (options to investigate may include: ferry link; li1- :&t . dynamic sand beacll boardwalk between Bruce I-Ianscombe Park and Bayview CJ) -- (0 Street); CJ) . Cllallenges and Opportunities: - develop Liverpool Road into regional gateway with 0 0 appropriate trailllead infrastructure; r+ 0 improvement of water quality and reduce sedimentation lJ . - restore and protect beach/dune habitat on west side of CD .... . preservation of aquatic and wetland habitat gap (promote ve1etation of dune features); .... co . need to ensure that future develolment within the - restore/enhance ake marsh habitat; .... watershed will not cause further eterioration of habitat and naturalize portions of public parklands (Ontario Hydro (0 - (0 water quality Park, Bay Rhlges Kinsmen Park, Bruce Ilanscombe CJ) . stabilization of beadl profiles Park). . alignment of waterfront trail . visual quality/level of maintenance of public grounds . Mainlain the function of the sand Junes (regeneration of vegetation, limit public access). 0 .... Metro Region Conservation Page -22 (0 CJ1 . It- Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary 0 ~ <0 en . Support all measures llesigned to improve water quality (ie. best management practices to improve surface mnoff quality; municipal sewer separation programs; end of pipe actions; improved waste water treatment efficiency and effectiveness; and RAP initiatives). ~ Dl .-+ CD IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ... Dl :J a. , :0 CD Dl .-+ It is recommended that the municipalities adopt Waterfront management recommendations. CD . a. r Management Zones 1 and 2 (WMZ) to implement the Dl :J recommended actions. WMZI would be tile area It is recommended that a Waterfront Council be a. . ~ immediately along the waterfront, inclUlling tile regulatory established, to promote and ensure implementation of the Dl :J shoreline and all core natural areas and corridors. ISMP (details to be worbed out). Dl co Development in WMZI should be restricted. WMZ2 wouM ,CD 13 encompass tile locally significant natural areas as well as the It is recommended that tile Watedront Council prepare a CD . :J .-+ recreational tateways and nodes. Development in this zone State of tile Environment Report Card and evaluate the )> a. coulll occur, ut would reflect gOOlI design and implementation progress of the ISMP, on a regular basis. < iii' inco:roration of ISMP objectives and Iinbs to the 0 It is recommended that monitorij' of the shoreline as -< water ront. . m outlinecl in tile ISMP, be llelivere by a variety of agencies 0 Dl ... It is recommended that tile MTRCA and other public and public groups. Comm~nity monitoring is encouraged, a. . ~ agencies encourage and support the involvement of ~rivate with the coonlination of the shoreline Ilealth monitoring by en -- <0 organizations, neighbourhoods, anll individuals in t Ie the Walerfrollt Council. en management of publicly ownecllands. 0 0 .-+ 0 0- It is recommended that private lanll stewardsllip ami land CD . ... management activities be considered a desirable ~ to implementation tool for a number of the shoreline ~ <0 <0 en Metro Region Conservation Page -23 "-r Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Phase 2: Executive Summary ~ QI It is Recommended dlat action plans be prepared (or lhe six concept siles i(lenliCieJ wilhin dlis ISMP: r+ . CD ... QI ::I Q. AREA KEY ISSUES :D CD Di' r+ Bluffers Park Relief of traffic congestion and improved public and pedestrian access. CD Q. r QI Gates Gully Formal community trail head, habitat enhancement, parking facilities, ::I Q. ~ (Bellamy Road Ravine) integration wilh existing community activities' QI ::I QI Guildwood Ravine Formal trialllead facilities suitable for a community gateway, and trail CD 3 improvemenls. CD ::I r+ consideration of a boat launch facility, formal trial head facilities, trail }> East Point Park Q. ~. improvements and linkages, and llabitat management. III 0 -< Port Union and Chesterton Integrate land use and urban design concepts including village common lD 0 QI Shores pedestrian ami vehicular traffic, boat launch facility, pier, and Waterfront ... Q. :at T .1 CJ) ral . -- (0 CJ) Frenchman's Bay Habitat management, walerfront hail delineation, welland improvemenls, bay 0 0 entrance design/dredging activities, water qualily improvemenls and community r+ 0 CT input/stewardsllip. .CD ... ~ !D ~ (0 (0 CJ) 0 ~ ,~ . (0 ~ 1. '_ _, -..J Metro Region Conservation Page -24 ~ Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Pha.e 2: Eneutive Summary o CONCLUSIONS WANT MORE DETAILS? ~ This Integrated Management Shoreline plan with its vision and If you have any questions or comments on the Integrated key management recommemlations, reflects the input of tile Shoreline Management Plan, please contact: shoreline community from the various public workshops. Tllis plan will provide the framework for the public ami agencies Lo Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist move towanls the vision of a healthy sllOreline. . MTRCA, at ( 416) 661-6600, ext. 243. ~ Fax (416) 661-6898. ~ To keep the plan ami the recommendations current anll to ~ gatller support for its implementation, is everybody's If you prefer, please write to him at: ~ responsibility anll requires commitment from tile ~ municipalities, tile Conservation Authority, the Waterfront Mr. Larry Field ; T mst and the residents and visitors of the shoreline. Waterfront Specialist ~ , Watershed Management Division ~ In this context, the Shoreline Management Advisory The Metropolit~n Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ~ Committee ( SMAC) as an allvocac~ group, facilitator, and 5 Shore~am Dnve ~ t f tl ISMP' I. t t' t 1 Downsvlew. ON promo er 0 Ie IS a Rey Imp emen a Ion 00. M3N IS4 , '~':" ~~ ~, : 3 On the basis of the strategy recommendations and only with " ..., f~ ~ this shared approach and commitment towards the plan will the \_J M ~ vision lor the waterfront for the shoreline extending between ~,.....q.,'~l ; ~. Tommy Thompson Park and Frenchman's Bay, be acllievell. ." . . o' 0 Established In 19S710 manage the renewablF natural resources of Ihe region's watershed, ~ Ihe Aulhorily is a provincial/municipal partnership wilh participalion from Ihe Province of ~ Onlario; The MunicipalilY of Melropolilan Toronlo; nle Regional Municipalilles of Peel, 0. ()urham. and York; aud Ihe Townships of Adjala and Mono. ~ -- (0 !'l o o ... o a- CD ... ~ (X) ~ Metro Region Conservation Page -25 ~ Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 D199 RES #D61/96- ETOBICOKE CREEK WATERSHED STUDY Phase 1 Hydrology/Stormwater Management Criteria Adoption of revised Hydrology and Storm water Management Strategy for the Etobicoke Creek. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Etobicoke Creek Watershed Study, Phase 1, for the Hydrology and Stormwater Management Criteria for the Etobicoke Creek Watershed be received; THA T the recommendations of the study for managing stormwater related to minimizing flood risk on the Etobicoke Creek be adopted as the criteria for dealing with the need for stormwater control on future development and that a first flush control for the 25 mm rainfall over a minimum of a 24 hour period be adopted as the minimum criteria to address Erosion and water quality concerns within the Etobicoke Creek Watershed. AND FURTHER THAT each of the municipalities within the Etobicoke Creek Watershed be requested to endorse the study recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND Following completion of the Rouge River Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy, Hydrology studies were completed on the Duffins Creek and Don River watersheds in support of broader watershed planning initiatives. The Authority had been dealing with development within the Etobicoke Creek Watershed and particularly in the City of Brampton through a secondary planning or master planning process. With several master plans being considered within Brampton and several more existing plans being revised, the Authority requested that the overall basin storm water planning be reviewed and confirmed. In 1994, the Authority, in partnership with the City of Brampton and several developers undertook to review the Etobicoke Creek watershed and develop revised hydrology for both existing conditions and for future conditions based upon future official plans and beyond. The analysis included an assessment of hydrologic impacts at flood vulnerable structures, road crossings and active valley use areas such as golf courses to determine the appropriate level of storm water controls which were required on an overall watershed basis. The use of quantity control to achieve water quality and erosion control targets was assumed as a given throughout the basin, with the level of flood control requirements the only issue to be resolved. D200 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 The watershed was split into six sub-basin areas (see attached figure) and storm water control levels developed within each of these basins. Given the highly developed nature of the Etobicoke Creek watershed, several large planning areas where previous studies had been completed have storm water facilities partially or wholly implemented. The modelling for this study incorporated these previously approved hydrologic models maintaining those flood control storm water facilities that had previously been required or constructed based upon site specific constraints. With the above noted studies incorporated, the analysis undertaken through this study resulted in the following strategies which are proposed for future development within each basin. The strategies deal with approaches required to manage the more frequent flow events to provide for protection against increased erosion and reducing impacts of urbanization on water quality (i.e. 25 mm rainfall) and providing controls related to flood control on those less frequent flows if required due to downstream constraints (i.e. 2-100 year storm flows). Future Development to Official Plan Limits Tributary 1) Water Quality/Erosion control only Tributary 2) Water Quality/Erosion control with 2 year through 100 year flood control controls upstream of Bovaird Drive as per the existing master plan requirements. Tributary 3) Water Quality/Erosion control only (Main Branch) Water Quality/Erosion control only Tributary 4) Water Quality/Erosion control only Tributary 5) Water Quality/Erosion control and 2 year through 100 year quantity control for flood control purposes. Development Beyond Official Plan Levels Given the small amount of lands not presently covered within the City of Brampton's Official Plan, a future development scenario above the level shown was analysed to confirm or determine any alterations to the stormwater strategies developed. The following strategies are reflected by this analysis: Tributary 1) Water Quality/Erosion control and potential for overcontrol of flows within Caledon. Tributary 2) Water Quality/Erosion control and 2 year through 100 year control of flows..within ~ands in"Brampton and Caledon Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0201 Tributary 3) Water Quality/Erosion control only (Main Branch) Water Quality/Erosion control only Tributary 4) Water Quality/Erosion control only Tributary 5) Water Quality/Erosion control and 2 year through 100 year quantity control for flood control purposes. For information contact: Don Haley, Ext. 226 0202 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 - - ~'-. I '-=..-~_..-. .- _ _ _ _ _ _ ETOB/COKE " 1 ! I , , I / / I CREEK / I '/ 7 ~~r WATERSHED ..~ - )It' I SU BWATERSH EDS ~7~ J I I "1 J 411 I ._k I I~" . -=:~ -"" ..... , .. ,---....J. ../, ..-- ~ I., I I J / ~ I" . JI LEGEND ; I III! Watershed Boundary M /'" /; J 't Main Highway - IN'" 2 ..... . .... I !AN _.enol Road - ,J V J I ~) Main Tributary -......... j l _. I ~ ~ ( I Subwatershed Boundary- - ~ ~~, 1." - IlUUII'"AIW ~ ........ ""- ""'J " I ~-, 1 7""'0..... .....~J"'I/ - ~ ~ ~ '1..... ~.~, " ... ~ , '1\f ........~ ...... ___.I J ~ \: "-I I -. "':- : ~/.'J U'i ~sco aI' j Iy "C!:! :m 5 , Prepared for: . ~ ~ MTRCA I I ~ ... Prepared by: I Fred Sc:haeffer ok Auoc:iates Ltd. ".J.n.. 1,- "" .AY l J / APRIL 1995 It; / Job No. 93-E-1565 /lJ,L' Sc:ale: N. r.S. 1Ak. Onl8na I SCHAEFFtl! -- 1.2 ---.- Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board_N6/96, October 18, 1996 0203 RES #D62/96- DUFFINS CREEK WATERSHED STUDY Phase 1 Hydrology/Stormwater Management Criteria Adoption of revised Hydrology and Storm water Management Strategy for the Duffins Creek. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Duffins Creek Watershed Study, Phase 1, for the Hydrology and Storm water Criteria for the Duffins Creek watershed be received; AND FURTHER THAT the recommendations of the report for a Stormwater Management Strategy for Flood Control on the Duffins Creek be adopted as the criteria for dealing with the need for stormwater control on future development and that a first flush control for the 25 mm rainfall over a minimum of a 24 hour period be adopted as a minimum to address erosion and water quality concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority has been developing strategies for management of each watershed within its jurisdiction. Following the completion and adoption of the Rouge Watershed Strategy, the approach was considered on both the Duffins Creek and the Don River watersheds as the next candidates. With the provincial initiatives related to the Seaton'Community at that time, the Authority undertook a comprehensive review and update of the Duffins Creek hydrology as a starting point to the potential development of the Duffins Creek Watershed Plan. The hydrology study on the Duffins Creek was initiated and completed in late 1991. The study involved an overall review and update of the Authority's existing 1979 hydrology studies and the development of a projected storm water management strategy for the watershed dealing with flood control issues. 0204 Water and Related Land Manag~!Jlent Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 With the shift in the provincial interests within the Seaton lands in 1991, the Authority's watershed management initiatives shifted from the Duffins Creek to the Don River and the continued development of the Duffins Creek Plan was put on hold. In addition to the change in watersheds selected for management plans, the Authority had also begun a review of the Authority's program related to storm water management. It was felt that several issues related to the implementation of the Duffins Creek storm water strategies would be resolved through this update. These issues were related to a minor system control strategy, Authority and provincial water quality concerns, infilling requirements and the equity necessary within adopted strategies. Consequently, the overall study has not previously been brought forward for Authority adoption. In the absence of a comprehensive adopted strategy, staff have been requesting overall control of runoff rates from post to pre-development levels. The recent initiatives of the Province to accelerate development of the Seaton lands makes it important for the Authority to confirm the Storm water Management Criteria. The issues related to the adoption of the Duffins Creek storm water strategy have been resolved or are being resolved through the Authority's ongoing works related to developing an updated storm water program. This process has been undergoing a complete revision following the Don watershed plan development; however, development pressures within the Duffins Creek watershed have identified a current need for the adoption of basin wide storm water strategies developed within the Duffins Creek study. The Duffins Creek Watershed Study, Phase 1, Hydrology, provided for two objectives: 1 ) To develop an updated hydrology data base on the Duffins Creek; 2) To evaluate the effectiveness of runoff controls and develop a strategy for the Duffins Creek Watershed. The first component of the study was completed by developing a new hydrologic model on the Duffins Creek basin and utilizing the 1986 fall flooding events to calibrate the model. Once calibrated, the model was updated to reflect 1991 land use conditions and flows were developed for the 2 yrs., 5 yrs., 10 yrs., 25 yrs., 50 yrs., 100 yrs. and Regional storms. In addition, five future development scenarios were prepared and flows calculated for each. The future land uses were established based upon Official Plans, development on the Seaton and Federal Airport lands as well as on additional levels of development on the eastern tributaries of the Duffins Creek. The second component of the study involved analysing various levels of storm water controls on each of the five land use assumptions to determine the viability of controls as a basin management tool.- The outcome of each analysis indicated that stormwater controls of post to pre-development peak flows up to and including the 100 year storm were effective and should be implemented on both the east branch and its tributaries upstream of Highway #7 and the Millers Creek tributary upstream of Rossland Road. On the west Duffins Creek and its tributaries, it was concluded that post to pre-development controls up to and including the 100 year storm north of Highway #7 would also be effective in mitigating against flooding impacts and should be adopted. ~ Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0205 The study identified that the post to pre-development control of the two year peak flow criteria in use at that time was not effective in controlling erosion. To address erosion and water quality concerns, a comprehensive approach to treating our low flow management concerns would be met by adopting the current standard first flush control for a 25 mm rainfall over a minimum 24 hour period is recommended. For information contact: Don Haley, Ext. 226 RES #063/96 - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL The appointment of members to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT in accordance with recommendations received from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council that Mr. Yuk Woo Lee be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council; THAT the resignation of Mr. Jason Brown be received; AND FURTHER THAT Mr. John Wilson be appointed as an Associate Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/96 held May 17, 1996, Resolution #W23/96, in part, was approved: AND FURTHER THA T the Chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, in consultation with the Chairs of the three subcommittees, be requested to recommend a Don Watershed resident willing to serve and contribute to the Don Council until the end of its term being November 1997 ............ CARR/ED ~ 0206 Water and Related Land Manage!Jlent Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 Mr. Jason Brown has advised staff that due to other commitments requiring prolonged absences and hence, his inability to attend meetings of the Don Council, he wishes to resign his position at this time. It is recommended that Mr. Brown's resignation be accepted and that he be thanked for his interest and his continuing support of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, Ext. 238 RES #D64/96- DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL The minutes of Meeting #5/96 of August 22, 1996 and Meeting #6/96 of September 26, 1996, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #5/96 held August 22, 1996, and Meeting #6/96 held September 26, 1996, be received. ................................ CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land 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, Ext 238 " . Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board ~6/96, October 18, 1996 0207 RES #065/96- REVISED PROJECT FOR THE ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP WATERFRONT PARK (March 1993) Waterfront Public Amenity Area Plan. To approve the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Public Amenity Area Plan and provide direction to proceed with obtaining agency approvals. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report dated October 10, 1996 on the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Public Amenity Study be received; THA T the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Public Amenity Area Plan be approved, subject to approval of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Etobicoke; THA T the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Public Amenity Area Plan be submitted to the Minister of the Environment and Energy for approval in accordance with Ontario Regulation No. 765/94 and Notice of Extension of Exemption Order MTRCA-2 (December 12, 1995); THA T the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Public Amenity Area Plan be submitted to the City of Etobicoke for approval and incorporation into the approved Secondary Plan (C-65- 86) as set out in Policy Section 15.11.3. AND FURTHER THAT the Province of Ontario, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Etobicoke, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, and members of the Consultative Committee be so advised. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND An Order in Council for an Exemption Order(MTRC-A-2) under the Environmental Assessment Act, was approved on November 30, 1994 with an extension for Exemption Order (MTRC-A-2) approved by the Minister of Environment and Energy on December 12, 1995. This exemption, as extended, for the Etobicoke Motel Strip Public Amenity area is subject to specific terms and conditions. One of these conditions is as follows: 5. The Authority must prepare and submit to the Minister of the Environment and Energy for approval, by December 31, 1996, or such a date as the Minister of Environment and Energy may specify by notice in writing to the .- proponent...and published in. the .Ontario Gazett6, a"land. use plan for the activities to be sited on the area of the undertaking, excluding storm water management system and the lakeshore drive right-of-way. This plan shall include a built in mechanism for its alteration. The land use plan will be prepared with public consultation involving local citizens and groups as a Park Master Plan which, if it is approved by the Minister of Environment and Energy, will be submitted for incorporation into the Official Plan Amendment C-65-86 (Motel Strip Secondary Plan). 0208 Water and Related Land Management Advisory. Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 The creation of activities shall be limited to filling, passive recreation, implementation of storm water management system and construction of Waterfront Drive until such time as the Minister of the Environment has approved the land use plan referred to in this condition. 7. This order shall expire if construction to implement the amenity area has not commenced by December 31, 1997, or such later date as the Minister of Environment and Energy may specify by notice in writing to the proponent and published in the Ontario Gazette. The Etobicoke Motel Strip Secondary Plan (C-65-86) as approved by Cabinet on December 16, 1992, also refers to the park plan in Section 15.11.3. 15.11.3 Implementation Process: Implementation of Section 15.7.2 Waterfront Public Amenity Area will require the preparation of a Special Site Policy, to be introduced by way of an Amendment to this Plan. In preparing that Amendment, Council shall seek input from a Steering Committee, with representation from the City, Metropolitan Toronto, appropriate Provincial Ministries, property owners, and Citizens Concerned for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront. The Amendment shall deal with lands designated as Waterfront Public Amenity Area within the Secondary Plan Area; lands designated as Open Space to the west of the Secondary Plan Area; and, to the extent necessary, lands within Humber Bay Park East. Hough Woodland Naylor Dance were retained in the spring of 1995 to prepare a comprehensive plan of the Waterfront Public Amenity area along the Motel Strip in accordance with the Motel Strip Secondary Plan and the Authority's Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park (March, 1993). A Consultative Committee and Technical Committee was established and co-chaired by the Authority and the City of Etobicoke. The consultants reported to a Consultative Committee comprising of all property owners, agency stakeholders and representatives from local interest groups. The Technical Advisory Committee was composed of technical staff from the MTRCA, Metro Toronto and the City of Etobicoke. The following design principles were developed by the design team through workshops with the public, Technical Advisory Committee and the Consultative Committee. These principles established the 'pregramming' framework for the 'park plan and guided the preparation of conceptual design options for the public's review and comment. . Integrate the urban community and natural realm; . Create diversity on the waterfront and a distinctive identity; . Reintroduce the recreational pier to the community's experience of the waterfront; . Establish the language of the urban forms; . Establish a network of urban corridors and green connections; . Build the scenic drive experience; Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board_tt6/96, October 18, 1996 0209 . Provide a hierarchy of walking and biking experiences; . Maximize seasonal/night use; . Reinforce the natural and cultural heritage themes; and . Flexibility of implementation phases. The study involved extensive public consultation with four meetings of the Consultative Committee and three public meetings/workshops. All public meetings were advertised in the local papers and through notice to public on a general mailing list. A series of three Park Plan newsletters were developed throughout the process and distributed to provide information on the design process and to solicit interest and comment on the park concepts. The recommended park plan was very well received by the public and Consultative Committee (May 29, 1996). The central theme of the Amenity Area design is "the interrelationship between the urban community and the natural realm". The concept, guided by the previous principles, creates a series of unique places linking both the natural and urban landscape area within a rich and dynamic waterfront setting. The park will provide a focal point in the linear connection between Humber River and Humber Bay Parks. The park plan includes three sectors that add to the diversity of the landscape character and reflect the proposed shoreline conditions and surrounding context of the site (See attached Park Plan). The Central Place provides a public gathering place for programmed events and activities, and integrates the urban portions of the park with the future private development on the north side of Waterfront Drive. A pier structure will provide reference to the historic Palace Pier and is a visible extension of the Plaza and main street as well as a natural terminus to the north-south greenspace connection between Lakeshore Blvd and the lake. The Wetlands reflect the wilder, natural landscapes found in the Humber Bay East Park and combines fish habitat compensation measures and proposals for storm water management with opportunities for public access, interpretation and wildlife viewing. The Beaches offers naturalized area, a separated system of walking and cycling trails, lookout area, and closer contact with the waters edge along a series of cobble beaches. The three sectors of the park are linked by a two-tiered trail system. The Urban Promenade forms the upper trail and accommodates both cycling and walking paths within a formalized street scape. The Promenade links the Central Place with other landscaped park entrance nodes at the terminus of the view corridors established by the north-south connector roads. The lower Water's Edge Trai/ is designed for walking only, and links key viewing areas along the shoreline, through a series of boardwalks and soft surface trails. Waterfront Drive provides a scenic driving and access route through the area, the delineation of the public park-areas from the private development to the north. The south edge of the road is highlighted by the Urban Promenade which forms the interface between the street and the more natural areas of the park. 0210 Water and Related Land Manage!!lent Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 A number of principles were established to provide a framework for implementing the park plan as a series of incremental yet interconnected components, within a flexible time frame that can respond to the overall timing of the redevelopment of the Motel Strip. Some of these principles include: a strategy with many design and program layers that can be constructed or installed in the immediate or longer term, arrange these layers for the key places of the plan as a series or building parts which can be added on to as time and budgets allow; promote special projects as a series of assignments which foster partnership efforts in design, implementation and management; and implementation co- ordination. In 1993, the Partners (the Province of Ontario, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Etobicoke and the MTRCA) approved the "Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park (March, 1993) at a funding level of $8.35 million. This project provided funding for the creation of the basic regional park linkage between the Humber River and the Humber Bay Parks including: 1) acquisition and creation of the land base, 2) shoreline protection, 3) fish compensation plan and features 4) waterfront trail and 5) basic landscaping. The study estimates additional costs beyond the Project to fully implement all aspects of the regional park of $7.83 million which includes the Central Place (including lookout tower and pier), Urban Promenade (south side of Waterfront Drive), the Beaches and the Wetlands. Of these costs approximately $4 million is attributed to the more urban feature in the park - the Central Place. The study also provided costs for features of the Motel Strip Public Amenity related to the municipal (Etobicoke) infrastructure estimated at $3.4 million, which includes: Waterfront Drive (streetscape enhancement), Storm water Management facility, Local Park, Palace Pier Court (park entrance, streetscape enhancements) and Park Lawn Road entrance. Under the Waterfront Agreement (1972), the waterfront park being developed under the project will be managed and maintained by Metropolitan Toronto. Special arrangements will be required for certain elements of the public amenity area such as the storm water management facility (municipal infrastructure program). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Park Plan will be submitted to Metropolitan Toronto and Etobicoke Council's for approval this fall. The Park Plan also must be submitted to the Minister of the Environment and Energy for approval in accordance with Ontario Regulation 765/94 and Notice of Exemption Order MTRC-A-2 (December 12, 1995). In addition the City of Etobicoke will process an amendment to the approved Secondary Plan (C-65-86) incorporating the Etobicoke Motel 'Strip Waterfront Public Amenity Area Plan as set out in Policy Section 15.11.3. The Authority commenced in July/96 to construct the landbase for the park and provide the City of Etobicoke the rough grade land area by early 1997 to facilitate the Municipal Infrastructure works. Detailed implementation design of the park will be undertaken in co- ordination with detailed design currently underway for the infrastructure works. Completion of the basic waterfront park under the Project and municipal infrastructure works is currently scheduled for late 1998. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board_~6/96, October 18, 1996 0211 FINANCIAL DETAILS The expenditures for the Park Plan - Phase I are included within "Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park"(March 1993) approved budget of $8,350,000. Timing of the full build out of the Park Plan is dependant on various factors such as funding partnerships, rate of private development and municipal priorities. To ensure that the regional park is completed, Metropolitan Toronto is making provision in its capital works program to undertake such work beyond the scope of the MTRCA Project. Implementation of the final design of the Central Place may require special funding partnerships and other arrangements determined necessary at the time. Report prepared by: Larry Field, Ext. 243 0212 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 -- ... . i- ll: .~ !~ E:: I > <u - E J ~ l,j '- - .Q :: ...~ J i ~ f 11 .~ IllII I ~ o!}!; == 1J J! ! i > _."l ~: , I \ I ~I '=!.' ,., '~I ... . . l' .. -- .,., ~ ~ ~ . Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0213 Ii' /?-. 1J r _ ~ a.U _w a:-, 1;0 mfjl.r: z 15~; =l~ 2f~~1 A. .- &II W t-u: ~ ... ~ ~.s 0 '" Ci u Oct o. a::I 110. -~ CD a: .... I2w w ~ "'t iiIi - ~ 0214 Water and Related Land Management Advisory. Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 RES #066/96- MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MAPLE DISTRICT OFFICE LANDS, SOUTH OF TESTON ROAD, EAST OF DUFFERIN STREET, CITY OF VAUGHAN Proposal by the Province of Ontario to dispose of the former Ministry of Natural Resources, Maple District office and associated 120 acres of land, Dufferin Street, City of Vaughan, including environmentally significant areas of interest to the Authority, in the Don River Watershed. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Regional Councillor Michael Di Biase, be appointed as the Authority's member to the Ministry of Natural Resources Lands Task Force established by the City of Vaughan; THA T Craig Mather, Chief Administrative Officer, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be Mr. Di Biasi's alternate; THAT the Authority receive and endorse the recommendations of Meeting #1/96 of the Ministry of Natural Resources Lands Task Force; THA T the Chief Administrative Officer be directed to advise the Ontario Realty Corporation of the Authority's support of the recommendation of the Ministry of Natural Resources Lands Task Force which requests an extension of time to March 31, 1997 to determine which lands should be retained in public ownership as important environmental and open space resources within the Don River watershed. AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority on any future plans related to the disposition of the Maple Ministry of Natural Resources lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board_~6/96, October 18, 1996 0215 BACKGROUND The Ontario Realty Corporation (O.R.C.l, in a letter dated September 27, 1996, informed the City of Vaughan and MTRCA that, since the MNR property is surplus to provincial needs, a.R.C. is preparing to sell the property. Before the property is offered to the market at large, a.R.C. is inquiring of public bodies if they: 1. have any particular comment on the disposition of this property; 2. have specific land in this property designated as environmentally significant; 3. have interest in acquiring this property. At Meeting #8/96, September 27, 1996, the Authority passed the following Resolution #A 180/96 which addressed the future of the Maple MNR station located at Major Mackenzie and Dufferin Ave: 'THA T the Authority urge the Province of Ontario to ensure that these important headwater lands remain in provincial ownership so they can continue to contribute to the overall protection and regeneration of the Don; THA T the Authority, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the City of Vaughan and the Region of York work with the Province to develop a plan for the long term future of the property and a strategy to protect the natural features and functions important to the health and regeneration of the Don River Watershed; AND FURTHER THA T the local MP's and MPP's, the Region of York, and the City of Vaughan be so advised. II On September 30, 1996, the City of Vaughan passed the following resolution: " 1. THA T the City of Vaughan Council endorses the Reso/ution of The Metropo/itan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority respecting the Ministry of Natural Resources Map/e District Office Lands located south of Teston Road and east of Dufferin Street in the City of Vaughan; THA T the Authority urge the Province of Ontario to ensure that these important headwater lands remain in provincia/ ownership so that they can continue to contribute to the overall protection and regeneration of the Don; and, That-the-Authority,' the Don-Watershed Regeneration Council, the City of Vaughan and the Region of York work with the Province to develop a plan for the long-term future of the property and a strategy to protect the natural features and functions important to the health and regeneration of the Don River Watershed. 0216 Water and Related Land Management Advisor'( Board #6/96, October 18. 1996 2. THA T the Premier of Ontario be formally requested not to declare the Ministry of Natural Resources Maple District Office Lands surplus or to turn them over to the Ontario Realty Corporation for disposal, at this time, until such time as the above-noted plan can be developed and considered; and, 3. THA T the City of Vaughan agrees to participate in a joint Task Force of all the parties to consider a long-term plan; and further that Vaughan's participants in the Task Force be those members of Council sitting on the MTRCA and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, being Regional Councillor M. Di Biase and Councillors Meffe, Racco and Green; and also that Mrs. Lynn McMillan and Mrs. Ruth Redelmeier be invited to participate along with the City's elected representatives. 11 On October 9, 1996 the first meeting of the Ministry of Natural Resources Lands Task Force was convened by Councillor Di Biase at which time the following resolutions were adopted: "THA T Mr. Mark Wilson be appointed the Chairperson for the Ministry of Natural Resources Lands Task Force. THA T the Task Force recommends to the Councils of the City of Vaughan and the Region of York and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority the following: THA T interest be expressed to the Ontario Realty Corporation rO.R. C.) no later than October 22, 1996, in acquiring the M.N.R. lands located on Dufferin Street in Maple; THA T an extension of time to March 31, 1997 be requested from the Ontario Realty Corporation in order to provide an opportunity to carry out and complete environmental impact studies; THA T the O. R. C. be requested to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that there be no deterioration to the M.N.R. site, the adjacent and downstream properties and the Don River; THA T the O. R. C. be requested to add to their environmental audit, the impact of shutting down the water pumps including any implications under the Fisheries Act; THA T the O.R. C. be requested to allow the Task Force the opportunity to review and develop the' terms'of reference for an environmental impact study. THA T a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible with a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding policy implications of surrender of the site and cost of operations. THA T the Task Force recommends to the Councils of the City of Vaughan and the Region of York and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority the following: Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #6/96, October 18, 1996 0217 THA T a joint environmental review of the subject property be conducted immediately; and THA T a staff technical unit consisting of representatives of the City of Vaughan, Region of York and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be provided to assist the Task Force. THA T the Chair be directed to issue a press release to al/ appropriate media concerning today's meetings. THA T the Task Force hold a public meeting if necessary at an appropriate date. " The minutes of the above meeting were forwarded to Authority staff for inclusion in this report and for consideration by the Authority. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Authority staff are forwarding to the O.R.C. a copy of the Authority's resolution and a copy of this staff report once dealt with by the Board. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, Ext.238 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:00 p.m., October 18, 1996. Lni~ Griffin Cr::iig M::ithp.r Chair Secretary- Treasurer Ipl ~ - , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #7/96 November 29, 1996 Page D218 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, November 29, 1996. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 15 a.m. PRESENT Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair lIa Bossons ................................................ Member Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Jim McMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair Joan King .................................................. Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES. #D67/96 - MINUTES Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/96, held October 18, 1996, be approved. . .. CARRIED 0219 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 PRESENT A TION Mr. Michael Izzard, Chair of the Humber Watershed Task Force and Ms. Madelyn Webb, Humber Watershed Specialist presented "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" ,see Res. #D69/96. Mr. Gary Wilkins presented the second part of this report, "A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy." RES. #D68/96 - PRESENTATION Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Jim McMaster THAT the above presentation be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES. #D69/96 - THE HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED TASK FORCE REPORT "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" "A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy" Authority receipt and endorsement of the Humber Watershed Task Force reports. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber Watershed Task Force reports titled, "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" dated November 20, 1996 and "A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy" dated October 30, 1996, as appended, be received and endorsed; THA T the task force members and volunteers be thanked for their significant achievement; THA T the staff be directed to publish the reports for broad circulation; THAT the reports be circulated to federal departments, provincial ministries, watershed municipalities, non-government organizations (NGO's), businesses and made available to the public; continued... Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0220 - THA T the appropriate federal and provincial ministries and watershed municipalities be requested to endorse the Humber Challenge and Guiding Principles; THA T the federal departments, provincial ministries and watershed municipalities be requested to consider innovative, as well as traditional opportunities, for taking actions that will lead to the implementation of the task force reports and wide adoption of the Humber Pledge; THA T other watershed residents and stewards be asked to endorse the direction of the reports and consider opportunities to implement it, as part of, or in addition to, their existing programs; THA T the staff be directed to provide a terms of reference and membership proposal for a Humber Watershed Alliance for the Authority's consideration in the spring of 1997; THAT staff be directed to report on the Authority's role in implementation of "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" and "A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy"; AND FURTHER THAT staff pursue the implementation of the Community Action Sites in conjunction with the appropriate agencies, interest and community groups that nominated these sites and complete draft implementation guidelines and reports including the Fisheries Management Plan and the Humber River Watershed Atlas. . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND Terms of Reference In October, 1994, the Authority approved the Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force. The task force was given a mandate to: (a) Develop a Humber River Watershed Strategy to achieve a sustainable, healthy watershed for the Humber River using an ecosystem based approach. This approach recognizes the interrelationship between natural and cultural heritage, physical, biological and economic processes, and the integration of conservation, restoration and economic activities to ensure the continued health of the watershed. The Humber River Watershed Strategy should detail, but not be limited to the following: . the specific management actions required to protect, link and regenerate greenspace resources within the watershed; . the specific management actions required throughout the watershed to address water and other watershed based resource and environmental management issues; . the provision of controlled public access and recreation opportunities that are compatible with environmental management objectives; 0221 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - . an evaluation and report on the natural heritage, cultural heritage and recreational qualities of the watershed that supports a recommendation to the Province of Ontario that the watershed be nominated as a Canadian Heritage River; . the development of resource inventory and opportunity maps for each subwatershed (as defined in the Humber River Watershed Atlas); . the development of a conceptual management plan(s) within each subwatershed (as defined in the Humber River Watershed Atlas); and . the mechanisms and integration required to protect, regenerate and sustain a healthy watershed. (b) Assist and encourage individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry and government agencies in resource planning, stewardship and management activities within the watershed. These activities could include: . pilot or demonstration management projects; . community "Adopt a Stream" initiatives; . water quality public awareness; . revegetation projects; . watershed education including natural and cultural heritage; and . public information including displays, newspaper articles, television and radio coverage and communications to municipal councils. (c) The task force membership shall: . consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business, industry and government agencies in the development of the watershed strategy; . report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board; . report progress to their respective agency, group or general public as required to maintain effective communications between all partners; . participate on technical working groups; . review and comment on draft task force documents; . assist with consultant selection; Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0222 - . host local meetings so task force members become familiar with all geographical areas; . follow the Authority's Policies and Procedures with respect to purchasing, hiring of consultants and all other matters; and . provide a draft strategy document to the Authority by June, 1996. The first meeting of the Humber Watershed Task Force was held in February, 1995. The work plan followed by the task force and the final report that was developed, substantially addresses every element of the terms of reference. The final task force report is titled, "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber". An outline summary of this report is as follows: Chapter 1 The Legacy of the Humber Watershed. An introduction to the Humber River Watershed and why people should become involved in its protection and restoration. Chapter 2 Past: The History of the Humber. An historic overview of geology, pre- historic peoples, European settlement and environmental awakening. Chapter 3 Present: The Humber Watershed Today. An overview of the state of the Humber Watershed's environment, culture and heritage, recreation and economics. Chapter 4 Future: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber Watershed. The strategy for the Humber Watershed containing 30 objectives organized according to an ecosystem approach under Environment, Economy, Society (includes culture and heritage and recreation) and Getting It Done. Chapter 5 Possibilities for Action. An overview of the Subwatershed Action Plans and Community Action Sites. Three Community Action Sites have been selected for inclusion in the strategy and conceptual maps have been drawn. A total of seventeen sites have been nominated as Community Action Sites and are acknowledged in the strategy. Chapter 6 Getting Started. What residents, landowners, business owners and municipal representatives can do to help achieve a healthy Humber watershed. 0223 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - "A Call to Action: Imolementing the Humber Watershed Strategv" ISubwatershed Action Plans) The subwatershed action plans were developed through amalgamation of information from the four task force subcommittees: Natural Heritage, Community Involvement and Public Use, Culture and Heritage and Economics. For each, the main issues and priority actions have been identified. Draft maps detailing the relevant objectives, issues and actions have been prepared. While the subwatershed action plans were prepared by MTRCA staff, the final draft was edited by Ms. Joanna Kidd of the Lura Group to ensure consistency with the text of "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber." The final subwatershed action plan report is titled, "A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy". An outline of this report is as follows: Report Summary The Humber Watershed Strategy The Humber Watershed - An Overview Using Subwatershed Action Plans and Community Action Sites Chapter 1: The Main Humber Subwatershed Chapter 2: The East Humber Subwatershed Chapter 3: The West Humber Subwatershed Chapter 4: The Black Creek Subwatershed Chapter 5: The Lower Humber Subwatershed Municioal Review Chapter 4 of "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" and the full text of "A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy" have been reviewed by municipal staff and their comments have been incorporated into the current texts. Public Consultation Public consultation in the Humber Watershed Strategy took place from December, 1995 to October, 1996. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0224 - The approach undertaken to public consultation was: . to focus on the main partners/implementers; . to build constituency that would develop a network of government departments, individuals, interest groups, businesses and others from which a broad base of support for the strategy could be built. Trinity Theatre was engaged to facilitate two rounds of public consultation which resulted in 14 meetings with members of the public in various areas of the Humber Watershed. Communication A communications plan for the Humber Watershed Strategy was developed in the fall of 1995. It recommended a focus on building awareness of the Humber Watershed, particularly among key target groups including federal, provincial, regional and municipal elected representatives and officials, the public living close to the river and key interest groups. The task force has worked to build public awareness through a variety of means. Task force members and staff have been involved in many public events such as fall fairs, The Children's Groundwater Festival and the first annual Paddle the Humber at the Claireville Conservation Area. Seven issues of the task force newsletter, The Humber Advocate, have been published and distributed to over 2,000 individuals, businesses, schools, libraries and interest groups. Many task force members have spoken about the Humber Watershed Task Force in their local communities. Presentations have also been made to municipal councils, on television and to special interest groups. Imolementation Throughout the development of the strategy, implementation activities have been ongoing in the Humber Watershed. Many partners are involved including municipalities, interest groups and MTRCA staff. Through partnerships with the federal Great Lakes 2000 Clean-up Fund, Environment Canada's Action 21 and Metro Toronto's Remedial Action plan funding, protection and regeneration activities are proceeding with a variety of partners. Some examples include: . Farmers in Peel on the West Humber . Black Creek Project on Black Creek . Action to Restore a Clean Humber on the East and Lower Humber . Municipalities The task force report does not assign specific responsibilities to any agency or group. It challenges all individuals and groups to work together as partners on protection and regeneration/illustration projects. As well, it stresses the need to integrate the strategy objectives into individuals' everyday lives and decision-making. 0225 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - The Humber Watershed Task Force, at its last meeting held November 12, 1996, resolved: "THA T the Humber Watershed Task Force express its thanks to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA), the municipalities and the many organizations and individuals who have contributed; THA T the task force forward, with great pleasure, the final report to The MTRCA for their consideration; THA T The MTRCA be asked to sign the Humber Pledge; AND FURTHER THA T The MTRCA be requested to establish the Humber Watershed Alliance as soon as possible in order to implement the recommendations contained in "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber". " RATIONALE Objective 25 in "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" recommends the establishment of a Humber Watershed Alliance to facilitate implementation of the Humber Watershed Strategy. It is recommended that The MTRCA be requested to be the first signatory of the Humber Pledge. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Publish the report and circulate it to a wide audience. Report to the MTRCA with a proposed terms of reference for the establishment of a Humber Watershed Alliance. Develop the Humber Pledge as part of the mandate of the Humber Watershed Alliance. Send a letter of thanks to the Authority for all the assistance it provided to the task force in fulfilling its mandate. Send a letter of thanks to task force members and volunteers who were involved in the development of the Humber Watershed Strategy. Continue the implementation of Community Action Sites in conjunction with partners throughout the watershed. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (ext. 331) ~, "..-. J Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0226 - RES. #D70/96 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1996-1999 East Point Park Project. To report on previous marina development plans and outline a work programme for the implementation of the East Point Park Concept site - boat launch facility. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated November 29, 1996, on the previous proposals for marina development at East Point Park be received; THA T staff be directed to proceed with the Environmental Assessment and detailed design of the East Point Park Concept Site, City of Scarborough, under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995-1999 at a total estimated cost of $400,000; THA T staff be directed to take all necessary actions with the partners to proceed in an expeditious fashion to secure all approvals; AND FURTHER THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Scarborough and the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee be so advised. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #9/96 held on October 25, 1996, Res. #A201/96 was adopted: "THA T the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan "Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay - MANAGEMENT STRA TEGIES" be received; THA T staff be directed to present the ISMP to the councils of the waterfront municipalities within the study area for their review and comment; THA T the MTRCA investigate with the waterfront municipalities and interested agencies the need, terms of reference, and membership, for a Waterfront Council to assist in the management of the shoreline; THA T staff be directed to report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board upon completion of the municipal review; . 7 1'.., " 0227 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - THA T MTRCA staff be directed to work with all shoreline management partners to implement the six concept sites subject to all necessary planning and funding approvals. THA T through the municipal review process, an outline of interested community groups be identified; AND FURTHER THA T the Authority invite the involvement of these groups and that staff stress the need for financial support as part of community involvement. " AMENDMENT RES. #A202/96 "THA T staff be directed to report on the status of previous proposals for a marina at East Point Park. " THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS ...................... CARRIED In 1971, the Authority undertook a functional planning study of the Scarborough Sector of the Waterfront Plan which included the preparation of master plans for East Point Waterfront Area. This Master Plan was approved in 1972 by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Scarborough. The 1972 East Point Park Master Plan (community recreation facilities and washrooms, artificial swimming lake and change house, marina/launching ramps) was incorporated into "The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Waterfront Plan, 1972-1982. Metropolitan Council subsequently approved the East Point Park Master Plan on June 27, 1972, subject to detailed working drawings for installations in the various areas being reviewed by Parks Department officials prior to construction to ensure that future operation of the park areas may be carried out at a realistic cost related to the entire regional system of Metropolitan Toronto. In order to update and refine the 1972 Master Plan proposal, the Authority initiated a review in 1979. This East Point Park Master Plan Update and Site Plan Preparation Study did not propose significant changes from the original master plan. Throughout the history of planning for the East Point Waterfront Park, three elements have always been incorporated into each concept or master plan: a regional sports facility, small craft harbour (boat launch) and a natural area. A study carried out by the City of Scarborough, Economic Development Department, in 1985 titled: "Biological, Economic and Social Analysis of the Scarborough Sport Fishing" recommended that: "The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority initiate the existing plan for East Point as soon as possible to accommodate the growing demands of the boating public". Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0228 - This study also suggested that the most immediate development consideration at East Point should be the construction of launching ramps and parking facilities. To provide the launching basin, and ultimately the small craft harbour, the Authority was required to: i) Undertake engineering and site design studies; ii) Submit an environmental assessment in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. In October 1988, the Authority retained a consultant team to undertake master plan and environmental assessment studies for East Point Park in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. In October 1989, a preferred Harbour Concept (see attached 1989 plan) was proposed and several public meetings were held. The preferred harbour concept included a small craft harbour with 600 boat slips, marina centre, parking for 580, swimming beach and public launching basin (3 ramps, 120 carltrailer parking and fishing station). A future sports facility was proposed to be developed and programmed by Metro Toronto. On the remaining tableland area, a naturalistic approach recognizing existing vegetative communities was taken, with the pond and marsh system to be expanded. A natural environment picnic area, scenic lookout and public parking with a total of 1 50 spaces would be provided. Due to changing attitudes on shoreline management and lakefilling, as evidenced in the Interim and Final Reports of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, the MTRCA suspended the planning and approvals for this facility in 1991. Later in 1991, the final report of the Royal Commission recommended preparation of a shoreline regeneration plan for the Lake Ontario shoreline between Trenton and Burlington, to be based on a cooperative planning process with coordination by an appropriate agency. In its "Regeneration" report, the Commission also recommended a moratorium on all major lakefill and shoreline erosion control projects pending agreement on a shoreline plan. In February 1994, the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted a new Waterfront Plan. This Plan recognizes the waterfront's regional significance and is premised upon an ecosystem approach to planning and development. It addresses the waterfront as an ecosystem with interdependent environmental, economic and social components. The Metro Waterfront Plan provides the long term policy guidance for the Authority's Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program and the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - 1999. The Waterfront Plan supports the creation of shoreline management plans as vehicles for implementing the policies of the Waterfront Plan. The Waterfront Plan contains policies that provide direction on lakefilling and waterfront activities and facilities such as boat launching ramps. Two of the more specific policies are as follows: 7. To develop and support recreational facilities and activities that are primarily lake- dependant in regional waterfront parklands, accessible to the Metropolitan population, and that are varied and complementary within and among individual parklands. 0229 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - 22. To oppose the creation of additional land or permanent structures in Lake Ontario through lakefilling or dredging, except for recreational or essential public works which comply with the other applicable policies of the Plan and that both demonstrably contribute to the healthy functioning of coastal and biological processes and provide public benefits as determined by Council in consultation with other responsible agencies by: a) improving water quality; b) enhancing or creating aquatic habitat; and c) providing public access to the water's edge. Integrated Shoreline Management Plan To address the numerous shoreline issues along the eastern shoreline of the Metropolitan Toronto shoreline, and the western portion of the Town of Pickering shoreline, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust suggested that an ISMP for Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay would contribute to addressing the recommendation set out in the Royal Commission's "Regeneration" report. The intent of this initiative is to serve as a pilot project in Integrated Shoreline Management planning as envisioned in "Regeneration". The ISMP will provide an integrated framework for determining the appropriateness of proposed activities and ensure that the integrity and diversity of the shoreline is maintained. Through this planning exercise, six concept sites were identified, and the preparation of action plans for each site was recommended. East Point Waterfront Park was identified as a concept site with the key issues being, the consideration of a boat launch facility, formal trailhead facilities, trail improvements and linkages to other parts of the waterfront trail and valley trail systems lie. Highland Creek) and habitat management. In order for the ISMP Steering Committee to gain a better understanding of how the strategies and their recommendations would be applied to a particular site, the consultants prepared a boat launch concept and applied it to three locations along the shoreline. It was determined that East Point Waterfront Park was an appropriate location for a boat launch facility at the scale and location proposed. The concept site proposal was consistent with the goals and objectives of the overall ISMP strategy, subject to review of specific local factors and community input. Furthermore, the boat launch facility is consistent with the policies and directions outlined in the Council approved - Metropolitan Waterfront Plan. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0230 - Boat Launch Facility Shoreplan Engineering was retained to develop and evaluate two preliminary concepts (see attached concept plans) for a launch ramp facility at East Point, based on a number of guiding factors: 1) utilize the fill located on site (mound), 2) minimize parking on the lakefill, 3) all portions of facility will be located east of the "point", consistent with the strategies, and 4) design boat basin for day use only. The concepts are of a much smaller scale than any of the concepts considered for East Point in the past. The two concepts share many of the same features, as provided below: CONCEPT A CONCEPT B * created landform - 4.8 ha * created landform - 4.3 ha * Traditional design, one opening * Flow through nature - 3 openings * Water depth - 1.8 m or greater * Water depth - 1.8 m or greater at Entrance and 3.0 m in basin Entrance and 3.0 in basin * gravel beaches * gravel beaches * three double ramps (each 10m wide) * three double ramps (each 10m wide) * fishing centrelshelter * fishing centrelshelter * boat basin docks - 14 boats * boat basin docks - 18 boats * additional docking 5 boats on east side * parking: 30 car/trailer and 20 cars * parking: 30 carltrailer and 20 cars * upper parking: 70 carltrailer * upper parking: 70 carltrailer * fish habitat structures * fish habitat structures The expected estimated cost of developing the launch facility is approximately $6.0 million. The costs for each concept is approximately the same. The main difference between the two concepts is the open or "flow through" nature of the launching basin of Concept B. Concept A launch basin is of more traditional design with only one opening. The shores have been left as natural as possible, incorporating gravel beaches along a substantial part of the landform. Hard surfaces such as armour stone revetments, are restricted to the launch basin breakwaters or anchoring headlands. The launching facility is located entirely east of East Point Park. The landform stretches along approximately 500 metres of the existing shoreline. On the east side, the proposed shore blends into the existing armour stone protection at the outfall pipe of the Highland Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. On the west side, the new shore connects to the existing shoreline approximately 100 metres west of an existing backwash outfall pipe. The proposed landform is located in an area where other structures have already disturbed the natural shoreline. The created landform consists of approximately 4.8 ha for Concept A and 4.3 ha for Concept B (see attached Concept Illustrations). Access to the launching facility is provided via an extension of Beechgrove Drive. The road follows an alignment developed to take advantage of the already disturbed and depressed shoreline adjacent to the existing outfall in order to minimize the disturbance of the bluff. A walkwaylbicycle trail also connects the launch facility to the upper table land. 0231 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff have had discussions with representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy and have been directed to submit the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan to the EA Branch to provide regional context and the Plan for the shoreline. It was also agreed that with this regional context, it was only necessary to provide an Environmental Assessment for the lakefill portion (boat launch facility) of the East Point Park Master Plan. Under Bill 76 (An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation on the Environmental Assessment Act), a public consultation process has been identified. Staff will work towards this process and schedule so that once Bill 76 receives Royal Assent we will be in a position to continue the Environmental Assessment in a timely fashion. A Fish Compensation Plan will be an important aspect to this study, to address the Federal Fisheries Act "No Net Loss" policy. The MTRCA will work together with DFO and the MNR to develop a Fish Compensation Plan that will address all fisheries concerns. Some fisheries components that could be incorporated into the boat launch concepts are: underwater shoals along the toes of the breakwaters and beaches and other features, enhancement of offshore boulder pavement, preserving and improving the beach profile, innovative design of arm our stone protection so that it is appropriate for open coast habitat, log cribs, etc. Required Approvals . Environmental Assessment - After discussion with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the following points were agreed upon: * EA would be required for boat launch facility only. * ISMP could be submitted as Master Plan, boat launch facility is consistent with the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan * MOEE to approve EA Terms of Reference * Public Process * MTRCA/Metro Approval . Detailed Engineering Drawings of Boat Launch Facility . NWPA/DFO - This application requires detailed design drawings and will be screened under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Requires MNR concurrence on the Fish Compensation Plan. . Ministry of Natural Resources - Public Lands Act and transfer of ownership of water lot to the MTRCA. . Scarborough Planning - Community Plan Policies and Zoning Regulation Amendments . Approval of Park Plan and Boat launch facility by Metropolitan Toronto in accordance with the 1972 Waterfront Agreement. Staff will develop an internal project team which will work in an integrated manner with a consultant team to carry out the Environmental Assessment and detailed design. A Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0232 - Technical Advisory Committee will also be developed with representation from all partner agencies and other approval agencies, to provide detailed day-to-day direction to the consultants. MTRCA staff and the Technical Advisory Committee will work very closely with the consultant team to undertake the public consultation process, which will include approximately two public meetings. A Consultative Committee or Working Committee could be established, consisting of several community representatives, municipal staff, naturalists, and the MTRCA to assist in the public consultation program for the Environmental Assessment. FINANCIAL DETAILS Phase I - Environmental Assessment expenditures are estimated at $400,000, this includes pursuing approval in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and detailed design. Phase II - Implementation, which includes: land base creation and shoreline stabilization, site facilities (launch ramps, piers, dock access), and site development (fish compensation, grading, planting), estimated expenditures of $6,000,000. The East Point Boat Launch facility would be carried out under the implementation objectives for the MTRCA's Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - 1999. Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Capital is in place to undertake the environmental assessment and detailed design work. The Project also provides for other sources of funding: private sector, Federal Government. With the elimination of Provincial funding in 1996, to the Conservation Authority waterfront capital project, a new partnership arrangement will be required to implement this facility at $6,000,000. A potential partnership arrangement may be the following: Federal 1/3 Provincial 1/3 Municipal (Metro) 1/3 A funding partnership will be in place prior to the Authority approving the construction of the boat launch facility. Report prepared by: Larry Field (Ext. 243) ;, ".'.. ! ~.. , 0233 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - t~':.J';' ...~...'.............. \....,........ 1\"V'\~';..~ \\ ... -- --:-;._.~~._..:'.-.:-:.:-: .\\;.. ,'.\.~. < C ~I.!!! ~. a.. ca'- 0..' Q. .CIl 'U _C CO ,_,U OIi5 ~5 _ell (/)1 ..J cat iU WI~ J' I ,. I I ! J ! @~ " io ~ : ~.. , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0234 - ::1'iT-\' __....~'''.{'-I X ~)".;"\~~. \\ ~ J" . -. ......,), ~_. I\"~' \,. :', (' '..- . -~;::;~\. ~~~li\\;;~~ I: ~1.E ~.a.. .. cala .r ~ ~~ . . . :r ~ :. ~ _I: .i .: .: ~ ;:: C,o ._IU am~o- 01..: t!~}i.i . ~ j ~ . ~ ~ 0...' g , a: a: u _I ia " ~ go ~ i . ; ~ cn-' ~ - ~ ~ nriS LLlS , " : \ i \ .. " , . \ i .. J I i I " i \ \ \ I ~ , ~ @, " . 1 ,,~ ..' '[,it ;:-'-,,, I 0 '" ~ w . U1 ~ III ~ CD .., i III ::J C. j :::0 I CD .--1 _--: OJ ~,./ - ~ // CD " ~-:.: lookoul c. r- \ III ::J C. " ' Launch Ramp Parklllg 120 Car~ & 1".II.,a s: .. III F Isl1lng Cenlre ::J ~ III , W,"UDoml CO \ CD East Po,nt l~okoUl \::::_, c--.3 launch Ramps 3 ,', A \ CD Beach " ::J - ~ Beach Parklllg - 60 Spac.. ~- VDay Use, l> llarboUl \ c. 200 SP.c.. < Harbour Centre - I o;.\~ iii' 0 VJ"~IIIOUUlS Cfl..ntrl bo.lIt. \\00 .., -< Rt..:.d fu!.1 (JUL"~ COfU..e.ilon I 0;;. !l aJ \. \~~ 0 Harbour Parkong-260 Spaces T ~ . '\;: III .., -\ c. . ~'l :tt r~~. ~ (i .", Harbour -../ W.A:t Ftii LOokout' "; ~~- -- (0 k. ,- ~;'Er . .. ' '. m '"l ,.),.. " ) I:?O~ ~11?o P31 / !~ "~/ LAKE ONTAF.'/O Z 0 - - 0:\ itI. J lookout < . ' ~... fJ.: 1: CD (,~ I J =-. 3 Q' r.. .......Qll:I.."... ~'1 uc "IIPO'I UI""~ e..nA'~. . \'10'-_..'_' 0- CD .., '" (0 ... (0 (0 m Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0236 - RES. #D71/96 - MITIGA TION OF TWO INSTREAM BARRIERS TO FISH PASSAGE IN THE DON RIVER WATERSHED Undertake the mitigation of two instream barriers to fish passage in the Don River at Pottery Road, Borough of East York. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the mitigation of two in stream barriers to fish passage in the Don River at Pottery Road, Borough of East York at a total estimated cost of $265,000 subject to all funding and regulatory approvals being received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Don Watershed Task Force developed a management strategy for the Don Watershed entitled: Forty Steps To A New Don. Included in the report are specific steps to be undertaken in order to regenerate the watershed. Concurrent with the development of the watershed strategy was the production of watershed fisheries management plan. The plan, presently in draft, is supported in Forty Steps To a New Don by: STEP16 Improve the Don's stream habitats and connections for fish. The watershed fisheries management plan provides the direction for managing the various aquatic habitats and fish communities within the watershed. One of the most strategic rehabilitation activities identified in the plan is the mitigation of in stream barriers to fish movement. The fisheries plan identifies more than sixty in stream barriers to fish movement within the watershed. These barriers effectively isolate watercourses and sections of watercourse by eliminating upstream movement. Two of these barriers, located north and south of Pottery Road in the lower Don, keep migratory fish species in Lake Ontario, from entering all but the lower reaches of the river system. By mitigating the effect of these barriers, fish access to more than 10km of stream habitat will be achieved. A Technical Steering Committee, comprising representatives from interested stakeholders, provided guidance and direction to the consultants, M.M. Dillon Limited, in selecting the preferred mitigation measures for the Pottery Road weirs. 0237 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The final design requires the construction of three rock-filled ramps downstream of the north weir. Two downstream rock-filled ramps are to be constructed at the south weir. All of the material will be comprised of quarried and natural field stone of various sizes. Quotations will be received for the supply and delivery of this material. Placement of the stone material will be by the Authority's annual equipment supplier, under the site supervision and direction of Authority field staff. All approvals and funding are in place to proceed with installation of the rock-filled ramps at the north weir in 1996 at a total estimated cost of $179,000. The remaining work at the south weir will be constructed in 1997, subject to all funding and regulatory approvals being received. FINANCIAL DETAILS This work will be carried out under Account No. 113-51. The cost is being shared by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Remedial Action Program) and the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund. Local volunteers and members of the Wilderness Canoe Association will assist in site rehabilitation. Report prepared by: Nigel Cowey, Ext. 244 For information contact: Adele Freemam, Ext.238 : ~.. , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0238 - EAST YORK "" 1.1. 4' l' ~,. , .'.i... CII.....I.! ! : .... : t c:osaUlt" I f.a.. c....,... GlOWA" .. .... ~ .......,.1131 ~t M.,."",.,. $......." -.-.-. 1II1....."e.. :;;."."",,.,. 'J,.",J"'~I TTiih ..--.. . I DON RIVER FlSHWAYS SITE LOCATION CaLLen FIGURE 1 0239 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - RES. #D72/96 - AGRICUL TURAL NON POINT SOURCE (AGNPS) MODEL PROJECT Extension of an existing Memorandum of Agreement between the Authority and the Ministry of Environment and Energy to assess the use of the Agricultural Non Point Source Model as a tool in watershed management. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority enter into an agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Energy to extend to March 31, 1998 and expand the scope of the existing Memorandum of Agreement, covering the period March 13, 1995 to April 30, 1996 concerning the provision of scientific expertise in watershed planning, in order to assess the use of the Agricultural Non Point Source Model as a tool in watershed management; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take the necessary action to implement the above-noted Memorandum of Agreement and its workplan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND In March, 1995, the Authority signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Science and Technology Branch) concerning the provision of scientific expertise in watershed planning and covering the period March 13, 1995 to April 30, 1996. Under this agreement, the Ministry provided $20,000 and technical expertise to the Authority, which contributed to the following deliverables: . technical and cartographic resources to support the development of the Humber River Atlas; . acquisition of water quality, land use, stream flow and climate databases for the Humber River and Duffins Creek watersheds; . valleyland vegetation mapping update and analysis of rehabilitation opportunities in the Rouge River watershed; and . provision of technical assistance for undertaking water quality assessment of the Humber River. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0240 - '" The Ministry has requested the Authority's support for the extension of the existing Memorandum to March 31, 1998 to assess the use of the Agricultural Non Point Source Model (AGNPS) as a tool in watershed management. The project will involve the assembly of all necessary input data; identification of alternative pollution management strategies for selected study watersheds; model calibration and running using a Geographic Information System (GIS); and evaluation of the model. Study subwatersheds have been identified within the Duffins Creek watershed of the MTRCA jurisdiction and Schomberg Creek and Pefferlaw Brook of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction. Other contributing participants to the study include the National Water Research Institute, University of Guelph, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Bay of Quinte Conservation Authorities. The Authority's role in this project would involve the provision of technical advisory and accounting services; GIS support for the preparation of land use, soils and watershed physiographic information; and retrieval of MNR's remotely sensed land use data and conversion to GIS format. RA TIONALE Non-point source pollution is a major component that must be considered when carrying out watershed studies. In order to develop effective abatement programs for urban stormwater runoff and agricultural practices, one must be able to assess the relative priority of non-point source pollution problem areas and compare the relative effectiveness of different management strategies for each source of pollution. There is a growing need for refined decision-making tools to address non-point source pollution problems in rural and urbanizing environments. These tools would assist in allocating limited funds for prevention and remediation more strategically and in designing ongoing monitoring and inspection programs. Agricultural and urban models suitable for non-point source pollution control studies have been assembled and evaluated by the MOEE and Environment Canada. The AGNPS Model is one that has been identified as worthy of further development and evaluation as a GIS-based decision support tool. BENEFITS This project will advance the Authority's ability to recommend effective watershed management strategies for addressing problems associated with non-point source pollution. Regardless of the future use of the AGNPS Model, the project will result in the following deliverables which will benefit the Authority: . soils, slope and land use data in GIS compatible format for all Authority watersheds; . event-based water quality and flow data on Reesor's Creek, a tributary of the Duffins Creek; . AGNPS Model software and staff training on the AGNPS model use and results interpretation; and 0241 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - . validation and demonstration of applications of the AGNPS model for alternative management scenarios for rural and urban non-point source pollution problems; and . a manual and at least one seminar/workshop to facilitate the transfer of information gained from this study. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Ministry of Environment and Energy has provided $45,000 in support of the extension to the existing Memorandum of Agreement. For information contact: Sonya Meek, ext. 253 RES. #D73/96 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Completion of the Heritage Estates storm water management pond monitoring study; status of the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance Program; and plans for the communication of monitoring results. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated November 11, 1996, on the status of storm water management facility monitoring activities, be received; AND THAT staff continue to pursue opportunities to communicate the results of monitoring efforts to all partners in watershed management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND A variety of stormwater management (SWM) technologies have been designed to mitigate the impacts of urbanization on the natural environment. Questions surrounding the performance, maintenance and overall cost of these technologies have been raised by developers, who have to construct them; designers and reviewers, who need to ensure that performance objectives can be met; and municipalities, who usually become responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facilities. As part of its commitment to facilitate and conduct research necessary to address these questions, the Authority is involved in a number of SWM facility monitoring initiatives. Heritaae Estates SWM Pond Monitoring Studv Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0242 - The Heritage Estates SWM Pond, located in the Town of Richmond Hill, is an offline facility which serves a residential drainage area of 52.4 hectares. The Ministry of Environment and Energy, in cooperation with the MTRCA and the Town of Richmond Hill, monitored the facility for approximately two and a half years, between 1992 and 1995. The monitoring program consisted of five components: hydrology, water quality, temperature, aquatic community, and sediment analysis. The principle objectives of the monitoring program were: . to assess the water quality benefits obtained from traditional water quantity control retention facilities; and . to evaluate the ability of the stormwater retention facility to meet original design objectives and to recommend measures to improve the effectiveness of the facility in pollutant removal. Key findings and implications of the study are as follows: . the pond exceeds its original design objectives of shaved peak flow rates. . storm water runoff does contain elevated levels of pollutants, which are greater than the Provincial Water Quality Objectives and have the potential to adversely affect a receiving watercourse. . the pond provides good pollutant removal efficiency for the parameters monitored. This exceptional performance is attributed to the permanent pool of the pond, which is especially effective in removing suspended solids and bacteria. Wet retention ponds should, therefore, continue to be considered as part of new developments or redevelopments as a measure for pollutant removal. . the use of a wetland component as well as extended detention time would increase the removal efficiency of soluble components. However, before undertaking any retrofit measures at this pond, further monitoring of SWM facilities with active storage and wetland components is recommended. . continued efforts at promoting and implementing "at source" pollution controls will be important in augmenting pollutant removal achieved by end of pipe facilities especially for chlorides and dissolved nutrients. . if designed and maintained properly, a pond facility can have a longer life span than originally expected. ,<.' 0243 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - Additional information can be found in the attached summary, conclusions, and recommendations sections of the final draft report. The report is currently undergoing final review by the peer review committee and will be finalized and published by mid December, 1996. Storm water Assessment Monitorino and Performance Prooram (SWAMP) In early 1995, the Authority entered into a three year memorandum of agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, Environment Canada, and the Ministry of Transportation to evaluate new and conventional SWM technologies. The monitoring program consists of a number of components including: rainfall, flow, water quality and temperature, sediment particle size distribution, sediment quality, toxicity, aquatic and vegetation community assessment as appropriate for each facility. Four SWM facilities are currently undergoing evaluation: . Highway 401/Rouge River SWM pond/wetland, Scarborough . Harding Park Regeneration Project, Richmond Hill . Eastern Beaches Underground Tank, Toronto . Greenhouse Wetland, Aurora A preliminary evaluation of the data collected at the Highway 401/Rouge River site indicates that the facility is performing very well. The removal rate for suspended solids over the summer months was in the order of 90%. The facility was also observed to be effective in reducing the acute toxicity found in highway runoff. In this study, both frequency of toxic samples and the level of toxicity was reduced in the effluent as compared to the influent water. However, acute toxicity was not totally eliminated at the pond outlet. Study findings suggest that the sample hardness and levels of aluminum, zinc, and copper were the main elements which produced toxic effects. An interim performance assessment report discussing the results from all facilities monitored to date will be completed by March 1997. Communication of Studv Findinos Communicating with practitioners in the field regarding research findings and future research needs is an important aspect of the Authority's work. Several means of sharing this information with municipalities, consultants, developers and others have been identified and pursued: . Technical Workshop/Short Course (Controlling Stormwater: 2001 and Beyond), October 16-17, 1996 in Burlington. The Authority co-sponsored this event with Queen's University, the National Water Research Council, and the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The event attracted over 170 registrants representing consultants, contractors, developers, and all levels of government from across Ontario. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0244 - . Second Annual Storm water Management Seminar, November 5, 1996 at Black Creek Pioneer Village. The Authority hosted this event in cooperation with the partners of the SWAMP program. Representatives from works, parks and planning departments of all municipalities within the MTRCA jurisdiction; neighbouring conservation authorities; and federal and provincial governments were invited. Approximately 80 participants attended. . Presentation to the Urban Development Institute. Authority staff have offered to present the results of the Heritage Estates Pond Monitoring Study at a meeting of the Urban Development Institute (UD!). As UDI members are largely the implementors of SWM technologies necessary to fulfill agency requirements, it is important to provide information to them regarding the performance of these facilities and recommendations for improved design. . SWAMP Program Mailing List. A mailing list has been established to ensure that interested individuals are informed of the publication of study reports. . Internet. Information about the SWAMP program and contact nameladdress has been posted on the Canadian Water Resources Association Web site and will be posted on the MTRCA Web site, once the site is set up. DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Monitoring will continue at the existing facility sites under the SWAMP program, and additional types of facilities are planned for inclusion within this program. Discussions are underway with the Canadian Water Resources Association regarding a potential joint seminar to be held in Spring of 1997. The seminar would present up to date results from SWM initiatives of the MTRCA and others and would provide an opportunity for the discussion of issues in the field. For information contact: Sonya Meek, ext. 253. : - " 0245 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - 1.0 Summary 1.1 Flow A.aaIysis aad PftcipianoD the outflow bydrognsphs are very much shaved as IooUWIMI.4 to the inflow bydrographs. The peak outtlow r.m:s for the 5 and 100 ye:sr design SIDnDS. simulmd with a caIibrmd model developed as part of this snuiy, were about half of those predevelopmem flow r.m:s ""'""""" in the original SWM report (CPW, 1986). These simulmd peak flow rm:s were. however, found to be grctter than the pre-develcpmem flow rates determined using the "unit flow" approach proposed by MTRCA for the Don River Wan:rshed (MIRCA. 1995). Therefore, the pond meets or elCcecds original design objectives, but would fail to meet ~1TRCA' s newly proposed "unit flow" aiteria. The "unit flow" approach is an mempt to cosure consistency betWeen pre-devciopmcm flow rateS designed for a site levci and those cstablished through an approved wm:rshed hydrology swdy and, therefore, to overcome design inconsistencies associated with the over-estimation of pre-devclopmcm flow. 1.2 Temperature Aoalysis 1. All four monitored locations (inlets 1 & 2, outlet and the Mill pond), displayed similar sinusoidal pattern in daily tempcr.uurc variation over a 24 bour period and are found similar to the recorded aunospheric temperature. bcrimF.doc: 123 : - "- 0246 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7 196, Novem~er 29, 1996 2. Over !be rncn:ilDring period of AprillD November. the cifJuem ~ was. in gmera1. found to be !Jigbertban the infh1em tem~4IIJI'e exa:pt in the mamiJs of Oacbcr 3IId Sovember. The reccrded average momhly teu.~4IIJI'e ciiff'er=a: baweea !be inler aad the outler for the summer IIICmhs (July and August) is ~y 5 to re. It is obsaved that the increase in the in-pond Itmperazure was mainly due lD the c:xposure to solar radiaricn. 2. The average momhly in-pond temperatUre in July and August was fOund to be around 14 lD 1S'C. In the fal1 season (September lD ~ovember) the avenge in-pond Itmper.nure was found lD be lower than 100C. 3. The average momhly t=nperature of the pond effluent was r=mve!y (ower (J0C) than the influem Itmperazure during the 1aIe fall and early wim=- season (November). 4. Average dally influent temperatUre was found e:cceeding 110C about 200/0 of the time during the summer months (July and August). More than 95% of this time with temper:uure greater than 210C occurred during dry weather periods. The origin of this warm day weather flow has not been dctennined. . bcritl@e.doc 12~ 1 _. ..... 0247 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 1.3 Walei' QaaUty ADaJysis 1.3.1 CO............!l1It CODcallr:llioas 1. Suspended solids, bacteria (fecal coliform and E. Cob), mmiems (phosphorus and nmogm ccmpounds), mcmls (mm. copper and zinc), BOD, COD and chloride were the bll5ic poUwams fDund in szermwaD:r nmoff' from a residemial1and use area. Coua:mmioDS of cadmium. chromium. lead and nickel were only found in measurable trace amount or very smaIl concemrations for approximateiy 50% of the sampling. 2. Chloride conc::mraIions of the influent were very low during the summer/aununn period when compared 10 the wimer/spring season, which was mainly due 10 the applic:ttion of road salts during the wimer season and possible 3C""'-m1ulation of chloride in the pond over the years. Figure 6.3 showed the accumulation and flushing of chloride cona:mr.mon within the pond and the incre:lSe in conc=mraIion of chloride over the course of the year. I i 3. SlDmlwater runoff contained higher levels of pollutants than those measured in the dry weather flow. For example, the TSS concentrations and bacteria densities comnbuted by the rainfall evems were 10 times and 200 times respectively, higher than those of the dry weather flow. 4. In general, the influent pollwant event mean concemrations of the winter/spring Se:lSOn were simi1ar in magnitude lD those of the summer/autumn 5e3SOn c:tcept for lOW dissolved solids, chloride and bacteria counts. The greater BICs of lOW dissolved solids and chloride found in the winter/spring season are mainly due lD the additional chloride conccmration resulting from the use bcricage.doc 125 : - , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #? 196, Novemb.er 29, 1996 0248 ai sail fur cfe.iciDg of roads 3Dd s:icle waib. Ba=:ria dc:c:mia wen: at 1=st 3D arder of m,.~mltl.. !as man tfm ai::be ';nmme:iamzmm =wms. S. The ~ pcmd ~ d=sirt mr fecal ccliiDrm mcuiIcnd duri:ag::be wiml:rispring se:!:SC11 was fi:nmd lD be 365 ccum:sflOO tal aad'"t't"~Y 1.779 ccumsll00 m1 tCrme . summerfaunmm se3SCtL The ave:age iDBuc:tt !SS ccm.........ol1W4 (AEMC) fctmd in this sauiy is 149 ~l fCrwimz::tlspring 5e3SC%1 aad 121 m~l furthesummerfaunmm se3SOn. This represems typic1l TSS ccnc::marica in runoff from a Cmadian reside:ttial 3le:l with 50% imperviousness.. The .-\EriC effIucm ccac:::maricns fur TSS We:'e found lD be IS mgtt for ::he wimm'springse:JSCa and 16 mgtt fcrmesumme:iaunmmse:!SOn. 7.3.2 Remov:d Efficiscy 1. Average removal efficie:::tC'f of the pcnd for the summe:iaunmm period was 85%. 79%. and 62% fbr TSS. E. Coli, and aitrates respectively. For the wimc- se:!SOn, the average removal efficiency was observed lD change to 86%, 75l!/a, and -1% respectively ferTSS, E. Coli and nitrates. 2. The removal efficiency for indiviclua1 storm evens in the summcrfawwna Se3S0n ranged from 56% lD 99%, ferTSS and 21% to 1000/0 for E. Coli. 3. R.cmcval efficiency fcrwina:rfspring evems ranged from 53% lD 99% ferTSS and 51% to 99% fbr E. Coli. bcricase.Joc 126 : - .... 0249 Water .and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 4. Long term perfcrmancc (lD~hlt;;"g w<< 3Dd dry 'M:IIbtr ~) afme HcriIage Eslm:s facility was evalumd tbrough the applicnicn of a calibr.m:d hydrologic amIpUD:r mcdcL The simulmd removal efficimcy fer TSS (800/0) shewed a sligln n:dw::icn as .....wt-ed to the removal efficiency ca.I~ll...-l using the observed dam cc11e=d fertile sumn evems. '1bis is due tD the fact. that removal efficiency ofTSS during dry wemher periods is much lower than that ob1ained fer the wet wesd1er periods. The tcta1 suspended solid loads ccmributed during dry weather period was, however, quite negligible as compared to the loads gener.ned from S'lDrm eventS. Therefore. the overall effect on the removal efficiency of the facility is only marginally affected when the dry weather period is included in the computation of the removal efficiency of the facility. 7.4 Sedimeut AnaJy!is 1. Simulated results obtained with the calibr:ued ccmputr:r model showed that fer a maIIJl'e. stable development, sediment is aa:umulating at an average rate of3.0 mm annually. The implic:1lion of this information is that, fer a matUr'e developmem. the fRqucncy for dredging of a SWM pond will be much longer than the 10 - 15 years as swz..,gested in many of the stUdies. 2. In accordance with the Sediment Quality guidelines (persaud t!t al., 1993) and the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites (MOEE, 1996), the disposal of the dredged sediment must be assessed further in consultation with the appropriate parties at the time of removal and disposal. Sediment quality testing conducted by Enviromnent Canada at the Heritage Estttes pond suggested that the sediment is only marginally polluted, falling within the Lowest Effea Level (persaud lIt al., 1993) and probably requiring only some restrictions on disposal. baitIgC.doc 127 : .- , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0250 7.5 AquaDc COlDIDuaity Study The aquatic I"f'Wftm'lmiry assessmem by MIR.CA iDdiC3ll!ld the presaISZ of a Q)ld wmr fish ammnmity upsueam of the SWM facility and a wmn WIII:r amummity daw~~ A1d1ough tbis tindmg may suggest that the pond is causing same thc:rmal modific:alicn of the receiving wa=anzrse. . the results of this asscssmem are inamclusive due 10 the iDfIuencc of the downstteam warm wmr habitat from the MiII Pond. Of the tctal47 bemhic invertebrate taxa idem:ified, the upstre:m1 and downstream Q)mmunities were similar in species composition but differed in abundance. Differences are attributed to local habitat charaaerislia r.uher than impac:s from the SWM pond. The Heritage Eslms facility is not a good loc:arion 10 sttuiy the impacts of a SWM facility on aquatic Q)mmunities in the receiving waterCOurse, because of a number of other local variables (proximity 10 Mill pond and groundwater inflow) which influence the findings. bmQgc.dDc 128 ,'."i' ,-, .:::"..;, :i ';".'~ ~ t - 0251 ~ater and '~elated Land Management Advisory Boa.rd #7/96, November 29, 1996 &.0 Coadadiag SC2Iemeaa 1. The findings from this study show that stDrmwarer nmcff does alaraiu elevated levels of poUutams. These elevan:d levels can be grcm:r than the PWQO and bad me potemial of producing adverse effectS on me receiving wau:rc:curscs. 2. This off-line SlCrmwarer ren:nion pond =cccds it original design objectives of shaved pC3k flow rms.. ~. me simu.i.aIed peaIc flows for the 5 and 100 year storms arc grc:ucr man me MI'RCA's proposed flood flow management criteria based on a unit flow approach. 3. Assuming a plug flow alnditioD. me pond would provide a retention time gre:ncr than 24 hours fur astcrm with anmoffvolume less than 6000 ml. 4. The pond was found to provide good polIwam r=Iova/ efficiency for the parameters monilDrcd and this exceptional performance is aan'burcd lD the permancm pool of tile pond, which is especially effective in removing alnraminants such as TSS and phosphorus and some metals. S. As this pond has no extended detention storage, it does not meet tile MI'RCA's preventative erosion almrol criteria. However, no erosive impacts on tile re:eiving waren:o~ were observed due to tile moderating effectS of a wetland immediately downstt'e3m of the pond outlet. bcrittge.oJoc 129 - .... Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0252 . - , 6. ~ the original design of the fIcility fell widJin the U:vel2 proteaicn (m acaJrdance to the MOEE PlazmiDg md Design MmmaI). the aaual removal efficieucy achieved by the f3cility is well within the r.mge of Level 1 prmec:ticnL 7. Wuh the observation that similar amcemmicDs were obtained for the outflow samples for both the summedauamm and wim=ispring sc:asoas, it is believed that the design of the pend is ccaservative. This is because during the winter/spring season. the &cility was oper.tting at a reduced srcrage volume with the formation oeice, probably, at the top ZOO to 300 ann of the pend I I : surf3.c:. I 8. Prevailing mncspheric temperaDJIe and sunlight are the main infIuencing faacrs on the inflow and OUlflow tmlpenm.Jre of the pond. 9. A downstre3m wetland with a. tree c:mopy and a groundwater discharge mne may be effective in lowering elevated tanperanJre from wet pend facilities. Average monthly effluent temperanJre discharged from the wetland downstream of the Heritage Estates pond was about 16.SOC for the summer months (July and August). berilagc.doc 130 . J . .... " . 0253 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 IO.1'here was DO cbmp ill die ~ ~ ametwo dif&:reat dcpIh r.-.v-. where the amfIaw lIewt-......c wa measured. This shows tbIt a baaan draw oud<< sauczure c:aasauaai at Ibis Iocziaa (about ODe mea:r depdl) will DOt improve (Rdua:) die ..........a, elevaad 0UEt10w ~1DUre. This obscrvuiaa a.Isa sbows tbcre is DO evidau:e of pcmd SUMifi~nn duriDg the , mcmitmiDg period. berirqe.cb: 131 ~ - , " Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0254 - '.0 RecolllllleDdaDODS Recommcadalicus are based on fim1re evalwaion of a SWM ficility for performance analysis as weD as meeting its design objectives.. Rea:munauiatious iDclude: 1. Wet r=m:ion ponds should cominue to be implememed as part of new developments or redevelopmems as a measure for polltnaDt removaL 2. Continued effortS at promoting and implemc:ming "at scurceW pollution controls will be importU1t in augmenting pollutant removal achieved by end of pipe facilities especially for chlorides and dissolved nutrientS. 3. The use ofa wetland component as well as =aended detention time would increase the removal efficiency of soluble componentS. However, before undertaking any retrofit measures at this pond, further monitoring of SWM facilities with active storage and wetland components as per the MOEE Manual (MOe, 1994) is recommended. 4. To facilitate maintenance activities, it is recommended that a sediment forebay be included in all SWM pond designs and that adequate space be left close to the pond for the excavation and dewatering of the sediment. However, mrofit of the Heritage Estates pond area is not warranted at this time. b=ilage.doc 132 : - - , ,. 0255 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - S. If clcsigaed. 011"'" ~ aDd mll;tmlined properly, a pcmd facilily em have a laager life span than origiuaJIy ~ It is recommended thu a lhorougb c1aDing of a pond (Le. sedimem removal) be pericrmed before the f3cility is assumed by municipal aud1crities. In addition. proper erosion aDd sedimc:m: camml praaice:s be employed on any disturbed should lauds witbin the catcbmc:m: area to minimi_ sedimem "....."""1"""11 within the pond facility. ; S. TSS is usually used as an indicaICr of the removal efficiencies of most pollutants. I r Accumely assessing (by model) the removal efficiencies ofTSS by use of particle size disaibwion, is recommended for fuUIre studies. 6. Quality cxmuol of mcnitcring and sample ccllection is paramount fer proper monitcring. It is necessary to develop a monitoring protDccl for SWM f3cilities with collection and analysis of dam done on a frequent time schedule. bcriClse.dac 133 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0256 RES. #D74/96 - SWIMMING POOL DISCHARGE WATER Potential environmental concerns associated with the discharge of swimming pool water. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated November 11, 1996, on swimming pool discharge water be received; AND FURTHER THAT staff include information about environmentally sound swimming pool management practices in public awareness programs as opportunities arise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND Pool Maintenance Reauirements All outdoor swimming pools require regular maintenance, involving chemical treatment, backwashing, and winterizing. Chemical additives include chlorine or bromine, to maintain pool quality, and products such as pH-up or muratic acid, which are occasionally used to maintain acid balance. A chemically balanced pool should have drinking quality water. Weekly backwashing is necessary to remove particles from the pool filter. Backwashing can draw down the pool water level by about one inch, and the backwashed water is usually discharged to the lawn or driveway. In the fall, owners must blowout the pool lines (i.e. circulation, pump and filter) to avoid freezing and cracking over the winter. This winterizing activity usually results in the drawdown of pool water level by about one quarter of the pool volume. Considering the number of pools within the Metro Region that are under private, municipal, or Authority ownership, concerns have been raised as to the potential environmental impacts associated with pool discharge waters and the regulatory mechanisms that exist. Potential Concerns In order to have the least environmental impact, pool operators should discharge pool water either to the sanitary sewer or across the lawn to the storm sewer, approximately three days after the last intense chemical application. By allowing pool water to flow across a lawn, some water will be lost through infiltration and most remaining pool chemicals will volatilize to the air. 0257 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - Some ravine residents, however, discharge pool water over the top of bank and down the ravine wall to a watercourse. It is unlikely that this practice disturbs vegetation, but it may aggravate surface erosion problems on the slope. Impacts upon in stream water quality and aquatic habitat depend upon the volume of pool discharge water relative to the stream discharge and the distance between the discharge point and the watercourse. In most cases, the in stream impacts would be insignificant due to the low concentration of chemicals in the pool water; the tendency for the chemicals to volatilize quickly; and the infrequent occurrence and short duration of each discharge. Discharges to neighbouring properties can pose a nuisance. Discharges across sidewalks and streets can cause safety hazards to pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. The Authority operates an outdoor, in-ground swimming pool at Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. Pool water is discharged to the sanitary sewer system. Other public swimming areas on Authority properties include Albion Hills and Bruce's Mills. Both of these beaches have a curtain, separating the chemically treated swimming area from the waterbody. Regular monitoring indicates no detection of chlorine outside the curtained area. Enforcement and Education Problems associated with swimming pool discharges are primarily associated with nuisance and are generally dealt with through education and information, rather than through the court system. Municipal officials advise residents to drain water to either the sanitary or the storm sewer. The discharge of water into the ravine or onto neighbouring property is discouraged. Regulatory mechanisms that exist at the municipal level include the Ravine Control, Uniform Parks (Metro), Sewer Use, Road and Drainage By-laws, and at the provincial level, the Ontario Water Resources Act, administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). The MOEE regards swimming pool discharges as a relatively low concern, and therefore not a high priority for enforcement activities. The Authority coordinates and participates in a number of awareness programs that offer opportunities to promote environmentally sound pool maintenance practices (e.g. the Yellow Fish Road Storm Drain Marking program; a property maintenance poster aimed at urban valleyland owners - in preparation; and staff presentations to community groups and resident's associations). It is recommended that as public awareness opportunities arise, Authority staff discourage the discharge of pool water into ravines and promote discharge across grassy areas (away from slopes), where the water has more opportunity to infiltrate the soil. For information contact: Sonya Meek, ext. 253 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0258 RES. #D75/96 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #9/96 (September 17,1996), #10/96 (October 16,1996) and #11/96 (November 12, 1996) are provided for information. Moved by; Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #9/96 (September 17, 1996), #10/96 (October 16, 1996) and #11/96 (November 12, 1996), be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Membershio Selection. Reoortina Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board." These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Madelyn Webb, Ext. 331 0259 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - RES. #D76/96- BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY, DON RIVER WATERSHED Progress report for the Bartley Smith Greenway, including the Rupert's Pond and Langstaff EcoPark concept sites. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to pursue the linkage of the trail system through the Bartley Smith Greenway in partnership with the Province of Ontario, the City of Vaughan, other agencies and stakeholders; THA T management and trail access agreements be pursued to ensure cost efficient and effective management of the trail and lands throughout the Greenway; THAT the City of Vaughan and the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, members of the EcoPark Steering Committee and the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto be thanked for their support of this project; THAT the Rupert's Pond Concept Site be included formally in the Bartley Smith Greenway; AND FURTHER THAT new sources of funding for the project continue to be sought to realize the full potential of this corridor in contributing to the greenspace health of the Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #3/93 held April 23, 1993 the Authority adopted Res.#A72/93: "THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T The West Don River Rehabilitation Project be approved; THA T staff be directed to pursue funding sources such as Canada's Green Plan Initiatives, Environmental Partner Funds, and Environmental Education and A wareness Program to implement The Project; THA T the Authority request support for The Project from the City of Vaughan; AND FURTHER THA T staff be authorized to take the necessary action to implement agreements including the execution of any necessary documents. " Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0260 - The Bartley Smith Greenway, originally called the Upper West Don Project, is a 15 kilometre green corridor following the course of the Upper West Don River from Maple to Steeles Avenue, near Dufferin Street, where it will connect with parks managed by Metro. The Greenway will incorporate trail, recreational parks, areas of natural regeneration that include a marsh complex, and other watercourse improvements. Regeneration of the Greenway began at Steeles Avenue and is proceeding north. The first projects included a pedestrian loop from Steeles to Dufferin and the trail and planting through a section of Marita Payne and Glen Shields Parks, both completed in 1995. Currently, the Authority staff is working on regeneration and trail components: * the section through the Highway 407 corridor from Glen Shields to Highway 7; * the section designated Langstaff EcoPark, from Highway 7 to Langstaff Road; and, * Rupert's Pond, located east of Keele between Rutherford Road and Fieldgate Road. Lanostaff EcoPark Langstaff EcoPark is being planned by the Langstaff EcoPark Steering Committee comprised of Authority staff, representatives of four organizations and eight corporate partners. EcoPark is surrounded by over 1,200 businesses and contains three different ecological zones: natural floodplain, lowland meadow, and rolling uplands. The site concept was presented and endorsed at a public meeting held on March 28, 1996, and has been reviewed at the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. When completed, EcoPark will contain 2,700 metres of limestone trail and a 2 hectare marsh complex consisting of a 1 hectare habitat wetland and a 1 hectare deciduous swamp. The site concept also includes 3 highwater spillways to restore floodplain wetlands, and mitigation of a fish barrier. Goals for the current fiscal year include completion of the first 900 metres of trail from Highway 7 to Rivermede Road and the creation of the marsh complex at the junction of Westminster Creek and the Don River. EcoPark will encourage corporate participation in community stewardship through the Don Accord, local clean-ups, plantings, an adopt-a-park program, and a pilot program on Watershed Best Management Practices. Financial support has been received from the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, the Great Lakes Clean-up Fund, the City of Vaughan, Vaughan Rotary, and the Toxic Prevention Division of Environment Canada for the pilot project on Watershed Best Management Practices. 0261 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - RUDert's Pond Forty Steps To A New Don included the Rupert's Pond concept site to demonstrate the objectives of caring for nature, caring for water, and caring for community through implementation of a rehabilitation plan. Technically, this site was not shown in the initial concept of the West Don Greenway Project but was identified as an appropriate site for a concept site within Forty Steps To A New Don. It is located east of Keele Street between Rutherford Road and Fieldgate Road on lands owned by the City of Vaughan. In February 1996, the firm Don Naylor and Associates acting as prime consultant in association with Soil Enrichment Systems, Tarandas Environmental Consultants and Andrew Brodie was retained to provide detailed design plans for the site rehabilitation. With the support of the community, obtained through formal public meetings, a planting day, and site meetings, the consultants worked with City of Vaughan and MTRCA staff to develop the newly completed detailed design drawings and tender specifications. Phase 1 of the project is scheduled for implementation this year. This phase is to be implemented by Authority staff, and includes reshaping of the east side of the concept site to create more natural contours, the construction of a pedestrian trail, and extensive planting. Additional phases to follow in the coming years include in stream restoration through natural channel design, additional plantings, and the establishment of a storm water retrofit pond. Funds were raised for the implementation of phase 1 through the Bartley Smith Project and the City of Vaughan. Copies of the plans will be available at the meeting. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, Ext.238 : .- , " .- Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0262 . . Don River LEGEND Cl) B Bartley Smith Greenway Project Subw.i1ershcd boundary Bartley Smith Mmicipa1 botm1ry N Rivers - Greenway Project /\I Roads c.., ~ 0 ~ soo 7SO 1000 1250 MI:tcrs ,= ~ - 0263 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - NEW BUSINESS RES. #D77/96 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK BASELANDS City of Toronto Rezoning Proposal. To provide updated information concerning the proposed rezoning of lands situated at the north end of the Baselands at Tommy Thompson Park. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the issues related to the rezoning of lands at the north end of the Base of the Spit, and the City of Toronto's staff report to Land Use Committee on November 21, 1996, be received. AMENDMENT RES. #078/96 Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: lIa Bossons THAT staff advise the Council of the City of Toronto of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board's support of the recommendation from the City of Toronto Land Use Committee (Meeting - November 21, 1996); THAT Council be advised of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board's recognition of the immediate need for a strategic plan addressing the ecological, economic and urban design significance of all lands south of the Ship Channel; AND FURTHER THAT Council be requested to direct their staff through the Commissioner of Urban Services and TEDCO, to work with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, landowners, community groups (Le.Friends of the Spit), the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and the City departments to initiate the above noted strategic plan. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0264 BACKGROUND At its meeting #3/96 on May 17, 1996 the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board heard a verbal report from staff outlining a proposal being considered by the City of Toronto for the development of a golf academy/driving range at the north end of the Baselands at Tommy Thompson Park. Based on this information the Board adopted the following resolution: PROPOSED DRIVING RANGE - LESLIE STREET AND UNWIN A VENUE RES. #W25/96 "THA T the staff report be received; AND FURTHER THA T staff advise the Council of the City of Toronto of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board's support of the recommendations made by the City of Toronto Executive Committee. " AMENDMENT RES. #W26/96 "THA T staff write a letter to Councillor Peter Tabuns in support of the position taken by the City of Toronto Executive Committee." THE AMENDMENT WAS....................... ...... .......................................... .CABBJED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED,W AS............ .............. ...................... CARBJED It was the City of Toronto Executive Committee's recommendation, among other things that: "The Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report to the Land Use Committee on rezoning the lands in question to Gr so that it will be preserved as a public wilderness." City Council, at its meeting of May 21, 1996, adopted the recommendation of the Executive Committee along with the following amendments: " 1. That the President and Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Economic Development Corporation be requested to meet with the developer to find a more suitable site. 2. That the President and Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Economic Development Corporation involve the Ward Councillor(s) and the local environmental groups in this process, and other Members of Council upon request. 0265 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 3. That the Board of Management report to the Land Use Committee on amending the Part II Plan for the Port so it is consistent with reports of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's analysis of areas of environmental significance or interest. 4. That the Board of Management report to the Land Use Committee on whether there are other applications to rezone the areas around the subject site." Pursuant to Councils directive, City Staff prepared a report for consideration by Land Use Committee at their meeting on November 21, 1996. This report outlined the various planning interests in the site as well as several zoning options that were available. These options included: 1 ) rezone a portion of the Gr zone to Industrial to bring it into conformity with the Official Plan and create a more regular shaped industrial parcel; 2) redesignate and rezone the industrial portion to Natural Area and Gr to address environmental concerns; and 3) maintain the existing zoning but provide a naturalized buffer on the south side of the industrial site to separate it from the Gr zone to the south. The report specifically recommended the following: "1. That council adopt Option 3 as set out in Section 4 of this report which retains the Official Plan and Zoning designations for the Port Area south of the Ship Channel including the former golf academy site at the north end of the Base of the Spit as described in this report. 2. That the Commissioner of Urban Development Services prepare guidelines for the industrial sites adjacent to Natural Areas, Environmentally Significant Areas and Open Space south of the Ship Channel in consultation with TEDCO, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and local interest groups. 3. That the Commissioners of Urban Development Services and Corporate Services prepare a master plan for the North Shore Park, including a strategy for improvement of these lands, to guide improvements to the open space and its relationship to adjacent development." Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0266 - Authority staff reviewed this report and prepared the attached letter to the City of Toronto Land Use Committee. The purpose of the letter was to provide clarification and to outline staff's position with respect to the significance of the lands in question. Specifically, it stated that "based on our understanding of the site and its featureslfunctions, the second option to "redesignate and rezone the industrial portion to natural area and Gr to address environmental concerns" would be preferred since this option best supports the Authority's goals for long-term protection of this resource." Staff further suggested that the following actions be taken by the Land Use Committee: 1 ) That no action be taken on the existing zoning of these lands and that the matter be deferred for future consideration in the context of all lands south of the Ship Channel. 2) That the Committee direct staff to work with TEDCO, MTRCA, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and interest groups to prepare and undertake a strategic plan for all lands south of the Ship Channel that includes but is not limited to an urban design, functional environmental analysis, and park I greenspace master plan. 3) That the Committee request Council to direct TEDCO not to entertain any development on these lands until a report and recommendations on the above noted integrated strategic plan is dealt with by Council. Although we have not received the minutes from the Land Use Committee meeting, it is staff's understanding that the Land Use Committee did not adopt the recommendations forwarded by City Staff and is alternatively recommending to Council that the subject land be rezoned from industrial (12 D2) to Natural Area (Gr). Authority staff has reviewed a recent initiative of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust - A Green Infrastructure System for the Lower Don Lands. This will be released in December 1996 as a framework to ensure the maintenance of the core green areas and the development of a network of habitat corridors and linkages within the Lower Don Lands. With respect to the Baseland's zoning issue the Trust identified several issues which in their opinion required further analysis, including the ecological significance, the relationship between existing recreational and industrial uses in the area, and the identification of possible corridors and green spaces as outlined in the Green Infrastructure System. 0267 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 They specifically recommended the following to the City of Toronto Land Use Committee: 1 ) That the item be deferred. 2) That the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and TEDCO with the participation of the MTRCA and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, local land owners and local community groups including the Friends of the Spit and the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, and other City staff responsible for parks, public works and the environment be requested to develop a terms of reference for a study of the ecological, economic and urban design significance of the lands south of the Ship Channel; and that these be brought forward for consideration by the Land Use Committee at its meeting in January 1997. 3) That the Land Use Committee request City Council to instruct TED CO not to enter into any lease arrangements for lands now known as the proposed golf academy site until Council has reviewed the recommendations of the proposed study. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff are of the opinion that although rezoning the subject lands to Gr would support the objectives of the Authority's ESA Program, consideration should also be given to the development of a strategic plan for the lands south of the Ship Channel as outlined in the letter to City of Toronto Land Use Committee. This plan would assist in the identification of the various green infrastructure opportunities that exist in the Portlands, outline all of the viable economic lands uses and regeneration opportunities and assist in the creation of a distinctive and integrated Portland community. MTRCA staff would participate fully to assist the City, TEDCO, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, and other interested groups to achieve an integrated vision and framework for future initiatives for this area of the Portlands. Report Prepared by: Scott Jarvie, Ext. 312 For information contact: Larry Field, Ext. 243 : ~.. " Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0268 ~ -," 'the metropolitan toronto and regJo.n .conservation authority 5 5ncrer:am :::nve. :cwnSViE3'N. :r:ranc. :r.3n '54 .(416) 661-6600 =,olX e6i.~e98 November 21, 1996 Councillor Steve Eilis. Chair Land Use Committee City of T oronte CIty Hall Toronto, Ontario MSH 2N2 Dear Councillor Ellis &. Members: Re: Planning and Development Department Report an Areas at Environmental Significance or Interest in the Port Area scuth at the Ship Channel (Wards 7 and 8l Staff have reviewed the above noted report and provide the following clarification and our position with respec: to the significance of these lands. The Auttlority's interest in this site relates to the Authority's E.''lVironmentaJly Significant Areas (SA) Program and the ongoing management and Master Plan implementation for Tommy Thompson Park. In 1 995 the Auttlority formally adopted the North Shore Park ESA which includes all the lands between the (private) Unwin Avenue Service Road and the unopened road allowance for Unwin Avenue (see attached map). .. The Auttlority has developed clearly defined criteria for designation of ESA's (MTRCA 1993). In addition to being peer reviewed, these criteria were developed in consultation with other Conservation Authorities, agen~ies, municipalities and other experts in this fteld. The criteria are applied on a regional sl:a;le using the ecclogic:al units of -watersheds' as a context This ESA fulfills criteria relating to the existence of regionally and provincially rare plant species, and specieslfeatures that have limited regional representation. The report from the Planning ar:d Development Oepartment has identified the Authority's interest in the site from a variety of environmentaJ perspectives, including the existence of wildlife habitat and some regionally rare plant species, however, it has not identified the presence of the provincially significant plant species (potentilla paradoxa). The habitat features and species found at this site do exist elsewhere in the Port Area. HowQver, they have limitee representation on the Toronto Waterfront It is also important to note that these lands were deemed to be past of and contributing to the significant features and fund on of the ESA .../2 vVC':~:::q Ic;~:t;~r .:cr Tcr.-cr-i;~'/5 Gr=='"':s>:.:::: : ...... , 0269 Water .and Related Land Managemen: Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 Mr. Elis &. ~emt:ers -2- November 20. 1996 The lanes in question have been the feCJS of several stlJdies and reviews, the most detailed of wnlC:h was tt1e E:1Vircnmental Audit of tt1e East 8ayfrcnt/Port Industrial Area Phase II undertal<en in 1991 by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Wmeriront. The report entit1ed .Patt'lways: Towards an E=system Approach" produced in 1991 was a c:Jlmination of a variety of working groups induding natura! heritage, air, built heritage, water, soils and groundwater. The 1991 Gecmatics International report entitled "NatUral Areas and Erwironmentally Significant Areas in tt1e City of Toronto, supports this work by indicating tt1at the site .performs useful ecological functions." The Gecmatics report also references the Environmental Audit report and recommends that "the area should be preserved as a natural area and integrated with the greening of the waterircnt. " Based on cur understanding of ttle site and its featurestfunc::ions, the second option to .redesignate and rezone ttle industrial portion to natural area and Gr to address environmental concems' would be preferred since this option best supports the Authority's goals fer long-term protection of this resource. The Authority as an abutting land owner (Tommy Thompson Park which received Master Plan approval tt1rough the Environmental Assessment Act in 1995) I has participated in the City of Toronto's north shore studies and has supported the Toronto Harbour Commissioners in their Streetscape Study fer Leslie Street as it entered the baselands and Tommy Thompson Park. To make an informed dec:sicn on these lands as part oftt1e waterircnt south of the Ship Channel, there needs to be formulated an integrated strategic direction to recognize the natural environment and green infrastructure, the future design character servicing options and tt1e economic objectives. It would be our suggestion that the following actions be taken by the Land Use Committee: 1) That no action be taken on the existing zoning of these lands and that the matter be deferred for future consideration in the context of all lands south of the Ship Channel. . 2) That the Committee direc staff to wcrk with TEDCO, MTRCA, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and interest groups to prepare and undertake a strategic plan for all lands south of the Ship Channel that indudes but is not limited to an urban design, func:icnaJ environmental analysis, and park I greenspace masterplan. .../3 : - , Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0270 . Mr. 51is & Members -3- November 20. 1996 3) That the Committ8e request Council to direct TEDCO net to entBrtain any development on these lands until a report and l'8COIM1endalfons on the above noted integraEed strmegic plan is d88lt with by Coundl. We are at the opinion that this approach will net jeopardize the economic devetopment opportunities fer TElCO in the short tIlrm but will establish. mora i~1 atad plan tc realize the green infrastrud.lnt opportunities, eccnomic objedfves and a fuUJre distinctive ur1:lan ferm and identity fer 1his key wmerfront sedon of the City's Portlands. We would respec:fully request your serious c:cnsideralion of the above proposal. We ean assure you that MTRCA statf would participate fully to assist the City, TEDCO, Waterfrcnt Regeneralion Trust, and other interested groups to achieve an integrated vision and framework fer future initiatives fer this area of the Portfands. Fi d, M.C.I.P., R.P.P W nt Specialist Watershed Management Division LF/sf Attach. . : - , 0271 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - c c s,g ..- . ;z-<: . .. -~ ~ o . - .. -c > · CI . II A < ""' ~ '- . '- 4 "" - - '- - = ~ - < '- ,... Co; ._ - - - "- - Z 01:< .~ , - '-:n -.. -., t:; 2= ~ '- .- I~ ..... ~ - = ~ ~ = ~ . .. ~ J :! 00- I ~ .,.. ,.... I ~ ~ ~ II @ . ~ ~ 1 ~ . : ~.. , " Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 0272 - I I i - I I I i i c...q 0",.= I I I I i I I I i I I ==--=: Leslie S!~t Selt - North 5;.el": ":Irk --- Base of Spit Mac 1 -- .. -- Exlstlnli :xtlu'"Sle:l 'Jt '",;nWI'1 ':'v~~',JOL! !;lr"'C1la "tla::' Context Map ----. ...... Unwin Avenue i=ioac :.'le~slcn :UI"',CCel"'~ read ailc"'ar.c:a~ . . P~pcsed Golf Acade~y S,la T . . --:.... ;a.;.;..,;.o C==.r , 996 ~!n ,. . -. " --"-. "... I':'''-il'''~ .-.... .. .,~. .... .... 0273 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #7/96, November 29, 1996 - TERMINA TION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:00 p.m., November 29, 1996. Lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary-Treasurer /pl ~ - . , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority MINUTES OF WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #8/96 January 24, 1997 Page D274 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the North Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, January 24, 1997. The Vice Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 9: 15 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority Jim McMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS lIa Bossons ................................................ Member Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair Joan King .................................................. Member Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES. #D79/96 - MINUTES Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Lois Hancey THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/96, held November 29, 1996, be approved. . CARRIED 0275 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96 January 24, 1997 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION MOTION TO REFER RES. #D80/96 - CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION PROPOSAL Town of Pickering, Duffin Creek Watershed Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Paul Raina THA T the above item, Cherry Downs Golf Course Expansion Proposal, and delegation requests from Mr. Louis Greenbaum, Mr. Fred Beer and Mr. Michael Newman, be referred to Authority Meeting #12196, to be held at 10:00 a.m. Friday, January 24, 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED RES. #D81/96 - KING-VAUGHAN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA (ESA) The adoption of the new King-Vaughan Complex ESA. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the new King-Vaughan Complex Environmentally Significant Area (ESA), described in the attached summary, be adopted as part of the Authority's inventory of ESAs; THA T staff be directed to use this new information to advocate the protection of this ESA through plan input and review activities; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate the new ESA information to the affected municipalities to seek their support in recognizing the ESAs in appropriate land use designations within their planning documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96, January 24, 1997 0276 BACKGROUND As part of the Authority's ongoing update of ESAs, field investigations were undertaken for the King-Vaughan Complex. This is a new ESA, that had been previously recognized, in part, by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a Provincially Significant wetland. The recommended ESA is a complex that includes a diversity of forests and wetlands that act as headwater source areas for the East Humber River. Altogether the King-Vaughan Complex fulfills six of the ESA designation criteria. The site is very rich both structurally and botanically, containing over twenty rare plant species and a great-blue heron rookery with approximately 50 nests. A summary description of the ESA, including a map and the criteria fulfilled is attached to this report. The Township of King is currently developing a secondary plan for the King City Community. It is the intent of the Municipality to place a land use designation of Environmental Policy Area (EPA) on all significant and sensitive lands including ESAs, ANSls, and wetlands. The information gathered as part of the update study and the proposed ESA limits has been forwarded to staff at King Township for incorporation into the Community Plan. This plan is currently under public review and Authority staff felt that it was necessary that the public be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed ESA limit. Therefore, the new King-Vaughan Complex ESA is being brought forward for adoption in advance of the 1 996 ESA annual update report. DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to work with the Township of King to ensure the King-Vaughan Complex is recognized appropriately in the King City Community Plan. The remainder of the ESAs investigated during 1996 will be brought forward as part of the ESA annual update report at a later date. For information contact: Dena Lewis, Ext. 225 0277 Water and Related Land Managem~nt Advisory ~oard #8/96 January 24, 1997 - ~ ~ING VAUGHAN COMPLEX Status: New ESA (137) Dllte: 1 1/96 Criteria Fulfilled: 2. 5, 6, 7, B, 9 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The complex is located in the Humber Watershed, in the Township of King and City of Vaughan, south of King Side Road and extending from Jane Street to east of Duffenn Street. The site is a headwater source, much of it draining northward to the East Humber River. The complex incorporates a variety of forests and wetlands. A large node of mixed swamp, moist maple/hemlock forest and cattail marsh is found west of Keele Street. Another large feature south of King Road contains maple upland forest, marsh and deciduous swamp. A third large feature found east of Keele and north of King-Vaughan Road, contains cattail marsh, thicket swamp and mature silver maple swamp. The remaining features are satellite swamps, marshes and woodlots which contribute to the overall diversity and natural cover. Agricultural fields, residential development and a public school are found throughout the complex. Adjacent natural features include the Hope Wetland Complex to the south and the McGill Area IESA 73) to the southeast, which is in the Don watershed. CRITERIA FULFILLED Criterion 2 Most of the ESA is on the South Slope physiographic region and the remainder on the extreme east is on the Oak Ridges Moraine. The soils are characteristically porous sand and gravel with depressions that support wetlands. The numerous wetlands serve as a water source and storage area for the East Humber Watershed. Criterion 5 The large mature deciduous swamp supports a great-blue heron rookery. Great-blue heron are rare breeders in the MTRCA Region. A male northern parula warbler was a possible breeder in the summer of 1996. Breeding by this species is rare in southern Ontario and is not known to breed in the MTRCA Region. However, this 1996 occurance may be due to the late spring weather and reoccurance should be monitored in future years. The following twenty plant species found on. the site. are considered rare in the MTRCA Region: marsh horsetail Eouisetum oalustre arrowhead Saoittana cuneata northern manna grass Glveeria borealis rattlesnake manna grass Glveena canadensis - Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96, January 24, 1997 0278 - eastern manna grass Glvceria sectentrionalis sedge ~ aauatilis sedge ~WW sedge ~ molesta river bulrush ~ fluviatilis clearweed Pilea fontana mountain hOlly Nemocanthus mucronatus stemless blue violet Yi.aJA ~ downy willow-herb Eoilobium strictum black snakeroot Sanicula area aria marsh speedwell Veronica ~ bedstraw ~ tinctorium cardinal flower ~ cardinalis aster ~ ontarionis aster ~~ Four plant species found on the site are considered rare in the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Central Region (Riley 1989): clearweed Pilea fontana stemless blue violet Yi.aJA ~ downy willow-herb Ecilobium strictum ontario aster ~ ontarionis Criterion 6 The wetland communities are for the most part undisturbed and of high quality. For example, the rookery swamp supports large, mature silver maples and the other large habitat nodes are very rich, and diverse both botanically and structurally. The community types range from upland deciduous and mixed forest to kettle wetlands. The wetlands are the most diverse habitats, including open marsh, emergent marsh, meadow marsh, deciduous thicket swamp, and mixed and deciduous treed swamps. ' Most kettles on the site are swamp thicket, dominated by willow and dogwood. One swamp is dominated by striped maple, a more northern species. Treed swamps are comprised of silver or red maple and several sustain peat communities which support tamarack, leatherleaf, bog cranberry, bog buckbean, bog willow, the sedge ~ niscerma. and mountain holly, most of which have a northem affinity. The large node west of Keele Street is composed of black ash, red maple, balsam fir, white cedar and yellow birch. Marshes are also frequent and are dominated by cattail, canada blue-joint and tussock sedge. The upland forests are composed mainly of sugar maple combined with american beech, and red oak in some drier portions or eastern hemlock in moist conditions. The complex provides habitat for at least 418 plant species (Varga 1996). Of the 47 bird species using the site in 1996, 23 were observed during the breeding season. The site is predominately wetland and provides breeding habitat for a number of wetland- '-~ - 0279 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96 January 24, 1997 - - - dependent species. They include apporximately 50 nests of great-blue heron, and a number of pairs of wood duck, virginia rail, sora, common snipe, northem waterthrush and swamp sparrow. Large numbers of warblers and marsh birds use the forests and wetlands on migration. The wetlands, because of their association with upland forest, support large concentrations of breeding spring peeper and wood frog in the spring. The lowland meadows between the forests are used by meadow jumping mouse, an uncommon species in the MTRCA Region. Criterion 7 Wetland and forest associations are of limited representation in the MTRCA Region. Wetlands with bog characteristics are uncommon in the MTRCA Region. Kettle wetlands are considered uncommon in southem Ontario, being confined to moraines (Varga 19961. Criterion 8 The site is relatively undisturbed and provides conditions suitable for breeding by great-blue heron and northern waterthrush. two area-sensitive species. Criterion 9 The wetland portions of the site are considered provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. COMMENT~ Although the wetland features are in proximity to each other, many of the overland linkages . between them are through residential lots and are therefore poor. Linkages should be improved to facilitate movement and dispersal of flora and fauna between nodes. CFN - Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96, January 24, 1997 0280 - . bnvironmentally Significant Area # 137 )metro ..gio" canurv.tton CV ~ City of Vaughan [~'-<:' .1 ESA # 137 - King Vaughan Wetland N 1lXXl 0 1lXXl :2lXXl Meln ~ - - ....-' 0281 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #8/96 January 24, 1997 - RES. #D82/96 - MUNICIPAL WATER BILL Investigation into the use of municipal water bill revenue as a source of funding for certain MTRCA programs. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated December 17, 1996, be received; THA T staff be directed to work with Metro staff to investigate which MTRCA programs might properly be charged to the water rates; AND FURTHER THAT staff coordinate efforts in this regard with those of neighbouring conservation authorities and the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, at its meeting held on December 4, 1996, amended Clause No.1 of Report No. 29 of the Financial Priorities Committee, as follows: "It is further recommended that: (1 ) prior to the 1998 budget cycle and no later than June, 1997, the appropriate staff of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (M.T.R.C.A.) be requested to jointly investigate which M.T.R.C.A. programs might properly be charged to the water rates;. . . " The municipal water bill could represent a predictable, sustainable source of revenue necessary for funding certain Authority water management programs. Reductions in provincial funding to conservation authorities and municipalities have created a need for alternative sources of revenue. This shortfall coincides with a time of increasing public concern over the inadequacy of existing programs, such as those addressing stormwater- related impacts on watershed health in already urbanized areas. By using the municipal water bill as an administrative tool, additional funding could be generated to address the current shortfalls and deficiencies in funding water management programs. Some of these programs might include: watershed planning and analysis; data collection and management; community awareness; inspection and enforcement; and the design and construction of watershed regeneration projects. Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96, January 24, 1997 0282 - Connection with the water bill could provide a natural link between the water management programs and the water resources they protect, thus serving as an awareness tool and potentially gaining greater public support than could be achieved through general taxes. Seventy-seven percent of Don Watershed residents surveyed in the Angus Reid poll indicated that they would support the efforts to clean-up the watershed even if it meant a small fee being added to their water bill to cover some of the costs. There has been some experience with this source of funding in other jurisdictions. In the United States, Stormwater Utilities have operated on a user-fee funded basis to administer stormwater management programs and projects for well over ten years. In Regina, Saskatchewan and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, a surcharge on the water bill is being considered as a means of funding urban stormwater management programs. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE There are a number of areas for further investigation with respect to this proposal, including an assessment of: . eligible Authority programslservices . revenue needed, based on alternative funding levels and planning horizons revenue generation potential, based on alternative formula . administrative options (e.g. part of existing waterlsewer rate or separate surcharge) . equity in application among water bill recipients . alternative financing options . the area of application (i.e. all or only the Metro part of the MTRCA jurisdiction) . Authority staff are aware that the Regions of Durham and Peel have both expressed an interest in reviewing the water bill as a potential source of funding for conservation authorities, and that other GT A conservation authorities may also be looking into this proposal. Therefore, it is recommended that Authority staff work with neighbouring conservation authorities and facilitate discussion with the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York, and Durham to avoid any duplication of effort and ensure consistency in any recommendations that result from this investigation. For information contact: Sonya Meek, ext. 253 0283 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/96 January 24, 1997 . - DON WATERSHED REPORT CARD A verbal report by Adele Freeman, Don/Highland Watershed Specialist. Withdrawn by staff. RES. #D83/96 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL The minutes of Meeting #7/96 of November 28, 1996 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information. Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #7/96 held November 28, 1996, be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land 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, ext 238 TERMINA TION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., January 24, 1997. Lorna Bissell Craie Mather Vice Chair Secretary-Treasurer Ipl