HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Management Advisory Board 1997
~
"the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND
PUBLIC USE ADVISORY BOARDS - MEETING #1/97
February 28, 1997 Page 01
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board and the Public Use Advisory
Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on
Friday, February 28, 1997. The Chair of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, Lois
Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Watershed Management
lIa Bossons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Member, Watershed Management
Victoria Carley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Michael Di Biase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Chair, Watershed Management
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Eldred King ......................................... Member, Public Use
Jim McMaster ............................. Member, Watershed Management
Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Gerri Lynn O'Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Paul Palleschi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Paul Raina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
Bev Salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
Deborah Sword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Richard Whitehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Public Use
REGRETS
Maria Augimeri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Randy Barber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Joan King ................................ Member, Watershed Management
Donna Patterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair, Public Use
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
Maja Prentice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
D2 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
RES. #D1/97 - MINUTES
RES. #E1/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/96, held November 1, 1996, of the Conservation and
Related Land Management Advisory Board be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
RES. #02/97 - MINUTES
RES. #E2/97
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #8/96, held January 24, 1997 of the Water and Related
Land Management Advisory Board be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Lois Hancey was shown as being present at Conservation and Related Land Management
Advisory Board Meeting #7/96, held November 1, 1996. The minutes have been corrected
to read that Mrs. Hancey was absent for this meeting.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28. 1997 03
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter, from Mr. Luciano Martin, Executive Director of Action to Restore a Clean
Humber (ARCH), dated February 27, 1997, re: Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan, see page D89. The letter outlines ARCH's two
recommendations related to the Draft Claireville Management Plan, dated February
28, 1997.
RES. #03/97 - CORRESPONDENCE
RES. #E3/97
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Gerri Lynn O'Connor
THAT the above item of correspondence (8) be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #04/97 - DON VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
RES. #E4/97 Approval of the revised Authority Policy Statement on Volunteers, the
Don Watershed Volunteer Program and Volunteer Program Manual.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority Policy Statement on
Volunteers be adopted as revised;
THAT the Volunteer Program established for the Don Watershed be approved;
THAT the Volunteer Manual prepared by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be
approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the Volunteer Manual serve as a guide for other volunteer efforts.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Volunteers have been a valued component of the Authority's resources for many years.
They have assisted at Black Creek Pioneer Village, at the Kortright Centre for
Conservation, and on various projects within the Conservation Areas and at the head
office.
D4 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
Over the past years a number of new opportunities have been developed that have
involved people in watershed management activities in addition to the traditional planting
activities. These have included the Yellow Fish Road Program and the Aquatic Plants
Program. Many individuals and groups continue to offer their time and talents to assist
both the Don Watershed Council and the MTRCA in its activities to protect and regenerate
the natural resources of the region.
In 1994, on the formation of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, an "associate
member" category was established to enable the Don Council to add persons to its
committees interested in assisting on a regular basis in the implementation of "Forty Steps
to A New Don". The development of the Don Volunteer Program is the next step in
engaging an ever wider group of persons in caring for the Don.
The Don Volunteer Program was developed primarily by Margaret Buchinger, a member of
the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, through a subcommittee of the Don Council's
Community Outreach and Education Committee. Ms. Buchinger met with staff from the
Authority currently working with volunteers and consulted with a wide variety of
organizations utilizing volunteers. Early drafts of the Don Volunteer Program have been
reviewed by Authority staff, including Kaye MacDonald, Manager of Human Resources, to
ensure the program reflects the letter and spirit of the Authority's Human Resource policies
and practices.
A volunteer "intake" meeting, was held on January 30, 1997 to confirm the interest of the
public. Prior to the meeting volunteer descriptions had been developed. Approximately 40
persons volunteered for a diverse number of jobs ranging from "frog monitors" to general
office assistants. The next steps include interviews, MTRCAIDon Watershed orientation,
and safety training. It is anticipated that the program will be in full operation by mid April.
The Don Volunteer Program and Manual is, for most part, consistent with the MTRCA's
policy on Volunteers adopted at Authority Meeting #2/86 held June 13, 1986. As a result
of the review conducted for the Don Watershed Volunteer Program, one change is
required.
A revised copy of the MTRCA policy statement on volunteers is attached. The statement
has been revised to delete the clause: "....... An allowance to cover out-of-pocket
expenses (the rate of the allowance will be reviewed annually)". The current expense
allowance is $10 per day; a figure that was established in 1988. Experience has shown
that volunteers do not expect such an allowance and, with the increase in volunteers, we
can no longer afford the cost.
A copy of the Volunteer Program Manual dated January, 1997 is included with the agenda
package.
At this time the Authority is requested to approve the recommendations as provided
above.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 05
FUTURE BENEFITS
This program will enable the Don Council and the' MTRCA to enhance its outreach into the
community and implementation of ftForty Steps to a New Don. ft These volunteers will
carry out specific tasks and become another important link to our Watershed communities.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The major cost of the program is in the program management. This will be achieved during
1997 through a combination of staff time (the Don Watershed Technical Assistant) and
the continuing support of Ms. Buchinger.
Additional costs including supplies, volunteer recognition and related elements are
estimated at $6,000. These funds will be derived from a variety of sources including the
Don Watershed budget and donations that can be raised.
Report prepared by:
Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
06 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1197 February 28, 1997
~
V the metropolitan tcronto and region conservation authority
VOLUNTEERS
Volunteers have been, and will continue to be, an integral statf component of the Authority, along
will full-time and supplementary staff. Volunteers compliment and support the work 01 the full-
time and seasonal staff, accomplish a task that would not otherwise be done, and support
programs that could cease to exist without volunteer participation.
CATEGORIES OF VOLUNTEERS
Regular Service:
- available on a regular, on-going basis;
- specific vcluntary activities on a continuous basis;
Special Occasion Service:
- a "one time" or occas:onal voluntary service;
Administrative Volunteer-Indirect Service:
- serving on a volunteer committee;
- fund raising;
- providing supervision to other volunteers.
SELECTlON PLACEMENT
- task outlines will be prepared for each "regular service" volunteer position;
- applicants will be screened on the same basis as selection for paid positions, e.g.
skill and experience;
- qualified applicants will be interviewed by the site Supervisor and the immediate
Supervisor;
- the Supervisor will nctify the individual, in writing, that they have been accepted
as an MTRCA Volunteer;
- the immediate Supervisor will conduct regularly scheduled performance reviews
with all "regular service" volunteers. .
.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 07
SUPERVISION
It is the responsibility of the site Supervisor or the direct Supervisor to:
- orient volunteers to the job site;
- provide clear and precise directions;
- provide required job training;
. ensure that volunteers are aware of all safety regulations. have appropriate safety
equipment and receive WHMIS training;
- maintain personnel records 01 volunteer sta1t,
. prepare an annual report on their volunteer program.
RESOURCE/COMPENSATION
All volunteers shall receive:
- travelling expenses, at current rate, incurred while en authorized Authority
business;
- accidental death and dismemberment insurance for volunteers who are
employed elsewhere;
- uniforms or costumes, if required, acquired on the same basis as seasonal staff;
- orientation materials including copies of recent Authority public information
publications;
. a volunteer pass entitling volunteers to share in our reciprocal agreement through
the Toronto Tourist and Visitor Association;
- full year complementary pass for "regular service" volunteers'
- day passes, as approved by the Supervisor, for 'special occasion" or
"administrative" volunteers.
January 1997
08 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM MANUAL
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The goal of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is the regeneration of the
watershed to a healthy and sustainable condition. To achieve this goal, the Council is
building partnerships with community groups, businesses and many individuals who
are making a significant contribution in time, effort and money to support the
regeneration efforts.
As the second year of the Watershed Council's mandate nears a close, it is clearly
necessary and desirable to create a larger, more diversified volunteer force:
. to assist The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty
(MTRCA) and the Counc:1 With the large number of tasks in the
regeneration strategy;
. to increase awareness of environmental issues by increasing the number
of people directly involved in the work of regeneration; and
. to spread the word on ways in which the watershed can be improved
through individual actions.
Volunteers complement and support the work of full time and seasonal staff of MTRCA
and the Don Council. They make it possible to undertake tasks that otherwise could not
be done, to support programs that might cease without volunteer participation and to
lend a helping hand.
A successful volunteer program must be organized, structured and understandable in
order for volunteers to feel satisfaction with their contribution and for staff to accept and
appreciate volunteers as team members.
This manual is designed for use by the Volunteer Coordinator, MTRCA staff and
members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council who work with volunteers. It
deals with the essential components of a volunteer program for the Don Council and
provides solutions to typical problems that arise in managing volunteers.
Volunteer Program Manual 1 January 1997
Don Wau1"sned Regene1"allon Counc:1
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 09
2.0 WHO IS THE TYPICAL VOLUNTEER?
One in four Canadians is a volunteer. Every age group is represented (the largest
being 35 to 55) and there are equal numbers of men and women. In Ontario alone
there are 2 million volunteers whose economic contribution is estimated at $4.2 billion.
Voluntarism has changed significantly in the past few years. Changes in the economy
have greatly increased the .pool" of volunteers as a result of early retirement,
unemployment, reduced work hours and more contract work. Adults are living longer
and are healthier. Young people. needing experience, are willing volunteers.
The number of candidates is growing and the diversity of talent is increasing. At the
same time more organizations (both public and private) are seeking volunteers.
Therefore it is imperative to be imaginative and aggressive in order to attract the
number of volunteers that will be needed in the future and to be able to select those
who are committed to the environment and can bring their best efforts to the tasks at
hand.
It
Volunteer Program ManlW 2 January 1997
Don Wal~,.sJr~d R~gmf!raaon CounCIl
010 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
3.0 MOTIVES FOR VOLUNTEERING
There are three major reasons for volunteering:
. to help others;
. to work for a cause that the volunteer believes in;
. to do something useful and enjoyable.
In addition, people volunteer to gain experience for future employment, to stay in the
mainstream, to network, to expand personal horizons, to enjoy a sense of
accomplishment and to meet other people.
It is important for volunteers to feel their contribution makes a difference and that they
are not "token" volunteers to enhance the organization's image. Their tasks do not have
to be unique to volunteers, nor do they have to be major projects. But they must be
meaningful and contribute to the total picture of achieving "The Forty Steps".
.
Volunt.eer Progr:un Manual 3 January 1997
Don WQID"sh~d R~gm."Qlion Council
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 011
4.0 MISSION STATEMENT
A mission statement provides a clear framework for volunteer activities and identifies
the importance of volunteers to the organization. The mission statement for the
Volunteer Program is:
"To manage a volunteer program to assist the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority in facilitating revitalization of the Don
Watershed according to the principles in -Forty Steps to a New Don";
and
To provide a rewarding and challenging community oriented
volunteer experience for all those interested in the goal of promoting
sustainable natural ecosystems in an urban environment."
Volunteer Program Manual 4 January 1997
Don Walermed RegmC'aaon COllncil
.
012 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
5.0 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBIUTlES
Volunteers have rights and responsibilities. These will be included (together with the
Mission Statement, policies on out of pocket expenses, insurance etc.) in a Volunteer
Handbook which will be distributed after the selection process and acceptance on the
volunteer team.
5.1 . Rights for Volunteers
1. The right to be treated as an equal, with respect and fairness, free from
harassment of any kind;
2. The right to be given a suitable assignment, with consideration for
personal interests and experience, in the context of work priorities;
3. The right tc? have assignments clearly defined by job description;
4. The right to be kept informed of the activities of MTRCA and the Don
Council;
5. The right to responsible supervision and guidance;
6. The right to receive training as required;
7. The right to express opinions and ideas and to receive a considerate
hearing;
8. The right to be recognized for work well done.
5.2 Responsibilities of Volunteers
1. To meet the agreed upon commitments of the assignment;
2. To be held accountable for the work done;
3. To be willing to learn and to grow in the job;
4. To work cooperatively with MTRCA staff and members of the Don
Council;
5. To be an ambassador for MTRCA and the Don Council in the community;
6. To spread knowledge and understanding of environmental protection and
regeneration.
Volunteer Program Manual 5 January 1997
Don Wale,sh,d Regeneration CouncIl
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 013
Another issue relates to volunteer decision making power. Volunteers will be limited in
any action or statement which might affect or obligate the Council or MTRCA. A
volunteer may only make statements to the media or make official arrangements
(contractual or financial) with other organizations after prior approval from MTRCA.
VolunlC'Cl' Program Manual 6 January 1997
Don Walushcd Rc~"'alion COIUlcil
014 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
6.0 JOB DESCRIPTIONS
After volunteer tasks have been identified, job descriptions will be prepared for each
volunteer position or assignment (sample included in the Appendix). Job descriptions
establish the work expectations of the volunteer position, reduce misunderstandings,
identify the qualifications, experience and commitment needed, permit effective
monitoring of volunteer work and finally, they convey the image of good organization
and the value of volunteers to the organization.
The job description should include:
. Title;
. Purpose or objective of the work;
. Qualifications: education, experience, skills;
. Duties and responsibilities including equipment needed and to be
provided by the applicant (eg. camera, hiking boots, personal computer);
. Special requirements of either the assignment or of the volunteer;
. Commitment required: hours, weeks, regular or periodic;
. Training requirements;
. Name of supervisor.
Volunteer Program Manual 7 January 1997
Don Watershed Regmuation Council
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 015
7.0 RECRUITMENT
Our recruitment efforts will begin with an Information Night This event will save time,
create a forum for willing volunteers and effectively channel requests. An Information
Night will be held at regular intervals during the year.
7.1 Information Night
The Information Night, to be sponsored by MTRCA and the Don Council, is a general
call for volunteers for environmental protection and regeneration, with a partioular focus
on the Don Watershed. It will be held 2-4 times per year, depending on the need for
volunteers and the availability of staff or members of the Council to supervise them. In
between Information Nights, MTRCA will continue to screen individual requests and to
place volunteers wherever possible.
7.2 Publicity
Advertising for the ever.t ~ust be broad and Intensive using'
. community newspapers
. public service announcements on radio and T.V. (cable)
. flyers in libranes. community centres, malls
. magazines
. environmer.tal group newsletters
. university ~ac~lt'l (Planning. Environmental Sciences, Geography, Biology)
bulletin boar=s.
. Don Waters:-:ec Web Site (Intemet)
When special skills or educatIonal background is required then a direct contact with the
appropriate professional cr trade association is recommended.
7.3 Information Night Agenda
The Information Night is often the first contact that potential volunteers have with an
organized environmental group. Therefore it is a unique opportunity to share the
environmental message as well as the volunteer tasks.
The agenda for the evenlr.g should include the following, keeping in mind the desire for
informality:
(i) Welcome by a volunteer member of the Don Council;
Volunteer Program Manual 8 January 1997
Don Wat~rsh~d Rege"eratlon Counc.1
016 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
(ii) Brief overview of MTRCA's mandate and the strategy of "Forty Steps";
Oii) Slide presentation on the Don including its history, decline and current
activities to regenerate;
(iv) Review of volunteer opportunities - specific tasks (with job descriptions if
possible) and other, more generic work (eg. plantings, valley clean-ups).
(v) Application forms (sample in Appendix) to be filled out by those interested
in any aspect of environmental volunteering (specific or general) and
willing to make a commitment.
Volunteer Progrm1 Manual 9 January 1997
Don Watershed Regeneration Covncil
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 017
8.0 SELECTION
8.1. Categories of Volunteers
In accordance with MTRCA policy there are three categories of volunteers.
Reaular Service:
. available on a regular, on-going basis;
. specific voluntary activities on a continuing basis.
Soecial Occasion Service:
. a .one time" or occasional voluntary service.
Administrative Volunteer - Indirec Service:
. serving on a volunteer committee;
. fund raising;
. supervising other volunteers.
8.2 Review of Applications
Not every applicant will necessarily be a good volunteer or be suitable for the tasks that
are available. As with any hiring, it is necessary to be selective to avoid unhappy
volunteers and unsatisfactory performance. In the initial review of applications, the
selection team, comprised of the Volunteer Coordinator, the task Supervisor and a
member of the Don Council will look for:
. a clear indication of interest;
. a willingness to make a commitment to the particular task or general
environmental work;
. the qualifications and experience needed to perform the task as outlined
in the job description.
8.3 Interviews
For the specific tasks presented at any given Information Night, individuals will be
selected for interviews, based on the completed application forms.
The selection will be made and interviews conducted by the selection team.
Interviews should be designed to expand on the information already provided on the
application form and to elicit other potential skills or special interests. Content should
include:
Volunteer Progr:lm Manual 10 January 1997
Don Wal~rsll~d R~grneraaon CouncIl
018 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
. what motivated the applicant to volunteer?
. relevant experience and qualifications that make the candidate a suitable
choice for the task;
. what things the applicant has done that have given the greatest
satisfaction or dissatisfaction;
. comments on previous volunteer experiences.
The interview should also elicit a clear picture of:
. level of interest and commitment;
. energy, activity level relevant to the task;
. communication and interpersonal skills;
. decision making ability;
. personal time limitations and other commitments;
. ability to work with others and as a team member.
For the general environmental work, a formal interview will not be necessary. However,
all applicants will be contacted to confirm the type of volunteer work preferred, level of
interest, availability, etc. and. if mutually agreeable, the volunteer will be contacted by
the appropriate supervisor.
8.4 References
References may be required. References will be required for work with children, the
elderly or the disabled and in cases where specific qualifications or experience are
necessary to perform the task. Additional investigations and checks may be undertaken
at the discretion of the selection team.
8.5 Final Selection
Following the above steps the final selection will be made by the selection team. The
selection will be confirmed by letter and each volunteer will be required to sign the
"Volunteer Commitment" (sample in Appendix). Once the selection process is
completed, it is the responsibility of the Supervisor to contact the volunteer and provide
information on the starting date, orientation meetings, training programs etc.
Volunteer Program Manual 11 January 1997
Don WO/ershed Regenerollon CounCIl
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 019
9.0 ORIENTATION
Once the selection of volunteers is made, orientation and training are the first crucial
components of volunteer management Orientation provides the vehicle for
acquainting new volunteers with the Don Council and MTRCA and to begin the process
of developing a cohesive "Volunteer community..
An effective first step in the orientation process is a social event which is fun for
everyone and serves to "break the ice". Minimal structure is needed but useful
information can be worked in through games and quizzes (on the Don).
More detailed background and practical information must also be provided to each
volunteer and is usually included in a "Volunteer Handbook". Contents would be:
. history of the Don Council, its mandate and progress;
. MTRCA's responsibilities and relationship to the Council;
. Volunteer Mission Statement;
. rights and responsibilities of Volunteers;
. volunteer policies - expenses, insurance, time sheets, etc.
Volunleer Program Manual 12 January 1997
Don Wal6shed Regm~ation Councr/
020 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
10.0 TRAINING, SAFETY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
The time needed for training must be organized to avoid wasting time and to clarify
expectations on both sides. This will be the responsibility of the Supervisor.
Appropriate planning for the space needed (e.g. for office work), materials to be
provided and the detailed training program are all necessary for the smooth initiation of
the volunteer.
All volunteers will participate in at least one orientation session, organized by MTRCA,
which will deal with safety requirements (WHMIS regulations) and customer service.
Any volunteer using motorized or heavy equipment in the course of their duties must
complete the appropriate Authority training programs or have certification recognized
by the Authority's Health and Safety Officer.
As with volunteers, Supervisors and selec+jon team members will also require training
sessions. These will be designed to:
. clarify the supporting role of volunteers within the organization;
. review the policies and procedures of volunteer management; and
. provide the practical skills needed to conduct effective interviews.
Volunteer Progrwn Manual 13 January 1997
Don Wa'D'shed Regmualion Council
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 021
11.0 UABIUTY INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
All volunteers are covered under MTRCA's Commercial General Uability Policy which is
applicable in the event of property damage or personal injury to a third party. MTACA
also carries an Accidental Death and Dismemberment Policy for volunteers which
provides coverage for personal injury. However, it is important to note that any
volunteer using motorized or heavy equipment in the course of the volunteer work must
complete the appropriate Auttlority programs or have the required certification.
Volunteer Progrvn Manual 14 January 1997
Don Wal~rshcd Rcgmcraaoll COUIICI!
.
D22 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
12.0 RECORD KEEPING
Proper records and statistics are important in evaluating the volunteer program and its
volunteers. The following are basic requirements:
. Volunteer hours
Time sheets, recording the number of hours by activity should be kept by
each volunteer and submitted monthly by the Supervisor to the Volunteer
Coordinator. Time sheets. together with all other recorded information
(application, interview, signed .Commitment", evaluation etc.) should be
retained in a volunteer file.
. Demooraphic statistics
Prepared once a year for inclusion in the annual report together with total
number of volunteers, hours and activities.
. Evaluations
A formal evaluation by the Supervisor will be needed for student
volunteers and may also be requested by others for C.V. purposes. An
evaluation will also be required to dismiss a volunteer in those exceptional
cases when the job performance is inadequate.
. Volunteer evaluation of the orooram
This may include everything from individual suggestions for
improvements to the results of workshops or focus group discussions on
the program.
. Reasons for leavino the volunteer prooram
If this is not made clear before the departure, then a follow-up telephone
call will be needed to clarify the reason.
. Recruitment response
Total attendance at each Information Night and effectiveness of each
advertIsing medium (question on the application form).
Volunteer Program Manual 15 January 1997
DOli Walers"~d R~g~,,~,.aIlOll Cou"cil
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 023
13.0 VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION
Recognition and appreciation are the keys to minimizing volunteer turnover and should
be both formal and informal.
. Satisfied volunteers are the best emissaries of our message and our
organization in the community. It is important to remember that the
volunteers satisfaction comes from the personal feeling of making a
difference.
. Recognition at the personal level is most effective. On a regular basis, the
responsible Supervisor should not forget the value of a simple "thank
you' and "well done'.
. The Supervisor must be readily accessible for information and guidance
and to listen to concerns.
. An annual casual event provides a good opportunity for the Council,
MTRCA staff and volunteers to share their experiences and have some
fun.
. Volunteers appreciate being .part of the loop" and provided with current
information, updates, progress reports etc. A standing invitation to attend
meetings of the Council, the MTRCA Board, as well as all special events
(Watershed Week, Earth Day etc.) should be extended to volunteers.
. Pre-authorized business mileage, reciprocal complementary passes to
cultural and recreational destinations and special T-shirts, hats etc. will be
provided to volunteers in accordance with MTRCA policies.
. Additional training when available (and educational workshops) expand
the volunteer's knowledge, self esteem and value to the organization.
Appreciation never goes out of fashion and must be a priority for everyone dealing with
volunteers.
Volunteer Program Manll3l 16 January 1997
Don Wa/~rsh~d R~g~n~ra/lon COlmed
024 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
14.0 PITFALlS AND PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS
14.1 Conflict Resolution
Conflicts may arise among volunteers and between volunteers and staff or members of
Council. Steps to resolving conflicts include the following:
. Conflict or concerns must be brought to the attention of the Supervisor
immediately.
. Contact the volunteer for discussion of the issues.
. Agree upon corrective action.
. Follow up to ensure the conflict/concern has been resolved.
14.2 Dismissal
There needs to be a clear process before proceeding with dismissal of an
unsatisfactory volunteer.
. The supervisor should discuss the problem with the Volunteer
Coordinator;
. A new assignment or different working conditions should be explored.
If termination is the only solution, then the following steps are recommended:
. Verify all facts and information before proceeding;
. Meet with the volunteer to explain why the performance is unacceptable
(or other reason for dismissal);
. If possible, suggest other types of volunteer work, that would be more
suitable;
. Keep a record of the meeting and the reason for dismissal on the
volunteers file;
. Provide in writing the reasons for dismissal to the volunteer.
VoluntCCl' Program Manual 17 January 1997
Do" Wotus;'"d R"g"nuanon Council
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 025
14.3 Volunteer Turnover
The most effective way of avoiding a high turnover of volunteers is to take preventative
measures in the form of good management To keep volunteers motivated it is
necessary to:
. Treat volunteers with respect and a willingness to listen;
. Give volunteers your personal attention;
. Provide events, on-going training and recognition to show appreciation;
. Involve volunteers in decisions affecting them;
. Encourage suggestions for improvement in the volunteer program;
. Deal promptly with volunteer complaints;
. Give volunteers responsible positions as soon as possible;
. Keep volunteers informed and up to date and keep management
informed of volunteer activities and progress.
14.4 The Volunteer as a Representative of the Council
A volunteer working in the community is always the Council's ambassador and conveys
an image and the message of the organization. The skills needed to deal with the
public will be part of the orientation and training programs.
In those rare cases where a complaint is lodged against a volunteer by a member of
the public, it is important to maintain an open line of communication:
. Contact the complainant;
. Usten carefully to the details;
. Discuss the event and the complaint with the volunteer;
. Decide on your position (from a "misunderstanding" to "disciplinary action
will be taken");
. Provide your response back to the complainant;
Volunteer Prognm Manu.tl 18 January 1997
Don Watershed Regmeranon Councrl
D26 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
. Discuss and reach an understanding with the volunteer on how to avoid
these situations in future.
14.5 Volunteer Program Costs
Funds must be budgeted and secured for the minimum requirements of a serious,
business like operation:
. Salary for a Volunteer Coordinator (full or part time);
. Information Nights - rent of premises (If required), publicity, sound
systems, refreshments;
. Printing of forms and documents; application forms, consent forms, job
descriptions, volunteer handbook etc.;
. Volunteer appreciation events;
. Recognition.
-
Volunteer Progron Manual 19 January 1997
Don Watersh~d R~gmualion C01UIt:I/
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 027
APPENDIX A
APPUCATlON FORM
(Please print)
NAME:
ACCRESS:
TELEPHONE: Home: Business:
FAX NO:
EMPLOYMENT or PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT
PREVIOUS VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE:
SPECIAL SKILlS, INTERESTS:
LANGUAGES SPOKEN. other than English:
LANGUAGES WRITTEN, cther than English:
TYPE OF VOLUNTEER WORK PREFERRED:
(n Among the specific jobs identified:
on Other envircnmental work (e.g. planting, valley clean up, education and
outreach):
TIME AVAILABLE FOR VOLUNTEERING: (Please circle)
Days, Evenings. Week-ends, Regularly, Special Events or On Call.
NOTE:
For some tasks (e.g. where special skills or educational background are needed references may
be required. Are you willing to provide references? (Please circle)
YES NO
HOW olC YOU HEAR ABOUT THE INFORMATION NIGHT?
0 Radio 0 T.V.
0 Community Newspaper 0 Environmental Group Newsletter
0 School/University 0 Internet
0 Other (please specify)
Volunteer Progr.un Manw.1 20 January 1997
Don Watershed Regmeranon Co""".l
028 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
APPENDIX B
VOLUNTEER COMMITMENT
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council welcomes you to our team of environmental
volunteers and hopes that you will find satisfaction and enjoyment in working with us.
As a volunteer you will be expected:
. to honour the commitment which you have made;
. to fulfill the requirements of the job description;
. to work cooperatively and productively with your Supervisor, members of
the Don Council, MTRCA staff, other volunteers, and the public;
. to respect requests of confidentiality;
. to adhere to the Responsibilities of Volunteers.
Signature Date:
Volunteer Progr.un Manual 21 January 1997
Don Walusn"d R"1l""f!1'ODOn Council
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 029
RES. #D5/97 - APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS
RES. #E5/97 The appointment of alternate members to the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council.
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Councillor Michael Tziertas and
Mr. Paul Albanese be appointed as Alternate Members to the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council;
THAT Mr. Bruce Barrett be appointed to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as the
representative of the East York Advisory Committee on the Environment;
AND FURTHER THAT Ms. Sheila Boudreau be appointed as an Associate Member. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Borough of East York have advised of a change in the Alternate Member to the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council. Councillor Michael Tziretas was appointed as the
alternate to the Don Council by East York Resolution #3.21. Under the same resolution
East York appointed Mr. Bruce Barrett as the member representative of the East York
Advisory Committee on the Environment.
The City of Scarborough has appointed Mr. Paul Albanese to be the Alternate Member to
the Don Council as Mr. Peter Cookson is no longer on their staff.
Report prepared by:
Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
030 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
RES. #D6/97 - DON WATERSHED REPORT CARD
RES. #E6/97 Identification of the Don Watershed Report Card Indicators.
Moved by: Eldred King
Seconded by: Victoria Carley
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Watershed Report Card
Indicators and Targets be endorsed;
THA T staff continue to work with the members of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council, municipalities, Environment Canada, representatives of Provincial Ministries and
others to further refine the targets as noted for the year 2000;
AND FURTHER THAT the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be requested to develop a
work plan that addresses the required actions to address the targets for the year 2000 as
contained in the Report Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council was formed in 1995 to assist The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and others in implementing "Forty
Steps to a New Don". A number of committees were established at that time including
the Watershed Reporting and Monitoring Committee. This Committee has been working
systematically for nearly two years to develop the Don Watershed Report Card which the
Don Council will release on April 28, 1997.
The work leading to the development of the Report Card has included:
. the review of indicators and report card like formats used in other areas;
. a "wise heads" workshop involving specialists from many disciplines to
discuss indicators appropriate for a highly urbanized watershed;
. a series of community meetings where the public were asked to consider
signposts of regeneration and health for the Don;
. review and analysis of existing data that would assist in benchmarking
indicators;
. the public survey on attitudes conducted by the Angus Reid Group;
. numerous committee meetings to resolve indicator issues and set targets.
It is clear that concerted efforts must be made to restore this watershed to health. A
work plan to achieve and refine these targets is a necessary step to securing the
necessary funds, committing sites and encouraging agencies and the public alike to take
positive steps towards a regenerated Don River Watershed.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 031
The 18 indicators and their targets are as follows:
1. FLOW PATTERN
Flow (measured as volume of water) has doubled, worsening the ability of the river
to maintain good habitat and river banks.
Where we want to be:
Flows should be returned to more natural levels in order to prevent the destruction
of aquatic and terrestrial habitats and to limit the instances and severity of erosion
and flooding and their resulting impacts on pathways, bridges and other valley land
infrastructure.
By 2000:
Maintain flow volumes at today's levels, even with new development.
By 2010:
Gradually decrease the Don's flow trend.
By 2030:
Return to the lower, more even flows of 30 years ago
2. WATER QUALITY - HUMAN USE
Despite good efforts, bacteria levels remain too high for swimming.
People will enjoy being near the river, and will not be afraid to come in contact
with the water. (See Indicator 3 for target for the "muddy" Don.)
Where we want to be:
People will enjoy being near the river, and will not be afraid to come in contact
with the water. (See Indicator 3 for target for the "muddy" Don.)
By 2000:
A funded plan for the virtual elimination of combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) will be in place.
By 2010:
The Don will be safe for swimming throughout the watershed in dry
weather (i.e. less than 100 faecalsl1 00 mI).
By 2030:
Return the river to a natural level of bacteria in both dry and rainy
conditions.
3. WATER QUALITY - AQUATIC HABITATS
More pollution-tolerant species in the Don, but contaminants found in fish are
declining.
032 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Add wet weather sampling to sediment (TSS) monitoring program.
2) Update the aquatic invertebrate data throughout the watershed to
identify all members of the community (e.g. mayflies, caddisflies, worms,
leeches, stoneflies, snails) to the species level.
3) Continue young-of-the-year fish monitoring program at 9 sites on the
Don, and add 3 more sites - 2 in the headwaters and 1 in the Lower Don.
4) Continue and expand programs to identify and eliminate persistent toxins
in the watershed.
By 2010:
For aquatic invertebrates, increase the number of stations with mainly
pollution intolerant species from 0 to 3 (or 7 %), increase those showing
mainly moderately pollution tolerant species from 41 % to at least 50%, and
reduce the number of stations with mainly pollution tolerant invertebrates
from 59% to 43%. (Targets to be confirmed after new survey.)
By 2030:
1) Sediment (TSS) will be less than 80 mg/litre more than 75% of the time.
2) A diverse group of invertebrate species will be found throughout the
watershed. Restore the balance of species to the 1949 community of
13 % pollution intolerant, 65 % moderately tolerant, and 22 % pollution
tolerant.
3) Chemical contaminants will be within IJC's Aquatic Life Guideline.
4. STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT
Storm water management is now required for all new developments; agencies and
community groups working to retrofit older urban areas.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Identify all opportunities for storm water quantity and quality control in
currently uncontrolled areas and select 5 priority sites for retrofit.
2) Initiate 5 storm water retrofit projects in 5 sewersheds or tributaries
where there is no storm water control today, as defined by the above
study.
By 2010:
1) Retrofit all existing storm water ponds for quality.
2) Implement lot level source control measures in 50% of areas where
practical.
By 2030:
1) Complete storm water retrofits in all sewersheds or tributaries where there
is no storm water control today, as in the study plan.
2) Lot level measures will be in place in 75% of areas where practical.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 033
5. WOODLANDS
Mature woodlands are still being lost, particularly on the tablelands.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) No present significant woodlands (over 1 hectares) will be lost, even with
development
2) Establish targets for street trees and backyard trees.
By 2010:
Plant trees in an additional 650 to 700 hectares.
By 2030:
10 % of the watershed will be woodlands, or more than 3600 hectares.
(15% will be target in Vaughan due to its relatively undeveloped state.)
(The IJC's Areas of Concern program has targeted 30% forest cover for healthy
watersheds, while World Wildlife Fund has suggested 25 percent. For the highly
urbanized Don, these targets are probably unreachable.)
6. WETLANDS
Filling wetlands is less acceptable today, and wetlands are being regenerated across
the watershed.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
Create at least 12 new hectares of habitat wetlands.
By 2010:
Create a major wetland at the mouth of the Don. (See Indicator 15)
By 2030:
.5% of the watershed will be wetlands, or another 130.5 hectares (12 new
hectares every 3 years).
7. MEADOWS
Amount of meadow shifts up and down; not enough information to assess health.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Identify areas as long-term, perpetual meadows, e.g. hydro corridors and
roadsides.
2) Determine the optimal ratio of meadow to woodland in an urban
watershed. (See Indicator 14)
By 2010:
4% of the watershed will be meadows. (To be confirmed)
By 2030:
5% of the watershed will be meadows, or an additional 541 hectares.
(To be confirmed)
.
D34 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
(In nature, meadows are transitional habitats, existing for about 20 years before
becoming woodlands. Meadows should not replace woodlands or wetlands in the
regenerating watershed, but should be created where possible.)
8. RIPARIAN (STREAMSIDE) HABITAT
No dramatic changes in status or effort to date.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Identify all opportunities for riparian planting, to achieve long-term target
of 75% riparian vegetation, or an additional 56 kilometres.
2) Begin planting.
By 2010:
Complete plantings in the above plan.
By 2030:
75% of streams will have riparian habitat.
9. FROGS
Not enough data
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Complete baseline monitoring data for frogs, including -
in Spring American toads and spring peepers
in Summer Green frogs and gray treefrogs
2) Establish targets for 2010 and 2030.
10. FISH
More pollution-tolerant species, and fewer sensitive species, than historically.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
Increase access to the Upper East Don Watershed for migratory species such
as suckers and salmonids by removing or modifying three weirs, two at
Pottery Road and one on the East Don between Lawrence Ave. and the 401.
By 2010:
1) In areas where no fish are presently found, reestablish once common
species such as creek chub and others.
2) Expand the range of species that were once widespread in the Don such
as common shiner, Johnny darter, and mottled sculpin.
By 2030:
There will be self-sustaining populations of target species such as redside
dace, mottled sculpin, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, rainbow darters,
northern pike, and rainbow trout in appropriate habitats as outlined in
MTRCA's Don Fisheries Management Plan.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 035
11. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT
Almost all residents of the watershed believe the Don River is important to them.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Maintain the current levels of public support.
2) 3000 people will be active volunteers for the Don - committed to its
regeneration through actions andlor donations.
By 2010:
1) 80% will know that stormwater goes directly into the Don and is its
major source of pollution.
2) 10,000 people will be active volunteers for the Don.
By 2030:
95% of watershed residents will understand and care for the Don.
12. CLASSROOM EDUCATION
Not enough data.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) 1 2 % of elementary schools in the watershed will have classes visiting
the Don.
2) Establish a baseline for junior high and high school students who will
take watershed studies for at least one semester
during their school career.
By 2010:
1) 60% of elementary schools in the watershed will have classes visiting
the Don.
2) 100% of junior high and high school students will take watershed
studies for at least one semester during their school career.
By 2030:
All students will study the Don watershed as an integral part of their school
life.
13. RESPONSIBLE USE AND ENJOYMENT
Many watershed residents using and enjoying the parks system; increasing
attention is being paid to conflicting uses.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Complete 50% of Don Council's Community Based Maps of trails.
2) Improve and increase year-round access points.
3) Local governments and their LACACs should develop preservation
master plans for their important cultural heritage sites, along with
property owners and other partners.
4) Local governments should identify conflicting and problem uses in the
Don and develop management plans.
D36 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
By 2010:
1) Complete continuous trail network from the lake front to the headwaters,
with way-finding signs.
2) Complete all community trail maps and start process for updating them.
By 2030:
Expand marked trail network to include the Don's smaller streams and
creeks, and to link the Don to the GTA's other watersheds.
14. PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS
More natural areas are being protected, but we have a long way to go.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Identify specific areas for protection in order to meet targets in Indicator
No. 5,6,7 and 8.
2) Protect all vulnerable and significant natural areas.
3) Establish targets for the protection of meadows and riparian habitat.
By 2010:
All natural areas (woodlands and wetlands) will be protected, including
newly created natural areas.
By 2030:
Maintain high levels of protection.
15. REGENERATION PROJECTS
Excellent number and range of projects to date.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
Double the number of regeneration projects to at least 200, concentrating
especially on the creation and enhancement of the Don's woodlands,
wetlands, meadows, and riparian habitat. (See Indicators 5-8)
By 2010:
Major capital projects in all the Don's municipalities should be completed or
in progress. (See Indicator 4)
Scarborough, East York, and Toronto - eliminate combined sewer overflows
Toronto - create a major marsh at the Don's mouth
North York - retrofit storm water system, including downspout disconnection
Richmond Hi/!- retrofit storm water system, including storm water pond
upgrades to water quality ponds
Markham - complete Settlers' Park and Pomona Park concept sites, and
retrofit the stormwater system
Vaughan - complete storm water pond retrofits and improve sediment
control at construction sites.
By 2030:
Major CSO and stormwater projects will be completed.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 037
16. PERSONAL STEWARDSHIP
Support is present, but most people do not know what they can do to help the
river.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
40% of residents will know how they can help the Don, and will be doing at
least one positive thing.
By 2010:
50% of residents will be doing something positive for the Don.
By 2030:
Personal stewardship of the watershed will be an integral part of daily life.
17. BUSINESS AND INSTITUTIONAL STEWARDSHIP
Despite some business leadership, overall progress is slow.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) Collect baseline data on business stewardship and best management
practices, and establish targets for 2010 and 2030.
2) At least 100 businesses will sign the Don Accord.
By 2010:
To Be Determined
By 2030:
To Be Determined
18. MUNICIPAL STEWARDSHIP
Most municipalities have watershed-friendly practices and policies in place.
Where we want to be:
By 2000:
1) All Don municipalities will have ecosystem stewardship policies and good
management practices.
2) A method for measuring how well municipalities are implementing and
enforcing their stewardship policies will be in place.
By 2010:
To Be Determined
By 2030:
To Be Determined
038 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1197 February 28, 1997
The indicators will be presented and confirmed for the Board in a verbal presentation by
Adele Freeman following their final review by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council
meeting scheduled Thursday, February 20, 1997. Members of the Authority are invited to
the public release of the report on Monday, April 28, 1997, tentatively scheduled for
10:00 a.m. at the Don Valley Brick Works.
Report prepared by:
Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
RES. #07/97 - THE HUMBER WATERSHED STRATEGY
RES. #E7/97 - Authority endorsement of the partnership development with the
respective municipal agencies to implement the three priority community
action sites in the Humber River watershed; namely, Sun Row Park in the
City of Etobicoke; Lake Wilcox in the Town of Richmond Hill, and
Caledon East Wetland in the Town of Caledon.
Moved by: Victoria Carley
Seconded by: Gerri Lynn O'Connor
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff pursue the implementation
of the Community Action Sites in conjunction with the appropriate agencies, interest and
community groups that nominated these sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1996, the Authority endorsed the Humber Watershed Task Force reports
entitled, "'Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber' and its companion document entitled,
"'A Call to Action: Implementing the Humber Watershed Strategy'.
As part of this endorsement, the staff was directed to contact those partners involved in
the nomination of the three Community Action Sites within the Humber River watershed.
The three sites are Sun Row Park in the City of Etobicoke, Lake Wilcox Rehabilitation Plan
in the Town of Richmond Hill and the Caledon East Wetland project in the Town of
Caledon.
Meetings have been held with the appropriate municipal staff and community groups in an
effort toward developing draft implementation strategies, funding proposals and drafting
opportunities maps.
For the Sun Row Park Community Action Site in the Lower Humber subwatershed, two
public meetings were held last fall and a concept map developed and endorsed by the local
community. This map (attached) was developed into a large size poster and three have
been installed in Sun Row Park to publicize the initiative and call on residents to
participate. The costs of the signs were shared with the City of Etobicoke.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 039
On February 6, 1997, Authority staff met with representatives from the City of Etobicoke
to work out the partnership arrangements for implementation of the plans for
environmental enhancements at Sun Row Park. Agreement was achieved to submit a
proposal to the Great Lakes 2000 Clean-up Fund and the City of Etobicoke agreed to share
costs over the next three years. The cost of the project is estimated at $500,000,
including cash and in-kind donations.
For the Caledon East Wetland Community Action Site, an initial public meeting was held
in late November, 1996 and a concept drawing for the wetland has been produced. As
part of the submission to Great Lakes 2000 Clean-up Fund, a meeting was held on
February 10, 1997 with partners, including staff of the MTRCA, a Councillor and staff
from the Town of Caledon (Parks and Recreation and Clerk's Departments - Heritage
Resource Officer), the Region of Peel (Planning Department) and a local member from
Ontario Streams. Agreement was reached to submit a proposal to the Great Lakes 2000
Clean-up Fund and to cost share the project with largely in-kind contributions from the
Region of Peel and the Town of Caledon. The cost of the project is estimated at
$135,000, including cash, but is made up largely of in-kind donations.
For the Lake Wilcox Community Action Site, on the advice of the Town of Richmond Hill,
no additional public meetings have been held. The project was put before the Environment
and Energy Action Committee; however, no active participation was forthcoming. Our
current approach is to strike a Communications and Education Committee with staff from
MTRCA (Head Office, Kortright and Lake St. George), Town of Richmond Hill Planning and
Parks and Recreation Departments (Planning and Communications staff) and local citizens
to promote the ongoing programs of regeneration and restoration of the lake and to involve
the local community including businesses in the stewardship activities required for Lake
Wilcox.
It has been agreed that a telephone survey of a sample of the approximately 2500
residents of the Lake Wilcox area, paid for by the Town of Richmond Hill and contributed
in kind by MTRCA staff, will be conducted as the next step in this process.
RATIONALE
The objectives of "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber" support these activities.
Specifically, the following objectives may be referred to:
Objective 26 of Legacy: Cultivate partnerships between individuals, community
groups, businesses and public agencies in order to implement
the Humber Watershed strategy.
Objective 28 of Legacy: Develop educational programs that focus on the Humber
Watershed.
Objective 29 of Legacy: Fund the implementation of the Humber Watershed Strategy
through existing and new sources.
.
D40 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Sun Row Park and Caledon East Wetland:
Submit proposal to Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund.
Sun Row Park:
*Continue to work with the Steering Committee to implement the project..
*Plan community activities for the spring of 1997 such as plantings and building
and installation of bird boxes.
* Begin outreach to businesses in the area.
*Continue discussions with the City of Etobicoke toward the completion of
engineering plans for the stream rehabilitation component of the project.
* Develop a communications plan for the project.
*Support the development of the local residents stewardship group.
Caledon East Wetland:
* Hold a second community meeting in the next two months to finalize the concept
plan.
*Continue to work with the Steering Committee to implement the project.
*Plan community activities for the spring of 1997 such as plantings.
*Distribute final concept plan to riparian residents.
* Develop a communications plan for the project.
*Support the development of the local residents stewardship group.
Lake Wilcox:
*Conduct the telephone survey.
* Develop the messages for a communications plan based on the survey.
*Recruit additional citizen members for the Communications/Education Committee.
*Plan community events to coincide with Town of Richmond Hill remediation and
habitat restoration projects.
For information contact:
Madelyn Webb, Ext. 331
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 041
RES. #D8/97 - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PERMITS FOR RECREATION
RES. #E8/97 ACTIVITIES
Support of the position taken by other Conservation Authorities on
the Niagara Escarpment, that Development Control Permits should
not be required for recreation activities taking place on Authority
lands within the Planning Area.
Moved by: Victoria Carley
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority, while recognizing
the need to protect the Niagara Escarpment through appropriate means, and the important
role of the Niagara Escarpment Commission in doing so, supports the position taken by the
Halton Region Conservation Authority and other Escarpment Authorities, that Development
Control Permits should not be required for recreation activities, including rock climbing, on
Conservation Authority lands within the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to inform the Niagara Escarpment Commission of
the Authority's position on this matter.
AMENDMENT
RES. #09/97
RES. #E9/97
Moved by: Victoria Carley
Seconded by: Deborah Sword
THAT the words -including rock climbing- be deleted from paragraph 1 of the main
motion.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Recreational rock climbing has taken place on the Niagara Escarpment for a number of
years. Several of the more popular venues for this activity are located on lands owned by
the Halton Region Conservation Authority. The popularity of rock climbing has increased
in recent years and climbers have been seeking new locations for climbing.
042 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1197 February 28, 1997
The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) has taken the position that rock climbing,
especially in new locations, falls under the definition of "development" in the Niagara
Escarpment Planning and Development Act, and has proposed that a Development Control
Permit under the Act would be required for rock climbing within the Niagara Escarpment
Planning Area. The Halton Region Conservation Authority has indicated its opposition to
this proposal to the NEC and has asked for the support of the other Authorities on the
Escarpment (see attached correspondence).
RATIONALE
While the Escarpment lands owned by Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority are not suitable for rock climbing, the Authority does provide sites for a number
of other recreation activities, particularly at Glen Haffy. If the legislation is interpreted so
that Development Permits are required for rock climbing, it is reasonable that at some time
in the future, permits may be required for other types of recreation activities. It is the
opinion of staff that this goes beyond the intent of the legislation, and that any
requirement for Development Permits in this instance unreasonably restricts the Authority's
ability to fulfil its recreation mandate and to meet its financial objectives.
For information contact:
Andy Wickens, extension 252
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 043
.
, ,
(g HALTON REGION ' "
l ~:~: .~. .., '~..~- -,
i~ )} ~~~~:~~~T~~,N AUTHORITY - - ---\ 1
,j ;; .. ..'~. -,:-... . '.: ~_' ~
1
f [;C,- ,~ .1
R. R. ;:2. ~ilton. Ontario r...\J '1 19qn
L9T 2X6 -
, ,
(905) 336-1158 Fax (905) 336-701~
I r" J I. . .
I ..:", . -.- .....-~....."'I ."',-
..tl... ~ :-~. ....:...... ""1:' ..; I" ':"J
-
'. "'-'. , .
MEMORANDUM
-
;
TO: Andy Burt, Niagara Peninsula CA
Ben Vanderbrug, Hamilton Region C.A.
Vicki Barron, Credit Valley C.A.
Craig Mather, Metro Toronto & Region C.A.
Wayne Wilson, Nottawasaga Valley CA
Jim Manicom, Grey Sauble C.A.
FROM: Murray Stephen
DATE: - December 5. 1996
"-
REGARDING: Niagara Escarpment Commission and Development
Control Permits for Recreational Activities ,
,
I am alerting the C.A.'s to a situation whereby the Niagara E.scarpment Commission staff are
promoting the idea that rock climbing would require a development control permit on
Conservation Authority lands and presumably private lands on the Niagara Escarpment.
,
My reason for contacting the Authorities in the Escarpment is that this proposal is the "thin
edge of the wedge" whereby the Commission may expand thiS into trying to regulate and
control recreational activities on Conservation Authority lands if they are successful in this
activity. Therefore, I am requesting your support to put the brakes on this matter since there is
every indication that we will have this additional problem to deal with if the Commission sta.rts
down this road. I have enclosed for your information a copy of my letter to Nars Borodczak
dated December 5, 1996, and minutes of a meeting held on November 20, 1996, with material
that was distributed at the meeting. Please note that under the action items in the minutes that
the staff would be contactin the other Conservation Autho . . ur r
atever em IS lng, It is my opinion t a
implementing a development permit requirement makes no sense at all.
Trusting I can count.on your support. 'f
1?t3M
..... Murray E. Stephen
C.c. Sandy Bell General Manager
PRO.\10TI:-;G TriE \\'15::: USE OF :-;.HCR.-\L RESOCRC::S [:-; 7:-::: FIELDS OF WAER. WOOOL.I..'iO ..1..'\0 WILDLIFE
D44 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
~ HALTON REGION
l~ i} ;9?~~~~~n~,N AUTHORITY
R. R. ::2. ~il[on. Ontano
L9T 2X6
(905) 336-1153 Fa.'1: 1905) 336-7014
.
-~
December 5, 1996
Mr. Nars Borodczak
Director
Niagara Escarpment Commission -
232 Guelph Street
Georgetown, Ontario
L7G 4B1
Dear Sir.
Re: Development Control Permits.
I am in possession of meeting minutes that were produced from a. meeting held on December
20, 1996, that dealt with the aspect of requiring a development control permit for the rock
climbing ac-jvity on the Niagara Escarpment. Based upon the fact that N.E.C. staff produced a
draft of the standard c:mditJons that the Commission would apply to approved development
permit, it would appear to me that the Commission has some intention of implementing this
proposal and on thiS assumption, I am compelled to advise you that the Halton Region
Conservation Authority takes issue with the premise that rec~eational activities such as rock
climbing are subject to the Niagara Escarpment Development Control Act or its regulation. It is
the Authority's position that the deciSion on the type of recreational activity that occurs within a
pari< or a conservation area is the prerogative of the agency responsible for the operation and
. management of the pari<, not the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The Commission has
_ jurisdiction to require a development control permit for buildings andlor structures that may be
necessary to accommodate the recreational use, but not the determination of the activity itself. ,
I thought that this issue of NEC. development permits related to recreational activities had
been resolved between the Conservation Authorities and the Commission. 'Since it appears -
that this is not the case, I am requesting that this matter.regardii1g rock climbing and the four
(4) action items listed in the November 21 minutes be suspended pending a resolution on the
jurisdiction question and what purpose would be achieved by issuing development control
permits.
I would appreciate receiving a response to this request
Yours truly, ~ f J:
Cj~~
Murray E.!Stephe~ "'"7
c.c. Niagara Peninsula C.A. General Manager
Hamilton Region C A.
Grey-Sauble C.A.
Nottawasaga Valley C.A.
Metropolitan Toronto & Region C.A.
Credit Valley C.A.
PRO:-'IOTl:"G THE W15E CSE OF :---::'.-r:':R.-'.L ?-ESOCRCES I:" THE FIELDS OF \VA!::? WCODL~'\;D .~'\;D WILDLIFE
Joint - W.M.A.B. end P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 045
RES. #D10/97 - GREAT LAKES CHARTER
RES. #E10/97 The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
becoming a signatory to the Great Lakes Charter.
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Michael Oi Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority endorse the
Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin's principles were drawn
from a review of over 60 treaties, laws, policies and other agreements in the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence Basin and beyond. A drafting committee, comprised of representatives from
various public and nongovernmental agencies and organizations throughout the basin, led a
two-and-a-half year inclusive process, including two basinwide public comment periods,
numerous state roundtables, workshops and presentations to individual organizations.
Hundreds of comments were received and incorporated into the final Charter language.
The Ecosystem Charter is a non-binding, good faith agreement; signatories simply promise
to 1) consider its principles as guidance in developing work plans and priorities; 2) use it as
a means to enhance communication and cooperation with other basin interests; and 3)
consult it periodically for guidance in assessing progress toward our shared vision for the
basin.
Signatories include government agencies at all levels in the U.S. and Canada, research
institutions, tribal authorities, businesses, industry associations, environmental groups and
other basin organizations. Testimonials received from many of the signatories explain how
the Ecosystem Charter is employed in strategic planning, grant-writing guidance,
coordinative initiatives, work plan development and education.
Some of the Canadian signatories include:
. Canadian Shipowners Association
. Ducks Unlimited Canada
. Fathom Five National Marine Park, Parks Canada
. Ontario County of Soil and Water Conservation District
. Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
. Waterfront Regeneration Trust
RATIONALE
The principles of the Ecosystem Charter support the watershed strategies developed by
the Authority. As signatories to the Ecosystem Charter, we will be confirming our role as
participants in the Great Lakes Basin community of institutions working toward their
watershed health.
D46 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
A suggested signatory statement follows:
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority was established in 1957 as a
community-based partnership to ensure the health of the watersheds within its jurisdiction.
Today, the MTRCA manages nine watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area all of which
flow into Lake Ontario on the north side. The Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence Basin calls for a shared commitment on the parts of ecosystem stewards
throughout the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. We have seen this commitment reflected
in the visions, principles and goals set by the strategies for the Don, Rouge and Humber
watersheds developed and implemented in partnership with residents, interest groups,
businesses, elected officials and agencies at all levels of government. As we work toward
strategies for the remaining six watersheds, we will reflect on the Charter's spirit and the
dedication of its signatories to the future health of this life-giving resource. It is appropriate
that we are endorsing the Charter on the 40th anniversary of our founding.
Copies of the Ecosystem Charter's vision, principles and frequently asked questions will be
available at the meeting.
For information contact:
Madelyn Webb, Ext. 331
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 047
Frequently Asked Questions about the 2e~lJ-
Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin
1) Why a the Ecosystem Charter needed?
There ~ tv.o principal reasons why the 01artcr is
needed. FIrSt, many of our ~ programs. policies and If you are already an Ecosystem 01arter
institutions support the CCIIfCq;t of an ecosysum Signalay, please pass tt1s sheet a1ag to
spproacb to ~ in the Gre:tt L1kes-St anoIt1er irmested party. .AJso, please let US
~ce Basin. HoM:ver, applicl1lum of the concept kroN hem you are using an:J/cr benefitting
is difficult due to often carrow, single-media or fran the 01arter. We.,..;1I provide periodic
isstJe..spccific mandares. The 01artcr provides a single, updates al signatory progress in our
concise and clearly articulated st3ICment thaI defines birrmthly reM;letter, the ADVlSOR
goals for an ecosystem approach. and ties a common
thread through our many ~ programs. policies and
institutions.
Second. citizens, elected officials and even resoun:e managers ~ often faced with the question "\Vho speaks for
the Gre:tt Lakes?" Few seem to IlDderscmd bow our many laws, programs. policies and instituI:ions relaxe to one
another. Through the endorznent process. the Ecosystem Charter demODSlJ':lIeS that many agencies and
organizaIions--e:spite their individual priorities. str.negies 3IId ll'I3IIdates--O subscribe to a commonly held set
of principles. Thus, the Charter is a valuable edul:aIional tool that = explain how conceptS of an ecosystem
approach = actIIally be applied by the many public and non-governmental interests in the Basin.
2) How wiD my ageIJcy/org:miz:ltion benefit from the Charter?
You will benefit in sever.1l w.1ys. FlISt, by endor.;ing the Charter, your agency/organization will be recognized as
a team playc- in a basinv.ide parmer.>hip thaI shares common objectives. Second, referencing the Charter c:m
help strc:l1gthen your progr.un and project proposals by demonstrating that those proposals address widely held
principles and acknowledged unmet needs. Fuclly, your public policy advoc::lcy efforts can be strengthened by
referencing Charter principles consIStent with your positions.
3) What is apeded of endoning agencieslorg:miz:1tions?
Those endorsing the Charter ar1: apec"..cd to I) consider Charter principles as guidance when developing work
plans and priorities; 2) communiC3le 3IId cooper.ne with others, to the extent possible, in pursuing those
priorities; and 3) consider the Charter as a m= for periodic.:1l1y assessing programs. Signatories are invited to
provide a statement for the Charter addendum about how the Charter relates to their progr:un(symandaIe(s) and
to conunent briefly on how Charter implementation will be plll'Sllcd. Signatory stI1emcntS provide each
agency/organiz:lrion with a m= to evaluate its om! progress in Charter implementation. Those endor.;ing the
Charter ar1: not cxpcctcd to pursue principles that go beyond the scope of their mandarc. Further, they ar1: not
required to develop elabor:ue evaI u:mon or reporting procedures.
4) b the Charter :l legally binding document?
No. The CJwtcr is a volunwy "good faith" agreement among endor.;ing agencies and organ.iz3rions. Simply
stated. it is an expression of 3II agency'S1org:l1l1~llon's undemanding of what an ecosystem approach to
management should be. It provides guidance thaI the endor.;ing agency/organiz:lrion can consider in pursuit of its
own mandaIc. It does not supplant, compete with or otherwise directly affect implementation of existing laws,
agreements, policies, etc.
048 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
5) Does tbe Charter depart from esablished polic:y?
No. The Charter is not a vehicle for introducing new policies and does not depart from established and broadly
recognized I~ programs and policies with an ecosystem focus. Ralher, the 01arter sho'M::lSeS and advances
them by summarizing key principles in a single and concise manner. The Charter consolidates principles found in
more than 60 documents ranging from loc:U partIlcWp agreementS to global policies. The Charter is consistent
with and derived from documents such as the Gre:II Lakes Wau:r Quality Agreement, Boundary Wau:rs Treaty,
Gre:II Lakes Charter, ere. Endorsing the Charter re:dfirms :ut ~~organimtion's CXlmmitment to these
existing policies.
6). Will signing the Charter force my :agenc:y/organiz:atiOD to punue Dew progr:um or CXlmmit
limited resoura:s to Dew priorities?
No. The Owter is intended to showcase :md refen:nce existing ecosystem efforts, while offering guidance as
new ones are developed. The endorsing ageocy/orprimion is asked only to pursue those principles within its
mandate and c:urreDt priorities. It encourages. but does not require, pursuit of new programs where needed to
advance the Charters principles.
7) What does the eodo~t process eot:1il, :and wh:at is the timelioe?
Endorsements are a=pted on an ongoing basis. Any agency, organimion or business interested in becoming a
signatOry can do so by completing the SignatOry Response Fenn. The Charter addendum is periodically updated
to reflea new signatOries. The SignatOry Response Fenn is available from the Gre:II Lakes Conunission. It c:m
also be found along with other Charter-rel.aIed information via the Ecosystem Charter home page at:
bttp://www.glc.ors'projeaslecochartlecochart.htmJ. All signatOries will be kept apprised of Charter-related
developments through the Gre:II LaIces COOlmission as the coordinating organization.
Note: Several adion iterrs under Pnndple Xl in the Sustainable Corrrrunities section were
inadvertently left off dunng the final primng of the docurrent. Please read the Ecosystem Charter
to indl..de the following five addItional items under Pnncple Xl.
. Supporting and pursuing polices and programs lt1at prtlIIide fer the efficent and sustainable
use of natural resources, and 'Mloong to revise or elimnate those lt1at do not
. Identifting energy efficency and cx::nserVcltion as a public ard pnvate sector priority and
supporting the use of renewable energy resourc:es..
. Supporting adequate and prujent infrastruclure investrrent, particularly for water treatrrent and
dislJibution systems. cx::nsistent with the goal of sustainable amrunities.
. Supporting and pcssuing polices and programs that E!I'lCn.JJCIge the deve!oprrent of industries
providing pollution control and rritigation products and services.
. Developing corrrrcn data cx::llec:icn rreasures and indicators to integrate and/or supplerrent
traditional indeperdent rreasures of erMronrrentaI. SOCIal and econorric health and well-being
to guage progress in ad'uENing a sustainable SOCIety.
For more information about the Ecosystem Charter for the Grct l..1kes-St. Lawrence Basin. contlct the Gre:lt
l..1kes Commission at 3 1:l-665-91J5; write to the Commission at 400 Fourth St., Argus II, Ann Arbor. MI
48103-4816; or send an email 10 vpebbles@glc.org.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 049
RES. #D11/97 - CENTENNIAL CREEK SUBWATERSHED STUDY
RES. #E11/97 To support and participate in the implementation of the
recommendations of the Centennial Creek Subwatershed Study.
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Michael Oi Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report for the Centennial
Creek Subwatershed Study be received;
THAT the Authority support the recommendations of the study;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City of Scarborough
staff to facilitate implementation of the recommendations and ensure that the Authority's
objectives are met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Centennial Creek Sub watershed Study was initiated in 1993 in response to concerns
about potential flooding of existing development, diminished water quality in the creek and
insufficient protection of the subwatershed's ecosystem. The main focus of the study was
to develop a subwatershed plan that recommends feasible methods of restoring,
rehabilitating and protecting the natural environment. The mission statement of the study
is to achieve an improved natural sub watershed environment within an urban community.
The City of Scarborough coordinated the study process with input from a Steering
Committee that included representatives from many agencies and the public. The study
followed the provincial guidelines for sub watershed planning and the procedures outlined
in the Class Environmental Assessment document for Municipal Water and Sewage
Projects. By following these procedures, projects that require environmental approval under
the Environmental Assessment Act were studied in the context of the entire subwatershed
as opposed to an isolated, individual approach.
The drainage area for the Centennial Creek Sub watershed Study area is bounded by
Sheppard Avenue to the north, Port Union Road to the east, Conlins Road to the west and
Lake Ontario to the south. The original surface drainage area for Centennial Creek included
the area north of Highway 401 to Sheppard Avenue. In the 1980's, the headwaters were
diverted to the Rouge River in order to facilitate development in the area. Today, there is
still a small amount of baseflow travelling south of the 401 in the creek, mainly through
groundwater contributions. Present-day Centennial Creek has been piped, channelized and
diverted along its route to Highland Creek.
050 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
The following are the key recommendations of the Centennial Creek Subwatershed Plan.
They follow the premise that there are three basi.c actions that need to come from the
study: protection of the creek to prevent further degradation; restoration of the creek to a
more natural, healthy state within the urban ecosystem, and the promotion of a healthy
Centennial Creek subwatershed:
. Protect and enhance the valley and stream corridor from headwaters to mouth;
. Protect water quality and wildlife habitat throughout the subwatershed;
. Protect and enhance the provincially significant wetland at the mouth of the
Centennial Creek;
. Create a wetland at the north end of Centennial Creek to treat Highway 401 runoff;
. Modify the existing storm water management pond at Kingston Road for water
quality and water quantity control;
. Remove the existing fish barriers at Lawrence Avenue.
. Foster community involvement through such activities as neighbourhood plantings;
. Encourage the community to monitor the health of Centennial Creek and produce
"Report Cards" evaluating the effects of the implemented recommendations;
. Establish a Centennial Creek Implementation Advisory Committee made up of
community members, MTRCA representatives and City staff to advise on
implementation projects, priority areas and timing;
MTRCA staff are currently working with Scarborough staff, The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto staff and consultants to design modifications to the small barriers at
Lawrence Avenue. A successful public meeting was held on Tuesday, February 12, 1997
where the public was in full support of the mitigation of the weirs through the creation of
rocky ramps. In the Fall of 1996, a small community planting took place adjacent to the
creek at Lawrence Avenue.
The staff of the MTRCA will assist the City of Scarborough by continuing in its technical
advisory role and with the community outreach projects to engage the residents of the
Centennial Creek subwatershed as active partners in the regeneration of this area. This
work is consistent with the 1997 MTRCA business case and the identification of an
increased level of community outreach within the Highland Creek/Centennial Creek.
The City of Scarborough has undertaken a number of significant actions to date including
the acquisition of a number of key parcels of land for regeneration.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 D51
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will be working with the City of Scarborough .staff to implement the recommendations
of the plan.
For information contact:
Glenn MacMillan, Ext.212
RES. #012/97 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO V ALLEY
RES. #E12/97 AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1997 - 2001
Approval of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001 be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken:
1. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be designated as the benefiting
municipality on the basis set forth within the Project;
2. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve the project and
the annual levies set forth therein;
3. The appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required
to implement the Project, including, obtaining necessary approvals and the execution
of any documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The current Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project expired at the end of 1996 and to
continue to meet the erosion control remedial work objectives of the Watershed Plan, it is
proposed to continue with a further five year project. The project is named to reflect the
ecosystem and watershed management approach to Authority programming.
The "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 -
2001" is attached for consideration by the Board. The project has been prepared in
accordance with multi-year capital forecasts as submitted and approved by The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
052 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1197 February 28, 1997
The project has been prepared in consultation with staff of the Metro Parks and Culture
Department and reflects Metropolitan Toronto's priorities.
RATIONALE
The Authority has prepared the 1997-2001 Project within the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto in accordance with the policy directions in the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan,
and for the shoreline, the Council approved Metropolitan Waterfront Plan. The project
reflects the various watershed strategic efforts including the Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Guidelines. Also, the project reflects the direction outlined by the recently
completed Integrated Shoreline Management Plan and the three strategies contained
therein.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Upon approval by the Authority, the Project will be forwarded to The Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto for approval.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of the five year project is $6,000,000 with annual funding at $1,200,000.
The Authority will endeavour to secure matching or partial funding from the Province of
Ontario and other sources on a project by project basis. The amount requested from
Metropolitan Toronto is consistent with Metro's Capital Forecast.
Report prepared by:
Nick Saccone, Ext.301
For information contact:
Nick Saccone Ext.301, Larry Field Ext.243
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 053
MUNICIPAUTY OF METROPOUTAN TORONTO
VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT
1997 - 2001
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
054 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
WORKlNG TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
1. INT'RODUCTlON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. ECOSYSTEM CONil:XT .................................................... 1
3. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ................................................... 4
4. DESIGN PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTlON .............................................. 8
6. BACKGROUND AND ACHIEVEMENTS ....................................... 1 ~
7. FUNDING ............................................................... 2C
8. APPROVALS REQUiRED................................................... 21
TABLES
Table I Pool of Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Sites in Metropolitan Toronto .....1:
Table II Shoreline Management Works. .. ...... ......... ... . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1:
Table III Erosion Control Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1;
.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97. February 28,1997 055
1. INTRODUCTlON
In 1954, Hurricane Hazel struck the Metropolitan Toronto and Region resulting in a
devastating loss of property and life. Public attention was focused quickly on the need
to manage hazards associated with flood plains. A program of risk reduction based on
prevention (regulation), acquisition and protection (remedial works) was developed and
implemented through a provincial-municipal partnership - The Metropolitan Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA).
The MTRCA was established in 1957 under the Conservation Authorities Act. Pursuant
to this Act:
.. The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area
over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the
conseNation, restoration, development and management of natural
resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. ..
R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 27, Section 20
The MTRCA furthers the conservation, restoration, development and management of
the natural resources within the nine watersheds affecting the Metropolitan Toronto
Region which includes Metropolitan Toronto; parts of the regional municipalities of
Peel, York and Durham; and parts of two local municipalities, Adjala-Tosoronto and
Mono.
2. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The NMunicipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project,
1997 -2001" represents only one project and one part of two larger Authority initiatives.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Program and the Lake Ontario Shoreline
Management Program, are two components of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority 1980 Watershed Plan and the Greenspace Strategy for the
Greater Toronto Region (July 1988), and set the context far this Project.
The Erasion and Sediment Control Program and the Lake Ontario Shoreline
Management Program achieve their erosion control goals through both prevention and
protection programming. The prevention aspect of the programs is intended to ensure
that new development will be safe from erosion hazards through the application of
appropriate development controls and that the receiving waters are protected through
the implementation of stormwater management. These prevention programs are
carried out through participation in the municipal plan input and review process and
through the administration of the Authority's regulation (Ontario Regulation 158).
Regeneration projects are the parts of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program and
the Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Program which address existing problems.
056 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
2
Remedial works are proposed where homes or private property are at risk from erosion
(public safety) or where the natural valley and shoreline features, and associated
aquatic and terrestrial resources. are being undermined from erosion (conservation of
land). In both cases the design of erosion control works required to correct the
existing problem, not only rene~ the protection issue, but also will serve to improve or
enhance the degraded existing conditions through the creation of aquatic and
terrestrial habitat.
The" Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project',
together with the three other Regeneration Projects in our Regional Municipalities, and
the preventative programming, provide a comprehensive erosion control program for
the water basins and shoreline within the MTRCA's jurisdiction. As the Regeneration
Projects are only one part of the ::"osion and Sediment Control Program and the Lake
Ontario Shoreline Management Program, they in turn are part of the larger 1980
Watershed Plan.
The Watershed Plan com~rises ten (10) programs whic:, have been structured as
groups of resource managemer.t activities serving a cammon goal, but each can be
implemented separately. No single program by itself is whole. Each is complementary
to the others. Nor is the Plan itself whole. It must be considered as contributing to a
resource management package in which many public jurisdictions have a part. These
programs when combined reflect a comprehensive a~proach to the management of ts';,:=
three major natural resources defined by the Authority as the Oak Ridges Moraine, the
River Valleys and the Lake Ontario Shoreline. The Plan is complementary to the
planning and management res~onsibilities of municipalities and several provincial
ministries.
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (October 1994) provides the
direction needed to accomplish the integrated waterfront management approach for
the valley and streams reflected in the following goal:
"To undertake an integrated valley and stream corridor management
program to prevent, eliminate or reduce the risk to life and property from
flooding, from erosion of river banks and from valley slope instability; to
protect and regenerate the ecological health and integrity of these
systems; and to provide opportunities for compatible public use and
enjoyment. "
The comprehensive approach to shoreline management for this Project is guided by
the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan prepared in 1996 and the following vision
for the shoreline:
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 057
- -
3
. The Lake Ontano shoreiine provides a special quality of life for
residents, a source of rec:"eaticn and beauty for visitors, and a unique
identity for adjacent =ommunitles. The Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy
(prepared by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust) calls for a waterfront that
is clean, green, ac=essible, connected, open, useable, diverse, affordable
and attractive. But urban shcrelines are subject to many forces of
change. Ensuring a sustainable future, reflecting community,
environmental, and economic needs, will be a challenge. Fifty years from
now, what kind of waterfront will our children and other forms of life
share?
Parts of the waterfrcnt will be busier, and more crowded with human
activities, that is cer:ain. New waterfront residential and commercial
communities will have emerged at urban nodes such as Woodbine, Pert
Union, and Frenchman's Bay. as part of a regional population grown to
twice its current leve!. Waterfrcm neight:ourhoods will offer a choice of
attractive residential settings. inc!uding quiet, well-treed streets, and other
more lively areas witr. a distindve charac:er such as ~e Beaches
community .
The water's edge ar:d bluffs will be a vital focus for communities along
their length, nurtUred by volunteer involvement in regeneration projects
and waterfront events and festivals. For young and old, the waterfront will
have a special sense of place, where pride in the past is reflected in active
use of heritage buildings such as the Guild Inn, and where new facilities
are both affordable and of the highest quality.
Part of the quality will be the result of improved environmental conditions,
with waters clean enough that children can swim or fish safely, and with a
healthy mix of native fish and wildlife living and migrating along the shore.
That wildlife will be able to move freely along ribbons of green connecting
the regenerated forests and wetlands that occupy much of the shoreline.
Protected natural areas such as the Rouge Park will provide connections
through the city in wooded valleys. Many of us will visit special places
along the shore to watch how the birds change with the seasons, or to
take part in educaticnal tours about the geological history of the bluffs or
the fish spawning along the open coastline.
The waterfront will be a greener place than now, in part because much of
the eroding Scarborough Bluffs has been replaced by more gently
sloping wooded hillsides. Along the toe of these hills, a variety of shore
protection works have tamed the force of the waves. In a few places such
058 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
4
as the Needles. where houses are set well back from the top of the bluffs,
natural erosion processes will maintain the steep bluff face as an example
of this former shoreline feature.
Many of us will be drawn to the shoreline to play, especially to the
beaches and the clusters of marinas and boat clubs. Some of us will
come to quietly explore the walking trails along the shore edge, including
natural paths through near-wilderness sections where the bustle of the
city seems so far away. Or we might bring our families to cycle along the
Waterfront Trail, as it links the scenic parklands along the top of the bluffs,
and loops down to the water's edge in several places. Some of us will
come by car, but fer most, convenient rapid transit or safe, attractive
cycling trails will provide better alternatives.
As we visit this future waterfront, we are likely to be struck by its contrasts,
from quiet havens of green to lively neighbourhoods, from sweeping
vistas of lake and sky to sheltered walks in wooded parks. Fifty years
from now, we will value that waterfront diversity even more than now, and
our communities will be committed to working together to ensure the
waterfront's continued ecological health, economic vitality, and unique
sense of place. ft
Policy guidance within the Metropolitan Toronto planning context is provided by the
new Metropolitan Official Plan and the supporting Council document - Metropolitan
Waterfront Plan.
3. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
Goal
The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded by The Conservation Authorit:
Act.
The goal of the MTRCA, through this Project is to:
"prevent, eliminate and reduce the risk of hazard to life and property and
to protect and enhance the natural attributes along the Metropolitan
Toronto and Lake Ontario shoreline and the primary river valleys within
Metropolitan Toronto."
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 059
5
Objectives
To achieve this goal. the MTRCA has defined the following objectives:
, . To maintain information on active erosion/slope instability sites on the shoreline
and on those watercourse draining generally in excess of 1,300 metres.
2- To implement this program component it relies on the continued monitoring and
updating of the data base in order to keep abreast of changing site conditions.
Because erosion and slope instability is dynamic, priorities must be continually
updated not only to make the system equitable but also to adjust annual funding
requirements.
3. In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control/slope remediation
works, two major fac:ors are considered: risk to structure(s) and cause of
erosion/slope instability hazard. The potential risk to existing structures is
deemed the most important factor and accordingly given more weight than the
physical and geological conditions associated with the cause of the hazard.
4. To implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect
public and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by
erosion.
5. To implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to
prote~ the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and
terrestrial habitats adversely affected by the erosion.
6. To design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosytstem
approach for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will; limit erosion, enable
public access adjacent to water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to
maintenance, and enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources.
7. To acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the
cost of remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property.
8. To secure title of the lands where erosion control measures are to be
constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the greenspace
systems.
9. To protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated
terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
10. To comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any
060 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
6
other environmental protection legislation.
11. To investigate and secure additional funding from other levels of government j(
selected erosion control activities.
12. To provide valley and shoreline regeneration services on private and public
lands where the owners or agencies are willing to pay the entire cost
13. To implement an effective monitoring program.
14. To construct or upgrade stormwater management facilities in areas developed
prior to the implementation of the MTRCA's storm water management prograu
or where the opportunity exists to make existing water management facilities
more effective in reducing/preventing erosion and/or improving water quality.
4. DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The design principles governing erosion control and slope stability remedial works at
as follows:
1. Remedial works will be carried out on those watercourses which generally ur;-'
in excess of 1,300 hectares.
2. Works should be undertaken based on a Corridor Management Plan. Corridc
lengths shall be of a size to be technically and economically feasible and
environmentally responsible.
3. Works will be implemented on priority basis related to the safety of property d.r
structures within the limitations of funding, approvals, construction, access ar!'
property acquisitions. Priorities shall be based on technical criteria including,
but not necessarily limited to the following:
i) distance from top of bank to structure
ii) rate of slope retreat
Hi) extent of ground water seepage
iv) height and steepness of slope
v) evidence of previous movement
vi) condition of toe or slope
vii) existing habitat resources
4. Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the MTRCA on an
annual basis.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 061
7.
5. Where erosion protec:ion works are proposed on private land. the Authority shaH
require title to the land or an easement where applicable and/or require a
suitable financial contribution from the benefitting owner(s).
6. Erosion protections works will be analysed on the basis of financial and
environmental cost/benefits. Acquisition will be considered as a viable
alternative to remedial works where the proposed works exceed the value of the
property or are not in compliance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Program.
7. Design criteria for erosion protection works on the designated watercourses are
dependent upon the nature of each specific problem. Generally, two types of
problems exist. The first and less common type, involves bank or valley wall
instability in which slumping or major functional failure is involved due to inherent
soil conditions or overloading of the slope. The more common type of problem
is river bank erosion which can also be coincident with the valley wall. Wherever
possible, erosion control work shall be designed to:
i) accommodate the 100 year flood fer coincident (slope/river) erosion
protection;
ii) accommodate the low flow channel in all other cases as a minimum;
iii) permit channel overtopping with minimal danger to the remedial work;
iv) decrease the velocity of the stream by flattening the hydraulic gradient
and minimizing the flow energy by incorporating meanders and natural
channel design;
v) enhance aquatic habitat by incorporating natural channel design such as
pool and riffle features, deep channels and overhangs on outside bends;
v~ enhance terrestrial habitat through the planting and establishment of
riparian habitat (10m from river edge) and through the introduction of
native plants on the valley slopes and other flood plain lands;
vii) minimize potential aggravation of upstream and downstream flooding
and/or erosion;
viii) a non-structural approach to remedial works will be utilized wherever
po~sible, in particular, with upper and middle valley slopes.
8. In the design of all protection works, the MTACA shall be cognizant of the natural
features, functions and resources and will, where appropriate, enhance the
aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
062 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
8
5. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Location
This projee: addresses:
a) those watercourses within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto which
generally drain in excess of 1,300 hectares;
b) those shoreline areas contained within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
excluding the ncr-.h shere of the inner harbour between Ontario Place and Leslie
Street; and
c) where it will be the policy of the Authority to carry out erosion control works.
On watercourses draining less than 1,300 hectares the provision of such works will be
the responsibility of the municipality. Exceptions to this may occur where it is
determined by the MTRCA and the municipality that specific watercourses, or sections
thereof, due to their physical characteristics, warrant inclusion within the Authority's
responsibilities. Figure 1 indicates the location of those watercourses generally
draining in excess of 1,300 hectares where the Authority will be involved in erosion
control works under this project. Following is a list of watercourses or portions thereof
which are general in excess of 1,300 hectares.
Etobicoke - (east bank)
Mimico Creek
Humber River - Main Branch
- West Branch
- Black Creek
- Emer-j Creek
Don River - Main Branch
- West Branch
- East Branch
- Wilket Creek
- Newtonbrook Creek
- Rosedale Ravine
- Massey Creek
- German Mills Creek
- Dufferin Creek
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 063
y
9
Highland Creek - Main Branch
- East 3ranch
- West Sranch
- Maivem Creek
- Centennial Creek
Rouge River - Main Branch
- Little Rouge
- Mcmingside Tributary
Erosion control works will continue to be carried out along the Metropolitan Toronto
shoreline from the mcwth of =~cblcoke River, east to the mouth of the Rouge River with
the exclusion of the ncrt.., sr.cre of inner harbour between Ontario Place and Leslie
Street (See Figure 1).
Recently t1iere have been significant changes alcng the City of =rcbicoke shoreline
particularly adjacent ~o Hwmber Say Park. Developments along this sec<:icn of
shoreline have provicec the Awthcrity with more greenspace and waterfront access
aJong the shoreline. The develcpments incorporated protection along this section of
shoreline. Most of the remainder of the property along the City of =tobicoke1s shoreline
is privately owned. The extent of the protection that the landowners have provided,
combined with the narural charaeeristics of the shoreline have led to a relatively stable
section of shoreline. Few serious hazards exist along the City of Etobicokels waterfront,
and the Authority's role has primarily centred on the protection of publicly owned land,
such as small parks and waterfront pathways. This role is expected to continue with
the next 5-year projee. The privately owned lands will continue to be eligible for
shoreline protection providec that the operational criteria established in the program
can be met.
In the City of Toronto. the outer shoreline of Toronto Island will continue to be
monitored and works proposed when the need arises. The project would include a
coastal engineering study which will review altemative options for protection such as
offshore breakwaters, beach/T -groyne or hardpoint schemes. Erosion areas along the
Eastern Beaches seeion of shcreline in the City of Toronto have been identified in an
engineering report. The report also identified a future decrease in the sediment supply
along the eastern beaches where an ongoing monitoring program of shoreline
erosion/accretion was recommended.
Most of the shoreline works will continue to be located along the Scarborough Bluffs in
the City of Scarborough. This Project will continue with works already in progress
along Sylvan Avenue, Kingsbury Crescent, Fishleigh Drive and Guildwood Parkway.
(See Figure 6).
D64 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
10
Shoreline works could also be implemented consistent with the Integrated Shoreline
Management Plan in the stretch of shoreline from Highland Creek to the Rouge River to
facilitate a waterfront trail and public access south of the existing CNR rail lines. At East
Point Park shoreline protection would be associated with the potential boat launching
facility .
Description
In view of the number of sites requiring erosion control protection works throughout the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and in order to fairly assess which sites should be
considered for work in any given year, the Authority carries out its remedial works
program on a technical priority basis. Therefore the sites which appear on the erosion
inventory list and which are deemed to be the most hazardous are considered for
remedial works first.
The Authority currently maintains information on active erosion sites on those
watercourses in Metropolitan Toronto draining generally in excess of 1300 hectares and
along the designated shoreline areas. From this information, the Authority has
formulated a "Pool of Erosion Priority Sitesll (see Table I) for the purpose of developing
its remedial works program.
In preparing for the erosion protection work program, continued monitoring and
updating of the data base is important in order to keep abreast of changing site
conditions. Because erosion is dynamic, priorities can change from year to year and
sometimes even after a single storm. The process of reviewing and updating priorities
must be continued not only to make the system equitable but also to adjust annual
funding requirements.
In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are
considered: potential effect to structures, valley wall! shoreline conditions, river and/or
wave action. The potential effect on structures is deemed the most important and
accordingly given more weight than the physical and geological conditions associated
with the other two factors. Determining the potential effect on structures involves a
number of parameters including the rate of erosion, distance to structures and the
number, size and type of structure(s) affected. Valley wall or shoreline conditions
considered include; the height, slope angle, vegetative cover, ground water
characteristics and the soil type and composition. River or wave action, as a factor,
considers the present riverjlakeshore alignment as well as the potential cutting action.
Erosion control protection works will also be considered for those areas where
significant amounts of natural valley or shoreline and associated habitat resources are
being lost and where no structures are in immediate danger on both public and private
lands. Through this component of the project the Authority can maintain the natural
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 065
11
valley and shoreline features. By providing protection to valuable greenspace,
parklands, and ESA's on a 'stitch in time' basis, a softer, less expensive approach can
be used.
The nature of the remedial works at specific sites along the designated watercourses
will depend on the degree of protection needed for the structure or feature. Therefore,
the work could vary from armouring of the riverbank at the toe of the slope to major
slope rehabilitation, or a portion thereof. Along the waterfront, shoreline remedial
measures are required to protect homes and to reduce the rate at which valuable
shoreline property is lost.
Armoured revetments, groynes and beaches have been used to provide protection
from the effects of lake action. Where further remedial action is required, slope
stabilization measures would be carried out in the form of buttressing from the base,
top filling with select material, or other engineering works.
In all cases, the design of erosion control works will provide protection to the required
level and technical criteria and where appropriate improve or enhance the aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, through natural channel and shoreline designs. In the case of rivers,
the natural pOOl/riffle systems will either be maintained or created. The deep channels
which often occur on the outside bend will be simulated and by creative positioning of
the stone protection shading and opportunities for riparian plantings will be provided.
Offshore fish habitat will be created along with the shoreline protection. Riparian and
slope plantings will generally consist of native plant material.
Examples of typical erosion problems and solutions are shown in Figure 2, 3, 4 and 5.
These figures also serve to graphically illustrate some of the preceding criteria.
Many areas within the municipality were developed prior to the implementation of The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's preventative storm water
management program. As a result, many reaches of the watercourses are subject to
increased channel erosion associated with urbanization. Where it can be demonstrated
that retrofitting storm water management would reduce channel erosion and where the
Opportunity exists, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will
consider constructing the appropriate facility. Also, recent literature and research
indicate that the traditional approach to storm water management for erosion control
could be made more effective through over control. Therefore, if an' opportunity exists,
we may upgrade the outlet structure of existing facilities to improve their erosion
reduction efficiency.
The Authority will develop a yearly program of erosion control works utiJizjng the "Pool
of Erosion Priority Sites", conservation of land sites, and storm water management sites
to the limits of the approved annual funding allocation and in accordance with the
066 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
12
criteria deveioped for such work. Specffic sites will be reviewed on an annuaf basis.
To permit changes in priorities, work will not be projected beyond a one-year period.
In any year, protection will be provided to those sites in highest priority, to the limit of
the $1.2 million identified as the annuaJ funding required within the MunicipaJity of
Metropolitan Toronto.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 067
13
TABLE I
POOL OF VAlLEY AND SHOREUNE REGENERATION SITES
IN METROPOUTAN TORONTO 1t
LOCATION WATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPAUTY
Lakehurst Lake Ontario Scarborough
Crescentwood Lake Ontario Scarborough
Kingsbury Crescent Lake Ontario Scarborough
Fishleigh Drive Lake Ontario Scarborough
Guildwood Parkway Lake Ontario Scarborough
Sylvan Avenue Phase II Lake Ontario Scarborough
Guild Inn Lake Ontario Scarborough
Sunnypoint Ravine Lake Ontario Scarborough
Springbank Avenue Lake Ontario Scarborough
MeadowcHffe Drive Lake Ontario Scarborough
Greyabbey Trail Lake Ontario Scarborough
East Point Lake Ontario Scarborough
Chesterton Shores Lake Ontario Scarborough
Eastem Beaches Lake Ontario Toronto
Toronto Islands Lake Ontario Toronto
Burgundy Court Humber River North York
3030-3068 Weston Road Humber River North York
180-188 Parkview Hill Crescent Don River North York
Across from 74 Colonel Danforth Highland Creek Scarborough
31-33 Cherryhill Avenue Centennial Creek Scarborough
1220 Ac=ess Rd. East Don River North York
42-44 Royal Rouge Trail Rouge River Scarborough
Bumhamthorpe Road at
Mattice Road (south of
Islington Golf Club) Mimico Creek Etobicoke
221 Martin Grove Road Mimico Creek Etobicoke
91 Forest Grove Drive Don River North York
Humber Valley Yacht Club Humber River Etobicoke
Taylor Massey Creek Park Don River East York
G. Ross Lord Park Don River North York
Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek Scarborough
Marie Curtis Park Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke
Kingsmill Park Humber River Etobicoke
Etienne Brule Park Humber River Etobicoke
Edwards Gardens Humber River Etobicoke
Enfield Area Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke
93-113 Weir Crescent Highland Creek Scarborough
068 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
-
a:
l!! "
< -
w ~
. a:
o
~~ en ~
/\ ..~ ... Wen
~__----I ,. \ ~ en w
. .., \ c: =
. . ::l <
I~~ ~.;- ~ ~ 8--~
~W~7.' /fl ffi~~
~~ l~~ A /f \ i ~ i
' ~/ ~ I.. ffi>w
I ~ ~ __~=
~ <~o
.~ %~=
-:-- ~\. . !awen
~~ ~ enZO
'j <r '<. wwz ~
W' A .... C t:l < (.)
~ H' ...\~ . Q ~
",,~.c~-:-r:; I Y .::::
Ie. -.- . . Sc.
I n -
I '11<:" ~~
\. >-1 ,,/ ' ~ '\' ~ ~~_
../ )~ ~ I ",. <: C u; C
. .: Q' ~ Co::lC
.1 \ I A.' ~ S...N
~ . -c:: ,
: . ...... ~ .. U; \U ,...
1/ 1;:;'''_- · ~ . :: :: Cl
........ I ~a "" ... _ Cl
:---. y;....; . );. ~...-
~~.,:- ~~d. >~
l:"m. ~ ~. ~~... - .. = ci5
~ f c ""w..;. .~ : ;;
I' e-...,.,.... ..II. - _
. - _. !it c
_______ \ .1'4 . z ,.
I =-. · / ~ ;
c
i ~~ >
?%~
I~
I l..
I ~
~
~ ~~ :--. ~-'<' .,.,
,~ . I
fir ' .
t~~:~~~.,..,~~ 'f!:1-:,,; '"'\.
~'; ~ ~ I ".-J..... Ic~ I~
~~~~.\~. I fi\ N; !
. I t I . '"
. I ' ~ 0
J, l\' \~ W c~
, 0 -
.- - =
~. ~----.. ~" B.=
-~Z ) ~. ~'$.! c::
:> \ /' l"/ ~' ~ '"
~ ,... ~ ~=
;/ [~
- >
'" -
E 5:
121 c:
:: S
.-
, ".-
..".. "
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 069
('It
I I 0
I ~
- I ~
1.:.1 ' ~
=1 =;
<i g
~I = a:
el c %
<I .Ul 0
~ in ..
~I <;
Q 0 u
c: ..
- ~ w ~
.- t31
... >
~ i: ~ W 0
~ .S ...
...l
- <
>
...
c
c.;
~
>
~
I-
U
W
...,
0
c:
CIl UJ Q.
u.. C Z
u.. ::
c: 0
~ W i=o
c: UJ
z Ul w <0
~ c..-= C:N
o (5 w .
....l- Z"'"
~ CIl :; wal
c- c:l~
WW
(/)0; w
C ! c:
c..- >
x:!2.
w w
-oJ
-oJ
<
>
C
Q
C.
!
'1:l
C
III
Q
~.~
s]
c-=
te i
== c:
o ::l
~-
Q-
- '"
- :>
'" -
E ~
'" c:
.J: 0
- ""
~
~
-,",-
070 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
... I I
.-l
-.r, I
. wi
-w ,
~-
I . -= = _I 1 M
c;g, 1==
l~ . ~ -cl 0
3 i5a ~o .0
c::' I~ Li:
j~ wi
~I
-c. 0....
~. :6
l.I.. c I~
. . <
IC/l !:! -
C3 a- S
-~t,~\ l~ =
-
=
0
en
=
0 ~
en -=
~ 0 u
c:: ..
IoY ..:
>-
~ IoY ~
" , ....
~ . ". ....
.. . C/l 4(
.~~', >
:c
'~ -~~ (J
..' ',- '\ ~
=?- ',- ""
I /';,.",( , 'Q,...Q~', c >-
~
. "~ ,'\ ::
." iJ~'- \ I::~'~ -
1::::: ~'":"-...l.I..;;.... I::
~:: w ,... ,.. " ~
::: -,... '-" X \ >
I::;n:;:( '.' ~"'- ~ (<~;: = ~
c::c c:: \ < \ ~ (J
o ~ ~ ...... =~...... -
Q - "'-. -..... .......'- W
. < ;:.a .~, u:; ~ 0 -:J
l1:;;; C ~" ::;.. .~, ~ 0
c:
::;:: u5 . , ~:':'o... '< '~r~I..\ ~ Co
C w .. Q.. .'
-:> -J . .."'..... ~;;'I= Z
~ ~ < J"'~ ~:'::-l.I.. 0_
= ~ ::: . 8"'-. ~~\~: ~ -0
l.I.. ~~" f'< ~o
.~ ." '. ~ <C\j
!1' . '" Z .,,;-' . C/l 0:.
- D- ". ... U
: '\ ' 0 ~. == w,...
~. .,,-~. c:::: Zal
'"' '. '0 ' ~ ~ Wal
~ '.~", ~ ~ = = o-
w
~ ,0 z c:: 0:
..~ ~. c:~ ~ 9
. .. . a- Z - >
z ." 0 c= a- W
o r~1.': :' w - 0 ..J
_ ,'." '0,,-, ~ ~ ..J
~ .; ~ Q <
o . , w <
w ~ ~ t:: >
~ - ,. 0 c:
0 rN~ :5
c::
Q.. .~.:. z
w c:l.,t\ :\~ 0 c
Q.. ~"'L::. .' '. ":', en 0
~ c.
Cii ~ - ~ . , . '. 0 !
z .........::
:s.~~~~ '~: ~ 'C
c
C. ~.; ~_"-:. ftI
z ~~ i:.l 0
< ~~~ :: c~
- .. r. .: o -
c:: ~ ._. ~]
< ,---
.-
Q.. "'~ c:;
c: ?;, ?; ~ ::
Si 01 c:: "0 :::
w c.=
l.I..' ...1 2 c(S
c::1 l.I..l .:: ,.
c:: ell -
< c: c E ~
~I ~I w Cll S;
~ ~ -
01 >:- < _ u
c: c (.;I /~
-I -, 0 .i'~
Ij -'
~
c::
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 071
...
w ~
~ l ~
- ~ 0
~ - -
w c: ~
~ ~
< -
?; ... - =
~-::~~ ~
en UJ .... 0
enZ iil 0 _
~ 2 Soilo a.. _ S
- " en 11Ii- < ~ -
c.... -~c:: ...
c:: ;:: < ::: c. < .. =
o < w::i oii?';;: w -...
C N 0 0 _\:. - = =0
= ;; ~ ~ I' < ~~ '"
c:: c: Z ~ .~~I ~ ... 0 -=
o < w '~. " w_ u
(.J ;-..... 1;::"='" >,... =t
en C Z ,... ,r.; ;I~ - W < 0
~ l.I.. z:;:( ..,' "s - ~ =:o-.l -
= ~ ~ ~ ~~~ gs ~ = ~
C en ~ ~.._= ~ -
= _ W . ,,,",'11::1 S:2 <
:i: U:;?; -..; :-...-..;;: c: ~~
- t~_ :: l:: ;::~
~ < ~ 'll W ......
~ ~ ~ = ::: w
= ::... ~:~~ Q en
= C -;;~ a
~ :;; '_ ~i 0
en -=-.:::: ~~
c: ~4 ~~
~ ~ ~~'l\
~""..:.~~ ~-
w ~ ~ t'"'\
5 ~-# w wt;
in' ~ ~w
c:l .,...... ..J-:J
Z '_ en wO
t:;~ 1 --"'~ 8 oc:~o
_ A. 0
x . '- ~ = =Z N
w \II!' ~ "" ~ ~ en C .
;- -,...
, .~ _~ ~ ai5 ~ al
::::-~ . -. / _ > < C)
- .~. ~ Wc:-
-- . .' ~ ..J W
c:: ..J-
~.::". / 0: ~~
'i.~/\ c
fl C 0
_ -J -0
.~/ en !
~ w ~
~ - c
ci:' ~ ~
- Ct:l C ~
o -=
- -
o ::
. ~~
~ ::
'0 -
c.:!
0-
- ~
- ,.
Cl -
E ~
Cll =
-= 8
.....
. "'''
..,.. \
072 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28,1997
Ln
o
u:
i-
z:: ::
0_0
j: <:;::
< -:l
N - ~
-: = 0
= (j') co
a: ~ W
~ Z
~ > 0
W 0 ~
0: 0: y
f2 ( m ~ ~
W >, _
a: Wi _ 0
w -'1 -- ::
5 \ ...'.. ~ 15 ! ~
W ,-':-:~.;'::i ~ I:
0:/ W :> UJ' ..J
o '. a: >! z <
~ f5P;.j ~.:, g S : 2 ~
c:l ,----a9 ~ : 'r~ ~ en ! (j') C.
Z -j- , :.::: w:> ~
- " (.;) C c::
~ . < i ~
~ ....: W II" <
x c::l 1/-
w / 'W . C
~ ~
c::l -
c::l 0
I 8 /~
3: ~ ~ w~
_ W W =:
,;:...~-. z < Z c: 3: w
. " , . '.r Z 0 , ~ ...,
1 '. 0 ~ 0 ~ w 0
:= '. ~ en w e:: e:: ...
W : W CJ c: c: oc.O
:; -- -----f1};{+. z w S ~ ::t: Z ~
.--r----~ :;~-: ~ en::E C en 0 I
Z : a: en c: C,) -'5-"'"
< ~~ en <: ~(2')
..J , .,. 0 > < (2')
c.. .~: ~ c: we::...
/ .'., ..' 0 " ~w
....,~.. W ..., ~z
~, a: <
~ W W
o ,Z >0
::E ~o w
/ .,.._~ ~ ~ a:
.. ~; Cl.
. . <:
* ~ ~ - ~
-- ---- iJ' < 0:-
-- .~'--
-- ..... ....-
--- :t,; C5 c:
/ . $ ~
r"\,.21 ~ i
w ~_. V 0
." - >-
c_
:: 0-
!.:..; Q~
Z ~~
~~
Co
c..-
0-
~ nl
- ~
CI CI
E en
CZl C
..cQ
_ u
/".
''''~''
'- '-
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 073
14
6. BACKGROUND AND ACHIEVEMENTS
Prior to the approval of the Watershed Plan, the Authority had been responsible for the
implementation of the Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto region, since 1970.
Shoreline management measures were a component of that responsibility and were
addressed in four five year projects, 1972~1976, 19n-1981, 1987-1991 and 1992-1996.
Shoreline Management works have been undertaken in the designated areas along the
waterfront involving total expenditures of approximately $14,214,685 to the end of
1996. The sites and works undertaken in this period are illustrated in Figure 6 and
listed in Table II.
The Authority has also been responsible for the implementation of a Remedial Erosion
Control Works Program on the designated watercourses in Metropolitan Toronto since
1974. Erosion control remedial works were initially carried out under the 5~year "W.C.
60 - Erosion Control and Bank Stabilization Project in Metropolitan Torontoll and
continued under the "Interim Water and Related Land Management Project 1977-198111
and the more recent "Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Projects, 1982-1984,
1985-1986 and 1987-1991".
A total of 63 major and 62 minor erosion sites on the designated watercourses in
Metropolitan Toronto have been addressed to date, involving a total expenditure of
approximately $7,645,000. The sites and works undertake~ in this period are
summarized in Table III.
074 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97
February 28, 1997
-
ci
ii:
I! ~~ I! f:' III
::;:; I'
m ~ni P''' ~ I
~ !!II ::;~~ ~ II ~~
- -
! 1
II
h b I
I
I
0 0 I
it it 0
~ ~ ~ I it ~
<: ~ I ~
~ <: ~ ~
0 w w I ...
~ u 0 u <: u
II ~ II 0 ID
J J J
:s .. :s .. o I ~ III
~ ~ ~ III :s ...
~ ( I ~
0 II II II
co 0 0 0 ~ ~... ->- ~i:m i 0
0> t- O> t- I t-
... t- O> 1- ,-
. :; ... :; ...
en . o. Of" ':.;.: \<
::.:: en ~~~V~
a: :.: I
0 a:
0
?; =: 0
z I ~ . t i
0 J Z J \ J
i= I 0 J W . I
i= w ~ w
u w o ~.
w u (J u U
I- W I a: ~~ r", ~ I
0 J ~ J 0- ......'tt. . I
a: - ( 0 - ( ! ~ ~. "'--. -! ~ - (
0- r a: I I
W 0 a. 0 :I: ~ 0
a: l w ~ r
0 a: ~ ~ I:\...-
:I: J 0 J J
en :I: ~ ~.(~
c( en
< u -'-
u w
~ U ,
I- a: 0
~ ~ a:
~ 0-
c(
U
a:
S
I
t t ~
- _. --
I ~
~~~~ f ~!~~
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P,U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 075
-
15
TABLE II
SHOREUNE MANAGEMENT WORKS
LOCA TlON WATERSHED WORK YEAR
Crescentwood Lake Ontario 1970 - 1986 1988 - 1990
Long Branch Park . 1973 - 1974
Prince of Whales Park . 1973 - 1974
Eastern Beaches . 1979 . 1980 1989
Springbank . 1980 - 1984 1989 - 1996
Kingsbury " 1981 - 1996
Fallingbrook . 1983 - 1989
Lakehurst . 1983 - 1 989
South Marine Drive . 1983 - 1995
Toronto Islands - Gibraltar Point . 1984
Bellamy Ravine . 1986 . 1995
Wynnview Court . 1986 - 1990
Sunnypoint Ravine . 1987 - 1988
Sylvan - Phase I . 1987 - 1 990
Fishleigh . 1987 - 1996
Sylvan - Phase 11 . 1988 - Present
Guildwood Parkway . 1988 - 1996
Greyabbey Trail . 1989
Toronto Islands - Wards/Centre " 1992 - 1996
Total Expenditure $14,214,685
076 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
16
TABLE III
EROSION CONTROL WORKS
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS
90 Forestgrove Drive East Don River 1974
20-30 Islay Court Humber River 1974
39-41 Storer Drive Humber River 1974-1975
99-103 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Creek 1974-1975
Hi Mount Drive Newtonbrook Creek 1974-1975
8-10 King Maple Place Newtonbrook Creek 1974-1975
113 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Creek 1975
14-22 Archway Cresoent Humber River 1975
6 Woeden Heights Humber River 1975
45 Riverbank Drive and Vicinity Mimico Creek 1975
32-38 80nnyview Drive Mimioo Creek 1975-1976
37 -43 Lakeland Drive West Humber 1976
Yvonne Public School Black Creek 1976
30-56 Grovetree Road West Humber 1976
95-97 Portico Drive East Branch Highland Creek 1976
197 -205 Sweeney Drive East Don River 1976
24 Stonegate Road Humber River 1976-1977
24-36 Westleigh Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1976-1977
158-168 & 190-212 Three Valleys Dr. East Don River 1976-1977
6-14 Sulkara Court East Don River 1978
Don Valley Drive Don River 1978
50-58 Stanwood Cresoent Humber River 1978-1979
Entield/Sunset/Jelliooe Vicinity Etobiooke Creek 1979
17-53 Riverview Heights Humber River 1979
10 Codeco Court - Phase I Don River 1980
35 Canyon Avenue Don River 1979
31 -39 Aivercove Drive Mimico Creek 1980
25-31 Alamosa Drive Don River 1980
Don Valley Parkway & Lawrence Don River 1980
10-14 Bruce Farm Drive Don River 1980-1 981
39-47 Presley Avenue Don River 1980-1981
Grenview Boulevard Mimico Creek 1981
Rainbow Creekway I Dev, Newtonbrook Creek 1981
9 & 11 Sulkara Court Don River 1981
Denison Road Vicinity Humber River 1981
146-168 Humbervale Blvd. & Mimico Creek 1982
835 Royal York Road
45-55 Wynford Heights Cres. Don River 1982-1983
12-30 8eaucourt Road Mimioo Creek 1983
Delroy Drive & Berl Ave. Vie. Mimico Creek 1983
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B, #1/97, February 28,1997 077
17
TASLE III
EROSION CONTROL WORKS (con't)
L.OCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL. WORKS
Raymore Drive Humber River .
1984
MoorevaJe Park Don River 1984
1 OO~ 104 Gwendolen Crescent Don River 1984
Fairglen & Weston Road Humber River 1985
Duncan Mills Road Don River 1985-1 986
Riverside Crescent Humber River 1985-1986
Rainbow Creekway II Newtonbrook Creek 1986
(East Don River)
14 Neilson Drive Etobicoke Creek 1986
Chipping Road Bridge East Don River 1986
6 Bumhamthorpe Cresoent Mimioo Creek 1986
Maple Creek Farms Highland Creek 1986
Warden Woods Park Massey Creek 1986
14 Forest Path Humber River 1987
P.U,C, Lands Highland Creek 1987
Scarborough College Highland Creek 1987
Lawrence Avenue Bridge Highland Creek 1987
The Queensway + The West MaU Etobicoke Creek 1988
Highland Creek - Confluenoe Highland Creek 1988
10 Glenorchy Plaoe West Don River 1988
Leslie Street & Steeles Ave. East Don River 1988
(German Mills Creek)
5201 Dufferin Street West Don River 1989
6-10 Saddletree East Don River 1990
(German Mills Creek)
Carmel Court East Don River 1991-1992
(German Mills Creek)
Etobicoke Creek Landfill Etobicoke Creek 1994-1995
MINOR REMEDIAL. WORKS
520 Markham Road Vicinity
(Cedarbrook Retirement Home) Highland Creek 1975
84-89 Greenbrook Drive Black Creek 1975
Kirkbradden Road Mimico Creek 1975
West Hill Collegiate Highland Creek 1975
Shoreham Court Black Creek 1975
27-31 Ladysbridge Drive West Branch Highland Creek 1975-1976
N.W, of 56 Grovetree Road West Humber River 1975-1976
37 -43 Mayall Avenue Black Creek 1976
79 Clearview Heights Black Creek 1976
078 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1197 February 28, 1997
18
TABLE III
EROSION CONTROL WORKS (can't)
LOCATION WATERSHEO WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS
S.W. of Shoreham Drive Bridge Black Creek 1976
Driftwood Court Black Creek 1976
75 Decarie Circle Mimico Creek 1976
4 Woodhaven Heights Humber River 19n
73 Van Dusen Boulevard Mimico Creek 19n
Donalda Club (8th Fwy.) Don River 1978
Westleigh Crescent Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1978
Scarlett Woods Golf Club Humber River 1978
22~26 Dunning Cresoent Etobicoke Creek 1978
Kennedy Road Shopping Mail Don River 1978
Sheppard and Leslie Nursery Don River 1978
Leslie Street at Sheppard Don River 1978
Meac:!owvale Road Rouge River 1978
Zoo (Z-15) Rouge River 1978
Orc!1ard Crescent Mimioo Creek 1978
Forest Valley Dam Camp Don River 1978
Beechgrove Drive Highland Creek 1979
Restwell Crescent Don River 1979
Deanewood Crescent Vicinity Mimico Creek 1979
Dawes Road. 2 Sites Don River 1979
Twyn River Bridge Rouge River 1979
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979
Beech grove Drive - II Highland Creek 1980
Jason and Riverdale Humber River 1980
Warden & St. Clair - 2 sites Don River 1980
Zoo -II Rouge River 1980
Glendon College Don River 1980
Scarlett Road & Eglinton Humber River 1980
Wilket Creek Don River 1980
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1980
Sunnybrook Park Don River 1981
Donalda Golf Club Don River 1981
Glendon College Don River 1981
Bonnyview Drive II Mimioo Creek 1981
West Side of Markham Rd. 0/'1. Branch) Highland Creek 1981
Alderbrook Drive Don River 1981
West Dean Park (2 sites) Mimico Creek 1982
Royal York Road Mimico Creek 1982
Waulron Street Etobicoke Creek 1982
Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek 1982
Upwood Greenbelt Vidnity Black Creek 1982
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 079
19
TABLE III
EROSION CONTROL WORKS (con't)
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS
55 & 73 Vandusen Blvd. Mimico Creek 1986
Royal York Road 11 Mlmico Creek 1986
14 Brian Cliff Drive Wilket Creek 1987
Wilket Creek Park Wilket Creek 1996
Serena Gundy Park Don River 1996
Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek 1996
Warden Woods Park Taylor-Massey Creek 1996
Lower Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke Creek 1996
Lower Don Valley Don River 1996
Highland Creek Park Highland Creek 1996
Summary
Major Works 63 Sites
Minor Works 62 Sites
Total Expenditure $7,645,000
.
080 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
20
7. FUNDING
The principle funding sources for this Project will be levies from the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto. The Authority will aiso endeavour to secure matching or partial
grants from the Province of Ontario and other funding sources, wherever possible. In
addition, where other revenues are realized, the Authority may chose to allocate these
funds to the Regeneration Project. Provincial and Municipal approvals of this Project
will aiso apply to these additional undertakings subject to the proposed measures
conforming to the policies and descriptions contained within this Project.
The expenditures required to implement this Project are based on the best information
currently available for works to be undertaken. The costs stated shall be understood tc
include, legai and survey fees, land acquisition, engineering and other studies, site
supervision and ail materials, labour, equipment, etc. associated with the construction.
The proposed allocation of funding for these works on an annual basis for the Five Yg~
Project is as follows:
Costs
5 YEAR PROJECT
Year Amount
1997 $1,200,000
1998 $1,200,000
1999 $1,200,000
2000 $1,200,000
2001 $1.200,000
TOTAL $6,000,000
Financing
The total cost of the Five Year Project is $6.0 million and the yearly costs will be funde.:
as follows:
Total Annual Cost $1,200,000
Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto Share $1 ,200,000
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is designated as the benefiting municipality.
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 081
21
8. APPROVALS REQUIRED
(1) AUTHORITY
(2) THE MUNICIPAUTY OF METROPOUTAN TORONTO
."
082 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
RES. #013/97 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
RES. #E13/97 - Approval of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
Moved by: Richard O'Brien
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan. dated February 28. 1997. as attached. be approved;
THAT staff be directed to investigate further the potential for management zones A and B
as illustrated on Map 14 of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan. subject to
the alignment of Williams Parkway;
THAT staff be directed to assist in the establishment of a Claireville Conservation Area
Advisory Committee made up of interested citizens. interest groups and organizations. to
continue to help the Authority in developing a vision for the Claireville Conservation Area
and the planning. management and implementation of the Management Plan. specific to
those lands remaining in Authority ownership for open space and public use purposes;
THAT staff be directed to provide comments to the City of Brampton regarding land use
designations on Authority owned land as proposed in the Brameast Secondary Plan, and
staff use the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan as a basis for commenting on
other land use planning documents;
THAT letters be sent to the members of the Claireville Technical Advisory Committee
thanking them for assisting in the preparation of the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan;
THAT copies of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan be circulated to the
members of the Claireville Technical Advisory Committee, City of Brampton and other
appropriate agencies, groups and individuals;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to utilize the Strategy for Public Use on
Conservation Authority Lands (1995) when considering new public uses within the
Claireville Conservation Area.
Joint - W.M.A,B. and P,U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 083
AMENDMENT
RES. #014/97
RES. #E14/97
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Richard O'Brien
THA T on page 69 of the Claireville Management Plan, paragraph one under the heading
Williams Parkway be replaced with the following:
"In the Brameast Secondary Plan, Williams Parkway between Humberwest Parkway
and McVean Drive, is proposed to cross a well-vegetated valley corridor of the
Humber River in Claireville. At this conceptual level, it appears that this alignment
may impact MTRCA valley and stream corridor management objectives. Additonal
impacts relate to public use of the lands and potential conflicts for future plans by
the MTRCA (see Appendix A for minutes of the Technical Advisory Committee
Meeting #7/96, held on February 4, 1996, for the discussion on Williams Parkway).
This alignment should be subject to an environmental assessment to review
alternative locations and construction techniques. If the final alignment remains
within the boundaries of Claireville, the following management techniques should
be followed:"
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Claireville Conservation Area is located in the Cities of Brampton and Etobicoke, in the
Humber River watershed. The property is approximately 2,100 acres (848 ha) in size, The
area is very accessible due to its proximity to major transportation corridors including
Highways 427, 27,407, 7 and 50.
Historically, the Claireville Conservation Area was developed as a high use recreation area
and still provides multifaceted regional scale recreation activities for the Greater Toronto
Area. Since the late 1980s much of the Conservation area was closed to vehicle access
by the public with the exception of Wild Water Kingdom, Indian Line Campground, the
Etobicoke Field Studies Centre and the Claireville Equestrian Ranch which are operated
through partnerships between the Authority, other agencies, and individuals. Fifteen
percent (126 ha) of the property is rented for agricultural use. Other small parcels are used
for rugby fields and house rentals.
At Authority Meeting #7/96, held on August 30, 1996, resolution #A 155/96 was adopted
that states in part:
"THA T staff be directed to establish a technical advisory committee, which would
include members of the public and interested community groups, to participate in
the development of the Terms of Reference for the Claireville Conservation Area
084 Joint W.M.A,B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
Management Plan, assist in the development of the plan, and to facilitate
opportunity for public input. ,.
Staff invited over forty individuals to be members of the Technical Advisory Committee.
Approximately 25 people came to one or more committee meetings. A broad cross section
of interests were represented on the Committee.
At Authority Meeting #10/96, held on November 22, 1996, resolution #A232/96 was
adopted that states in part:
'7HA T the working Terms of Reference for the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan, dated October 11, 1996, as appended be approved. ,.
The Claireville Technical Advisory Committee met on seven occasions since September
1996. Two additional public meetings were hosted; one in the City of Etobicoke, and one
in the City of Brampton. Two public information displays were also provided to describe
the project and invite public input.
During the preparation of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan, the City of
Brampton introduced their revisions to the Brameast Secondary Plan that directly impacted
the property. Specifically, the City proposed 6 parcels along the Highway 7 corridor be
zoned residential and mixed commercial/industriaJ. Williams Parkway has also been
proposed to cross the Claireville property.
The Claireville Management Plan includes a description and evaluation of the property
based on current land uses, land use planning policies; land features, constraints and
opportunities.
The Plan identifies specific management zones and guidelines to direct future uses within
each of the management zones. A brief description of each of the management zones is
provided in Figure 1 and illustrated on Map 14 of the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan, a copy of which is attached.??
At the final meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee, held on February 4, 1996, the
following resolution was adopted:
"WHEREAS the Authority established the Claireville Technical Advisory Committee
to advise on the preparation of a Management Plan for the Claireville Conservation
Area; and
WHEREAS the Technical Advisory Committee has held several meetings including
opportunities for general public input; and
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Technical Advisory Committee recommends to
the Authority that the Management Plan, dated February 4, 1997, be approved;
Joint - W.M,A.B, and P.U.A.B, #1/97, February 28, 1997 085
THA T the Authority investigate further the potential of management zones A and B
on Map 14 subject to the alignment of Williams Parkway;
AND FURTHER THA T the Authority consider the establishment of a Claireville
Conservation Area Advisory Committee made up of interested citizens, interest
groups and organizations, to continue to assist the Authority in developing a vision
for the Claireville Conservation Area and the planning, management and
implementation of the Management Plan, specific to those lands remaining in
Authority ownership for open space and public use purposes."
RA TIONALE
A Management Plan for Claireville was needed for the following reasons:
. provide a framework for determining the ecological appropriateness of any
proposed public use to ensure that the integrity and diversity of the Area are
maintained;
. resolve competing interests for using the property;
. prepare for the major land use changes expected in the surrounding area
including residential, commercial and industrial development;
. address changing financial conditions being experienced by the Authority.
The Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan does not set out site specific detail.
Instead, seven management zones are recommended (Map 14). These zones are intended
to direct the kinds of compatible uses that may occur within them. The Management Plan
makes provisions for the three elements of watershed management including the
environment, society and economy.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Authority staff will pursue partnership arrangements with all sectors to establish
compatible uses within the Claireville Conservation Area. A portion of the revenues
generated from uses on the property will be returned to Claireville to implement
environmental management activities.
DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Establish a Claireville Conservation Area Advisory Committee to continue to help in
developing a vision for the Area, and the planning and implementation of specific
actions to achieve the objectives of the Management Plan;
. Utilize the Management Plan to respond to land use planning documents (i.e. Official
Plans, Secondary Plans, transportation routes);
. Investigate the Williams Parkway alignment as proposed in the Brameast Secondary
Plan and prepare a report to the Authority;
086 Joint W.M.A,B, AND P.U,A.B, #1/97 February 28, 1997
. Pursue appropriate uses and partnerships for the Claireville Conservation Area and
report these to the Finance and Business Development Advisory Board;
. Re-evaluate the public use/commercial potential for the property south of Steeles
Avenue east of Finch Avenue. Two public use proposals for this location (Golf
Dome and Pitch 'n Putt) were received in 1996 in response to a Request for
Proposals and are being reviewed. Other opportunities may exist now.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, ext. 225
Joint - W.M.A,B. and P.U,A,B, #1/97, February 28, 1997 087
FIGURE 1 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT ZONES
Land Use Size Characteristics Public Use Examples of
Zone (hectarest Intensity. Permitted Use.
Nature 190 . significant or unique natural features, No to Low Intensity Local pedestrian trails; primitive
Reserve landforms, species or habitats camping, bird watching, canoeing,
. permits resource management activities skiing
Natural 320 . core habitat areas and corridor linkages Low Intensity As above, inter-regional trail and
Environment . permits resource management activities accessory facilities
Primary 240 . priority areas where the health and diversity Low Intensity As above, agriculture as an interim
Restoration of the Area can be enhanced use
. this zone will evolve into a Nature Reserve or
Natural Environment Zone
. permits passive public uses
Public Use 25 . areas not inhibiting core habitats or corridors Low to Moderate Outdoor education centre, sports
. existing uses may be replaced with uses of Intensity fields and accessory facilities,
similar intensity that are compatible with the horticultural, equestrian ranch, boat
natural environment vision for the Area launch
Public Usel 55 . areas not inhibiting core habitats or corridors High Intensity Water theme park, trailer camping,
Commercial . supports existing high intensity public uses pitch 'n putt, driving range, and
which will continue but may be replaced with accessory facilities, conference
uses of similar intensity centre, nature interpretation centre,
. new uses at Highway 7 entrance must banquet facility, restaurant,
complement the natural environment vision accommodation (bed/breakfast).
for the Area,
Commercial/ 8 . tableland not considered integral to core NIA Prestige Corporate Centre, office
Office habitats and linkages, buildings, institutions, and accessory
facilities
Surplus 10 . declared surplus to the needs of the Authority N/A As designated by the Brampton
Lands (Res. #A 14/94) Official Plan.
. area reduced by 50% from original size
TOTAL 848
. Public Uses are uses that involve outdoor recreation and conservation education. Public uses can include any indoor or outdoor
facilities, programs or services that are either paid for by public funds or supplied by private enterprise under contract with a public
agency.
088 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1197 February 28, 1997
....
CD
CD
.
m ~+ 1
ID ~
L- UJ
<( OJ
C
ceO
omN
-- - .....
+-'a..c
m OJ
> +-' E
L- C OJ
ID ID 0)
en E ro
c c
o ID ro
U C')~
m
ID c I
==m~
>~~
ID a.
L- ctl
.- ~
m
-
U
~i
-.
~ ~
. .
. .
. .
. :
A
..
c
m ;
~ !
..~ !
~~ ~ -
c: G) >. ..
ru _ .1:::: c:
,::0 .0
c~ c_
OJ. .!!S 51
.:!l",-= ~ S.<: 15
c: IIJ ~ fa CI 2J -:
c<- "C -J:,
a.. c: ~ i:: ~ _ ~
..\~;~.:...... ~ g ~ E _ ~ ~ 0
. ~tl!l l1J l"3 - m c: c: 9 - Z
...... u>c fa OI:J=ll.IiIJ Sl
u_CU II" =E.Eu \11
~~c: < ~..~~~~g=
ftlo~ ~c: IJlD'i;-,:.EUQ"C
;:u.5: S! '::E"~~G4i~; .
"C~"C ""Cl .Oii~U)N>>IXW!aUl~...J :
~~~ ~OEO::~CI~-a~~ra:J:JIIJ'" 0,
0000 og-'e~~:!?l%J5ru:;,g.gE~ :
Z Q.Q.Q. c..""":-oc:,,,:IJE_E_..Q..QE_ ,
E2~ e~ru~o~'~lIJm:m~~o~ '
UJ a. a. a. ..a.Wa::J:UClla:: ..Zc..Zc..c..UlIl
'" "c'. <'" ~"'.es I
u ta"o . ')C . ,
':J ~f- & ::. '.... ~ -,'! ;
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 089
.l:'~ .;.;: -===-,= ~. 2lJ:. ~~c~
r=:::-2S-!.9-;- :..:,: 1,,:! ....r~=,:..:. - . -~ ..-..... vvv " .
1
~ _ ___ACTION ro RESTOR~. ..A CLEAN HUl'lBER..---
27 February, 191H
Place before jo1nt Watershed Management and
Public Use Advi50ry Boards
February 28, 1Q97 Meeting
Me~ro ReQion Conservation
5 Shoreham Or,v;
Oownliview, ON M3N tS.a
At~:1. : DicK D"Brlen. Cha'''man
Lo's Gr~ffin, Chair, Watershed Management Advisory Bd,
R,cnard WhItehead, Cneir, Puo~ic Use Advisory 80Srd
~e, : C, a' "9'01 11,. Conserva': ~ on Area Mana~ement Pl an,
We oareby m.~e two reco~mend8~1ons related to the Draft ?lan dated
FllQrU8ry 29, 1997:
" ihat Mal:: 14 (p, e~) and re1atad text be amended so :~at for a"
lanes presen-:ly owned oy ~:-Ie M7RCA north of Hwy 407 thOl only
Management Zone ca.-tec;or j as a1:owed be ~jatu r8 Reserve, Pr,mary
Restora-:~cn anc Naturai Env,rcr.ment;
2, That sec-:~cn 9,~,2 :RANS?OR:~7:0N (pp. 69,70), Intar~odal Dr~ve
~nd ~,lliams ~arkwa~ be omi~~Qc and replaced by;
"No r:QW ~ajor rcadways =e allowed within or acrcs~ the
Conservat;on Area nor-:~ of Hwy 407 owned by MTRC~ 1n
1996",
In Su;oo~~ of t~~ acove, ARCH would l1ke to restate our rat,onale
a5 prev,ous~y subm,ttec to tha AuthorIty (June 3, November as, '96);
A, The highest pr~o~~t'.s for the Clairev;lle C"nS8rvllt,on lands
~nou'o be tnOl protection and en~ancement of their natura' he,.jtag8
values as a pUbliC tene'!'lt to ou~selves. ou~ ch,loren and futu~e
generations, Thl~ ;s consistent w,t~ the basic underlying orinc,ple
ide~t,i';ed as 'thQ foundatIon for any land use' in the MTRC~
'Strategy ~or Fuollc Use of Con'erva~;on Author1ty Lands' adopted
by the "'TRCA In January 1995. Cla;rev,lle is and will be most
valuaole to the pUb)lC as 'nat:Jral' .
B. We unde~lItand, !however, the ;mpl,cat,ons of severe funding
cutbacks and we wlsh to assist the MTRCA to be an effective
provloer of conservet,on and wate~~hed management services:;
therefore r.lllctantly, and In the spirIt of compromise, wo are
willing to con~'d.r ~ucl::crt~ng some revenue-produc,ng uses o~ ONE
more parclll, tne SE ccrner of Stea~es-F;nch. W& strongly recommend
re5~r;ct1ng the development to the smallest pODsible ar2a closest
to the corner, and retaining full and unrestricted public aCC8S6
to the reserVOlr9
ReS~~'ttlld
?' '
Luciano Mart,n,
Executive O,rector, ~RCH
21 TAYSHAM CR:S tTOSICOI(E ON /olgv '1.1 TE"-' (~IQJ7~I,')f6 FAX' (4161747~65oI
090 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
RES. #015/97 - PROPOSED WilLIAMS PARKWAY EXTENSION
RES. #E15/97 - City of Brampton, Humber River Watershed
The City of Brampton has identified plans to extend Williams Parkway
east of Sunpac Boulevard af~ecting Authority interests including the
Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan (Refer to Agenda Item
7.9)
Moved by: Paul Palleschi
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Brampton be requested
to review alternatives to the proposed Williams Parkway extension as if affects the
Claireville Conservation lands;
THAT, prior to the approval of the Brameast Secondary Plan by the Province of Ontario,
the City of Brampton commits, in writing to the Authority, to commence in 1997, the
Environmental Assessment for the Williams Parkway extension;
THAT the City of Brampton and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be so
advised;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the response received from the
City of Brampton and the Ministry of Municipel Affair. and Housing. . . . . . . .. CARRIED
RECORDED VOTE
Lorna Bissell .. . . .. .... . ... ... ... .. .......... ....... ... .. . .. .... Yea
lIa Bossons . ... ....... ... ... . ., . ......... ............. ..... .... Nay
Victoria Carley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Lois Griffin .................................................... Nay
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Eldred King .................................................... Nay
Jim McMaster .................................................. Yea
Richard O'Brien ....... ... ... . ... . ...... . .. ... ...... .. . .. .. ... .. . Yea
Gerri Lynn O'Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Paul Palleschi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Deborah Sword ................................................. Nay
Richard Whitehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
THE MOTION WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Williams Parkway is a major east/west arterial road within the City of Brampton which
currently extends from Mclaughlin Road in Brampton's west end to Sunpac Boulevard, a
north/south street located immediately west of Goreway Drive. As part of its planning for
future growth, the City of Brampton identified the need to extend Williams Parkway
further east from its current terminus to Highway 50, uWmately connecting with Langstaff
Road in the City of Vaughan (Attachment 1).
East of Sunpac Boulevard and Goreway Drive are several tributary valleys of the West
Humber River. These tributaries are located within the Authority's Claireville Conservation
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1197, February 28, 1997 091
Area land holdings. The proposed extension of Williams Parkway is conceptually shown to
cross two of these tributaries as well as the tablelands within Claireville at the north end of
the Authority's property.
As opportunities have arisen, Authority staff has'identified concerns with the proposed
extension of Williams Parkway and has attempted to resolve these concerns with
Brampton staff. The recent work completed for the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan, which is being recommended for approval at this same meeting,
requires that any Authority issues with the proposed Williams Parkway extension be
identified and quickly resolved.
Generally, significant improvements andlor extensions to municipal transportation
networks are identified when municipalities are planning for expanded urban growth, and
are shown conceptually in municipal planning documents prepared and approved under the
Planning Act. Municipal road projects also require approval pursuant to the Environmental
Assessment Act. Neither Act references the other in relation to timing of approvals, which
can result in lands being approved for urban growth dependant upon the construction of
infrastructure which mayor may not be approved under the Environmental Assessment
Act.
There is always pressure to defer detailed assessment and design of infrastructure to a
stage in the planning approvals process when there is certainty that development will
occur. Municipalities attempt to manage this issue through schedules and policy
provisions that clearly identify that any improvements to municipal infrastructure are
conceptual in nature and subject to further review and approvals under the Environmental
Assessment Act.
The proposed extension of Williams Parkway has been identified within several land use
planning documents prepared by the City of Brampton. Authority staff's response is
summarised below.
CHRONOLOGY AND STATUS OF APPROVALS
SramDton Official Plan
The need to extend Williams Parkway was first formally identified by the City in its 1993
draft Official Plan. Its earlier Official Plan document, dated 1984, showed Williams
Parkway terminating at Sunpac Boulevard. In 1995 staff was asked to generally identify
the program and policy interests of the Authority related to the City's Official Plan update.
A response was provided, however it was not until 1996 that staff received notice that
the Brampton Official Plan had been completed and approved by Council, and was now
being released for review and comment by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(MMAH). The Ministry had been deferring the circulation and approval of the City's
Official Plan until such time as the Region of Peel's Official Plan was complete. The
review of the Brampton Official Plan was complicated by the lack of input during its
preparation and the delay by the Province in its circulation. Significant changes to the
Planning Act, Provincial Policies and Authority policies were approved between 1993 when
Brampton Council first adopted their Official Plan and 1996 when the revised Official Plan
was circulated for input and review.
Authority staff identified issues with the proposed transportation network as conceptually
shown on the schedules of the Official Plan. The policies of the Plan set out that the
transportation network is not fixed and identified the need for further review and approval
pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. Further, the City adopted an
implementation approach to its Official Plan that relies heavily on detailed planning being
completed through the preparation of Secondary Plans. To this end, Authority staff did
092 Joint W,M,A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
identify outstanding conflict with the City's Plan. It is anticipated that the Brampton
Official Plan will imminently be approved by the Province.
Humberwest Parkwav Environmental Assessment
In December of 1993 Authority staff received notice of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
initiated by the City for the Humberwest Parkway, a major north/south arterial proposed to
extend from Highway 7 north to Sandalwood Parkway, west of Goreway Drive. This road
was shown conceptually in the City's 1984 Official Plan.
The Environmental Assessment first assesses need and routing options and then proceeds
to assess design alternatives. Although this Environmental Assessment was for the
Humberwest Parkway, intersections with other proposed east/west roads, including
Williams Parkway, were shown as part of the City's route selection plans.
As the Environmental Assessment process for Humberwest Parkway proceeded, Authority
staff expressed concerns (beginning in 1994) relating to the proposed extension of Williams
Parkway as conceptually located on the Humberwest Parkway plans. Several meetings
were held with Brampton staff including a site assessment of the proposed Williams
Parkway extension. Brampton staff indicated the importance of the Williams Parkway
extension given there are too few east/west arterials in the City. They also identified an
alternative routing option which would avoid the Claireville lands, would be highly
problematic as the location of Williams Parkway east of Sunpac Boulevard cannot be
changed now that development is built west of Sunpac Boulevard. To date, the
Environmental Assessment for Williams Parkway itself has not been initiated. City staff
did review and address other issues raised by Authority staff relating to the routing and
design of Humberwest Parkway and in January 1997 advised that they would be filing an
addendum to the draft ESR.
Gorewav Drive Secondarv Plan
In 1991, the City of Brampton initiated the Goreway Drive Secondary Plan (OPA 251), The
lands within the Secondary Plan extend north of Highway 7 along either side of Goreway
Drive, to approximately Automatic Drive, and abut the Authority's land holdings which
form part of the Claireville Conservation Area (Attachment 2). In total, the Secondary Plan
established the land use planning policies for approximately 47 hectares of land, including
the establishment of a broad range of intermediate office, business, highway and service
commercial, institutional, open space and residential designations.
In providing comments on the Secondary Plan, Authority staff noted their concerns on the
proposed transportation network, specifically that Williams Parkway between Humberwest
Parkway and Goreway Drive crosses a well vegetated tributary valley of the Humber River
owned by the Authority, and that at this conceptual level it would appear the alignment
may impact the use and operation of Authority owned lands in addition to our valley and
stream corridor management objectives. Staff requested it be made clear in the Secondary
Plan that the alignment is only conceptual and subject to an Environmental Assessment,
which will look at alternate locations and construction techniques.
Joint - W.M.A,B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 093
In response to these comments, the City of Brampton proposed a modification to the
wording of the Secondary Plan acknowledging that,the alignment of Williams Parkway as
shown on the schedules is conceptual and subject to an Environmental Assessment, at
which time an evaluation of alternative locations and construction techniques would be
completed. Given the context of this area in relation to the 1984 Official Plan, and that the
conceptual alignment of Williams Parkway could terminate at Humberwest Parkway if the
Environmental Assessment could not satisfy Authority program and policy issues, this
Secondary Plan was approved.
Brameast Secondary Plan
In 1994, the City of Brampton initiated the Brameast Secondary Plan (OPA 263). The
lands subject to this Secondary Plan comprise an area of approximately 1520 hectares
generally situated north of Highway 7, between Goreway Drive and Highway 50, south of
Castlemore Road (Attachment 3). Brameast was developed with an ecosystem context,
with the West Humber Subwatershed Study forming the environmental basis of the
Secondary Plan. This Secondary Plan establishes a broad range of land use designations
for residential, employment, institutional and open space purposes.
In providing comments on the Secondary Plan, Authority staff noted their concerns on the
transportation strategy, specifically that the alignment for Williams Parkway and associated
servicing is shown crossing Authority owned lands, and that staff are of the opinion that
this alignment is premature given the potential impacts related to the environmental
features in this area and the future public use of the lands.
The City's response acknowledged the concern expressed by Authority staff related to the
extension of Williams Parkway, and noted that the Brameast Secondary Plan is an
extension to an urban area necessitating the provision of services and valley crossings.
From the City's perspective, the extension of Williams Parkway is an essential element of
the transportation network. The alignment will require Environmental Assessment
approval, and the Secondary Plan policies will be revised to provide more sensitivity
towards the approvals process and the environment.
This Secondary Plan was recently amended by Council in December of last year, however it
has not been recirculated for review and comment by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs &
Housing. A circulation by the Province will most likely occur in the very near future, with
approval anticipated sometime this Spring. Authority staff will have another opportunity to
comment on the proposed Secondary Plan as part of this circulation process.
Claireville Manaaement Plan
In 1996, the Authority initiated a review of its Claireville land holdings which led to the
preparation of a Management Plan for this area. The Management Plan was prepared with
the input of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which expressed concern after learning
of the City's plans to extend Williams Parkway. The T AC expressed their concern related
to the proposed extension of Williams Parkway to the Province, and noted they would like
to see other alternatives to the transportation network explored (Attachment 4).
094 Joint W,M,A.B. AND P,U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
ANAL YSIS AND RATIONALE
The Claireville Conservation Area lands affected by"the proposed extension of Williams
Parkway form part of the Ebenezer Resource Management Tract. The majority of these
lands were scheduled for construction of a major flood control structure on the same scale
as Claireville, however the need for the dam had not materialized by 1995 and the proposal
was withdrawn. There are a number of agricultural leases including the use of the existing
farm buildings.
The two tributaries affected by the Williams Parkway extension vary in terms of existing
environmental condition and amount of disturbance. The tributary west of Goreway Drive
is well defined, approximately 5 metres deep and 125 metres wide. It is well vegetated
with a definable low-flow channel, and no visual signs of slope instability and/or
movement. The eastern tributary on the other hand is more sparsely vegetated,
approximately 10 metres deep and 250 metres wide. There is a definable low-flow channel
and signs of toe erosion are evident in certain areas. Both tributaries are subject to
flooding, the eastern tributary having a greater upstream drainage area associated with it.
Both tributaries are regulated pursuant to the Authority's Fill, Construction & Alteration to
Waterways Regulation. Neither of these tributaries is designated an Environmentally
Significant Area.
In assessing the merits of extending Williams Parkway across these two tributaries a site
meeting with technical staff took place. From an environmental and technical perspective
it was felt that the impact of extending Williams Parkway could be addressed by means of
stringent design criteria (ie. clear span structure) and through the employment of
appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures. It was felt that the public use impacts
could also be addressed in this fashion, however it was recognized that the increase in
traffic noise and visual impacts of the crossing would have an effect on the enjoyment of
the area.
When the Management Plan for the Claireville property was initiated, staff noted the need
to reassess this position to ensure no conflicts would arise. The Environmental
Assessment process that would be required for the proposed extension to Williams
Parkway reserved this opportunity, however decisions related to land use planning as part
of the Brameast Secondary Plan were proceeding. Staff repeatedly expressed these
concerns when commenting on the various land use planning documents that were being
prepared by the City.
With the preparation of the Management Plan it would appear that an alternative routing
solution for the proposed extension would be preferred rather than a design solution for the
valley crossings. It is difficult to explore this preferred approach since the Environmental
Assessment for the Williams Parkway extension has not been initiated. To delay the
approval of the Brameast Secondary Plan pending the initiation and resolution of this matter
through the Environmental Assessment process would be problematic, especially in light of
the Province's indication to expedite the approvals of this Secondary Plan once the City's
Official Plan is in place. Authority staff anticipate that the City's Official Plan will be
approved by the Province as early as the end of this month, leading towards an approval of
the Brameast Secondary Plan sometime this Spring.
Joint - W,M,A.B, and P.U,A,B, #1/97, February 28, 1997 095
Given the inherent limitations between the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment
Act, and that the approval of the Brameast Secondary Plan could severely limit future
options, it is being recommended that the City of Brampton be requested to review
alternatives to the proposed Williams Parkway extension as it affects the Claireville
Conservation lands prior to the approval of the Brameast Secondary Plan by the Province.
For Information Contact:
Luch Ognibene, ext. 284
096 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
/:
Attachment 1 ~
.
...::.r. . ~ J
- '" - .
- - - i ~
- -- --
- ' - - .-
- - ...
- - '
, - ..;.::: - \G
- - -
- ~- - ~
- - - - -
- E), - -, - c: ~ i i = i...;.i
- :..:' =::: '"'I
- 11 "'-i
z;.. '0" ==1: - Woo '-' ...
- :~ 0 8 ... -
,. .. - '" 88,
- - '":"- .... ~.a N
- -:> - -..:; = - -- - e ='i<
- ' - - -- u.... ..... -
. - - ~= ~ 1ft j XI = 2 I
- -. - I
- - - .- - -~--, '>>"1
- - - 40: ~ :-:'=S, so. ;: ~ ~ =...,=
- .... - .. UN!
- _. ._, .,. ~ : u
I :: ~ <:;:~:. \6.11 ~ ~ :E ~.-
-, - .
- :- - \0 ~ 0 C"P'l ..!!
- .... - :r. - ~ -.....- "" ..c -'\.:I 0
.- .... - : i ~c~ ; ; ~ i ", N_C"P'lNC
- ..
- .,,' = . i c' I .
. ... - --. ~I .
-- I CI ~~ I : O! . -
.
IJ ~ c:- . ~ .
1 _<f"I:~ 5, -
-
~ d:i I : :c: . -
~; -
-
II ~
....."".,., -l
i
~
I
.....,,~
i
~...~
! I
I I
I
ao..~ ' ,
'a\:',.. i
: " ",.... ,: i
~'...'.. .'
~ i
'~f~..
- . I
~ ~
- -
~ .
It';',;', "WI I
1
i
,
I
n
". ,,'" "i. f
"U'1I .. c~ i
,," , '.., ~ ! ~ ~
2 &
- 'U",!,."", a . .. -
0 , : I i j~~ I
- .
~ I ".. I
"- \..i . ~:'Q= ,
i it". .... .~~a.~: ,
I
. ....: 'f,..., -ta-J"! 1
- '. . . ! f ,. ;
I
. ..~i~!'!. I
!~j~~'lI~ !
I .. .-~-:2::1;~
, , J ~ i. ,.
- .~1 -I.:
i I
;JtIHI I
I I 1"-". _"'_..,_ Ii! if! I
ii~. 13
· alA.
. .0 -,i ~ ~,II'111
~!~ "' ~i! i.., t
,
' J'
, I ,:. : : · 1'1'"
I
. " ..... ....... 1 iQ J.i~i
.,. _... :, ... .... !i ..}~
,~ I : I ~=~J'sl~
. _._ '.i I
#1/97, February 28, 1997 097
, I. 3,--:::l,-l.-,mc,........
.,
-- - - '
~
c
I
, L \.'\15 PARKWAY
WIL- Of"l
I::~ rE~Sl
I ~
J ,
=
t.J
~
II.
, ~
WAp,IJ RD. en
II,
.
", 'PROGRESS cr.
.
"
Council
adopted on
October 14,1994
. HWY. No.7 E.
~\-
+/ MAP 2
il
., SCHE,DULE G
.
TO OFFICL\L PIk'l .
" AlV1ENDl\t1E~T l\ Ll\tIBER 251
SCHEDCLE SP39(A) .
GOREWAY DRIVE CORRIDOR SECONDARY PLAN
n LAND USE DESIG~ATIONS"
~ HUMnERWEsr r,\RK',V,\Y RIGHT.Of.WAY
~ OPE",'{ SPACE
~~ INSTmmONAL
w;4 BUSINESS
~ HIGHWAY ~ SER\1C::: COi\L\lERClAL
~ ll'ITER....1EDL\TE OfFlCE
G ESTATI: RESIDE:-'TL'J.
IIIlIID MEDIUi\1.HIGH J.: H1GH DF.:--:SITY RESIDENTIAL
I - URDA..'i DOL'~,\R':'
L DOUNDARY OF SL'!ljEc..-r L\.'lDS
:: .:l.~ SPECIAL rOLIC'! AR!:A ~o, 1 . :
.."., C OUC'" ~ ..,
. ",' srE IALP : \1\:..\:'10,_
" "SPECI\L vl)L'r; . """" i
"."'.: __~_' :.. ._......._...1._
098 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
/ .A\ttachrnent 3
~ -
:: CD
fl"\ >- u.. ;'~:.i: -=
IJJ.I -:....., . .
2.... · - liU S
CCoA' ~; ",aC< ~.
~ ~ E :.i::!.o _ "0 :6-
O ,,.,, I- a:....:!._ a. - .. c: -c
Z \JJ ~..;: - g = : -g i c
L: 2 U"J c '~ ~ Go. ; ~ g ~ g ~~ ~ ciS -& -
oAr- .=...~ :t <-=en-=-;~ 1;. i
"" ... cEGo.o _ z~"U;--5 0 i: C
-I <t 0 Z c.c :i ~ ~ ~ ~; ; S ~ ~ ~~.E !. ~ i ..
I- c.. Z ~ 0 C") ~.! ~ c; ;,g = ~ ~ i 2 c ~ ~o: ; ~ Q :
fl"\ \JJ z".-E-=.~E. ~ .0=.-= N c: I
IJJ fr'\ I-cn ...~~~E~~o-E en EcS... -c J ~ i
~ - a.. . 0 "- a . . 0 0 . . . . . ..
~ cd: >- - > a. ~ 0 > U ~ U Z Go. ?; en U ~ iW en en ~ 3.".. 1 t
c.. W c: UJ W ~ -. ~.:: r~.:. I tin' · · ~ ~ 1
oA' W ..... -'::: ec;.:. Q ... : - ~ .;
<: ~ "" C:.c .:t:: ,~: ~ ,~ '" - ~ l
~<t~O C~E en l I ~
c: w W CO (1) en .s ~ 0 ::. .. ~ 1
coOUJ en Co) ~'i; i ~ ~:i~ ~ :;; ~
U~ LJ.. :=1'- 0..0.J .. "0. II: !..
...J 0 (1) : E': ~ I- ; 011: 0 __"0 · t
W 0 -'.>~~a. z Eio. ~ ~..!a ~ c
C c.. "....,.. 5~.:.-.= ~.c--=~ ;;~~...
en ...... ~....~Q- :t~-.:2- -... = ~
z~:._...... )-QCl:o..! ""-"~Q
Z 0 >- ...-.:E=_ ozu,.~= Z .4(4(..= 8 I
c~Q......-=~ -'.~-=..::~ Q IOQ~- ·
L- ;;; a ~ :> ~.. Go. ~ = - ~ C <0 ~-. C = ~ :
r- -->.:2 ---.0 - -00 :-
<t a: _ ~.1l.3~~G ~O~QZU = ::t::u... ..(
-J a.. U ;;:; I Illl!-:-:; ~;;~ [JID9-' [;j,
: ~lt!i:':'J .:~ -I:, _
~-~ . ,.... ."
"
."
gu
../' ~:h
i 1
t
.
.
IT ~
1/
J^OlU. "..." .,'l.....
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28,1997 099
) ~-ttachrnent 4 CO PY
the metrt:;:clitan !crcn:o ar.c ;oe9cr. c::nservancn authcnt't
.... . , -- -..... - -- ~
5 .:!".............,"'" '.....e -.....,-...,".... ...,...~l~- ~'n ,~- ,.....1._&:, G -.,," ...,.....c;:c;:;
_........:O:I.QJ. ......" . ......' I'~'I' ..... ~.._ _ ...... _ "'_ ___ .4^ '. ._....
F~bruary 10, 19417
I,
BY P~CSIMI1! (4'~:;8~7m ~~ :tEcti'1.....\R ~ ~,
;
,
The Honourable Al Leac..~. ~:
Ministe!', lVlinistry cr ~unic:pal Aifairs and Housing~'
17th Floor :'
m Bay Street '
Toronto, Ontario
MSG2E3
oear~~
Re: CIty or 3r.u:l?tor. Ofncal ?lan - WilliaI:1s Pu:<way
On b~half of :'~e Clai=ev:ile C~nse!'"'.raticn ~a T e-.:..l....nic31 Aciv:sot"v
COt1U:'.itt~, I ao wr::ing reg:ucing the proposal:' c:onoir.ed t.~e C:ty or
Bramptcn Off:cal p~ to exte!ld Williams PJI'~.vay and the impact this
extension would have on the Claireville Conservation Area. We unde~tand
the Offical Plan is C"~tly being finalized by the P-:ovi...T'1ce.
,
,
A:) way of bac.kg::::t:..."d. mcst of the Claireville ConServation ~-ea is located
within the Cit"; or BraI:1ct::n. A Tedutical A o.visc r; Committe"! was
... I. J
I:!Stablished in ScF'teII'.=€~ 1996 by the Metropolitan Toronto and R~gion
Conse!'vation Authority to assist in the developme!'i't of a management plan
for the Area. The Coxr.:rut:ee is comprised of commUnity ret'resentatives and
various interest groups .u:d elected "officials. and is~ suppc~"ed by sbff or the
Authority and surroundir.g mcnidpalities, !
!
As part of t.~e plar..."1ir.g exe=-ese for the Claireville' Cons~!'vation Area. the
Committee recog:'\ized. tt-.a: the Williams P:lrk'Nay e."(tension pt'oposal would
cross not only table lands o~~d. by the Authority. but would also coss a large
valley feature, w:tr.in whic:" flows a tributa.!"'.f at the West Humber Rive!',
" . I
,
T:",e Committee's c=r.ce~ relate to the impac: frem' t.."'..e C'ossing or the ....alley
and table lands on the nat".lral envi.:onme.."1t of the Area and the frag!Itenction
or the area due to t:-.e bise-:::ion or this par: or the park. The Committe~ also
has concerns about the negative impac~ or the tra.:ric noise on the a:'ea'~
wildlife and on park visitors which fre-quent this ~e~.
I
1
I
~ , ":.I',-,-~..... --.- ,..,; ........ -- '- G -- .... .
~ _~,c' ".:: ,...~":':;:e, ,or 1,-17"70r,,-w::; ~r=,:r"!s....a,-e
0100 Joint.W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #1/97 February 28, 1997
The ?l.cncunble Al ~ ~2- - UJ/1.If11
Mhma!r ot ~~ mc:1 Hcusms ,
;
i
II
II
h
i~
I!
"
:1
I;
I'
"
Acccrdingiy, I was asked by the Committee tc exfh~ their ccnCem5 to the
Minister and request that other transportation optiOns be fully explored as
alternatives to the Williams P3rkway extension. In ~articular. routes such as
Castiemore Road and/or Humberwest Parkway Would have a far less
detrimental effect on the Clairevill'e COn!erVation AM lands. A copy of the
City's Schedule '5' Road Network with the area in ~questicn highIrghted is
attac."'ied fer yom'infonnation. t
Ii
Please ccntac: me if you have questions or require ani clarJiotion.
Sincerely, "
"
"
"
- /-<<
Dick O'Brien "
;,
,
Chair, MTRCA "
.,
II
C'lair, Clai..~vme Cor.se!""'..-ation Area Tt!clutical AdviSer! COImmttee
I,
,
I.
:nccsu:e(1) I:
I-
I'
a:: M.s ~{e~~ Ber~iorti. Cirec:cr. ~vincial Plamting Se:-b 9m'tCh . MMAH
Mr. Tcc-.:\ ManlWl Com::tissiorter of P14Lming md Building, Gcy of Sramptcn
~Lr. Pete: E. Alle:l. Cocu:tissioner at Ptamting, R.egicn or Peel
II
II
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #1/97, February 28, 1997 0101
NEW BUSINESS
MOTION OF APPRECIATION
RES. #016/97
RES. #E16/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THAT staff and the Claireville Technical Advisory Committee be thanked for all their hard
work and dedication in completing the Claireville Management Plan. . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:25 p.m., February 28,1997
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
/pl
~
, the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND
PUBLIC USE ADVISORY BOARDS - MEETING #2/97
April 18, 1997 Page D102
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board and the Public Use Advisory
Board met in the North Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on
Friday, April 18, 1997. The Chair of the Public Use Advisory Board, Richard Whitehead,
called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
lIa Bossons ............................... Member, Watershed Management
Victoria Carley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Michael Di Biase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Watershed Management
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Eldred King ........................................ Member, Public Use
Joan King ................................ Member, Watershed Management
Jim McMaster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority
Donna Patterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Public Use
Paul Raina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
Bev Salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . Member, Watershed Management
Deborah Sword ..................................... Member, Public Use
Richard Whitehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Public Use
REGRETS
Randy Barber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Vice Chair, Watershed Management
Gerri Lynn O'Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Paul Palleschi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Public Use
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member, Watershed Management
0103 Joint W,M.A.B. AND P.U.A,B. #2/97 April 18, 1997
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter, dated April 18, 1997, from Mr. Ian Craig, a former member of the Humber
Watershed task force, and a current member of the Ontario Marathon Canoe
Racing Association in support of the golf course and go-kart proposals for
Claireville Conservation lands and Wild Water Kingdom.
RES. #017/97
RES. #E17/97
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Maria Augimeri
THA T the above item of correspondence (a) be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
PRESENT A TIONS
(a) Mr. Peter Hare presented the Chair of the Authority with an Award of Appreciation
from the Public Advisory Committee for their Remedial Action Plan.
(b) Mr. Don Dailley, General Manager of Wild Water Kingdom and Mr. Rick McMullen
of Centennial Go-Karts gave an overview of their submission of a Go-Kart proposal
at Wild Water Kingdom. Please refer to page D1 06.
(c) Ms. Marty Brent Manager of Black Creek Pioneer Village informed Members of the
Spring Program at Black Creek and of upcoming events. Attachments are included
in these minutes on pages D 103 and D 104.
(d) Mr. Brian Denney, Director of the Watershed Management Division, presented the
Terms of Reference for the Public Use and Watershed Management Advisory
Boards. Please see chart following on page D1 05.
RES. #018/97 - PRESENT A TIONS
RES. #E18/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Donna Patterson
THAT the above presentations (a) - (d) be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P.U.A.B. #2/97, April 18, 1997 0104
/ BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE .,
SPRING PROGRAM
BALLOON FEVER! May 11 - Sept. 1
. The Balloon Age Exhibition from Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace, the National
Aviation Museum and The Stewart Museum. Cost: $10,000 mainly shipping +
construction.
. Performance Program: Summer theatre in the Village + Professor Panjandrum's Air-born
Exploits
. Tethered Balloon Rides
. 19th Century Photographer's Studio
. Sponsorships
CHILDREN'S GROUNDWATER FESTIVAL May 26 - 30
. New partnership between MTRCA, BCPV, & Childrens Groundwater Foundation
. Special MTRCA 40th Anniversary activity
SPECIAL EVENTS AND THEME WEEKENDS
. 13 Special Events
. 27 Theme Weekends over our 36 week season
BLACK CREEK TERRACE DEVELOPMENT
. New deck, tent, furniture. Open for business from April 28 - October 15
BLACK CREEK ADVENTURE DA Y CAMP
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN
. Mayor's Tribute
. Spring Tonic
McGINNIS LECTURE
MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
. Complete conversion to new membership levels
. Spring membership drive
. Fall dollar for dollar matching membership drive
SPONSORSHIP
MARKETING
0105 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P.U.A.B. #2/97
April 18, 1997
What's On, 1997
Black Creek Pioneer Village
May l' Opening Day - 37th season
May 3 &: "* Celebration of Herbs
May 10 &: 11 Whe~e Has All the Water Gone? ./
May 18 &: 19 Spr'.."\g Fall
May 19 Heele...s' Contest
May 24 &: ::s Fields and Farm Houses ,.
:-Vlay 31 &: Jur.e 1 Balloon Fever
JU!1e 7 &: S C:emng Colour at Home
June g &: 15 A 5oldie~' s life for ~le!
June 21 &::: W()nde~s or Wood
JU:1e 2S &: :9 Sl:...,..,.r:\e... Pastimes
July 1 Canada Day Celebrations
July 3 &: 6 T::cks of the Trade
Julv 12 &: 13 Bailoon Fever
July 14" Kdswnrne... - Balloon Fever
Julv 19 &: :0 Ee~bal Eappe..ungs
July 26 &: :7 Ee~bal Happe..ungs
.~ugust 2. 3 3.; 4 Rags to Ric.1mess
August 9 &: 10 Com Davs
AUg'..ISt 16 &: 17 Bailoon Feve~
-.-..---..--. August 23 &: 24 Smiths at Work
August 30, 31 &: Sept. 1 Reap the Rewards
Septembe... 6 &: 7 Threads of Time
September 13 &: 14 ~ Sa\'ing Workshops
September 20 41st Annual Pioneer Festival ar.d Mennonite Quilt Auction
Septembe~ :7 &: 28 Scnvin2: For More
Octobe... 4 &: 3 Fall F:~: and Celebrate the Apple Earvest
October 3 Bake It Wid" Apples Contest
October 11, 12 &: 13 Bounty of the Season
October 18 &: 19 t.:"d.
October 2.5 It's a,.. Hallowe'e.T'\ Happening!'"
October 2.5 &: 26 Pumpkin Party for Kids
November 1 &: 2 t.b,d,
Novembe... S &: 9 Winter's Coming
Novembe~ 13 - December 24 Christmas in the Village
Novembe... 13 &: 16 Ready for Christmas?
Novembe~ 21 &: 23 Christmas Fare
November 2S Christmas by Lantpligh~"
November 29 &: 30 Gifts Galore!
December 3 Christmas by Lampligh~"
December 6 &: 7 Tree Tnmmings and Decorations
Decembe... 12 Christmas by Lamplight....
'('l""..mb..r 13 &: 14 Christmas Lore
December 20 &: 21 Christmas Is Almost Here
Decembe~ 26 . 31 Games People Played
, Date to be confirmed.
., Special ticked events,
~
Joint - W.M.A.B. and P,U,A.B, #2/97, April 18, 1997 0106
, , , , , , -a
C
~
n
CD n -ao." no." -a-- n'O 0 >o-a c:
Cll 0 --'0 - CD '0 "" Cll Cll :J o "" CD "" '0 Cil
g.3 o CD Cll :J CD 0 (") .... :J 0 < (jI
:J .., :J ~=CD CD CD :J CD
CD Cll :J ......,ee -- "" III ee CD Cll Ql :J
-3 .., Cll "" .... ' CD .., - ~
CD .... -, CD .... Cll -- .., en r-+ _.
Cll C ~ -. ::I _c5"3 CD CD .., 3 0 -- :J Q,
5:1_ :J <gee lIlee < '0 Oee
~:Jo. CD 0- ~ III 3 :J . <
= ;:;'0 ::og. ii'
<< nOCD - :J -- Cll CD o 0. 0
Cll _ < -< ~ Cll o :J :J -CD ""
oj" ee aJ CD o .... CD - :Jo..... n< -<
CD_- :J:J"- .... .., !!o~
iii- Cll 0 III CD 0 Ql CD o ~ aJ
0 (")'0 CD '0 -- (") CD '0 :J 0 0 C/)
:J 7':'3 .., ~ 3 iii'" -CD CD III '0 III
< 0 CD CD 0...,0. CD 3 .. c:
(") nCD ~~::I Cll Cll nCllC ;: ~ Q,
0 .., :J :J ~_ CD ~- (") s:
:J CD .... cr ~. ,..... Q,O :J 0 Cll ~....
(") CD Cll :J ee Cll ::D:J ,.. :) ::!. 0- 01 s:
CD 7':':J :J":J CD 0 0
.., 0. ....0. 0 :J :J )>
:J c: III _ :J 0. ::D
5' ee
ee CD <
0
'TI
)>
, , , , , , , ~::!! C
Q,:J <
< m Cii
-. :J
(jI (") 0
'TI < 1Il'TI3'T1 III III n o > ee 3: >3: ~ CD m
5' CD :J"oc:c: CD '0 0 -:J CD 01 :J c: -< III )C ::D
01 :J" 01 c: :J :J ~g~ >:J :J .., :J - aJ~ 111 -<
:J n- ~. :J __ 0. CD 7':' c: ~,
(") :Jo.(")-- o III .., c: c: .., CD Cll< o Q, C"l 'TI ~
~ ee 01 -, :J .., 0 01 .... 01 Cll .... ~ aJ C C
.--~ iii- U> _'Oee '0 .., (") :J" - - -. -CD .. 0
- -. Cll Cll III .... o - -- :::l aJCll Q,C <' -
::D Cll o - Cll .., :J" c: "" CD ~ee c: "" (jI )> )>
CD :J ~-o::: _ -- Cll ;:+. CD -. 0 Q.aJ 5" 111 ::D
0. :::l '0 - < III C
'0 .,,"'0) CD III Cll :J - ee c: CD (') C
0 .., 0 :::l -(") ;:;0 ~ ~ s- (jI ..
.., m ;r ~_ee u: Q) en Cll ;: -. CD (jI 0 ::"
- .c Cll :::l CD :J":J'O ~~ ~ < III CD 3 0 ::D
5- c: ; 5:1_ 3 -0- 0. ~ -- CD III C ... 0
ee -0' 0) CD III '0 - e. c < :J III CD 3 ;::;: ~
3 (") :::::::::l "" III CD - CD c: < <
0-.... <- 0 III CD III CD ." CD ;::;: m
CD III CD III - Cil 0 .. C/)
:J Cll - 0 111
- _0.- .... .., :::l '0 111 )>
CD 0 CD III 3
Ql .., c: 0) :z
III CD
:::::: CD :J :::l C
0. ....
::D
m
C/)
"tI
, , , , , , , 8':E 0
z
III III C/)
.. ....
Q,CD ~
..
"'n 0) 0) ::D 0) r- c: m ::D:E , , , Cll ::D :E (jI
CD 0 eeeeCD :J Cll .., :::l :::l CD ;: ~
'g3 CD .., III Q,:::l CT< CD Cll o.C/1 Cll CD =i
:::l CD 0 Ql 0. 0) -- ee .... .... 0.
:::l 3 (") CD c: :::l .., CD CD '0 0 CD
~ c: -, 3 .., (") Cll 0 :J "" .., c: "" 3: m
~ CD g .c (") ee :J CD ~ ."n<'TImon C/I C/)
0) :J c:.c .., 3 .., 0 o 0 0) iii' en ee CD :J" m
.... -- O)~en -, c: o CD ~ :::l CD :J
-- .... lQ3_~:J"~Ql3: 0. m
0< III __ !:J 0;
:J _, :J C/I .... a: !!. Cllo.<3:1Il3Cll en ee
'0 :J Q.~CD o ~. :J"lii :J _ CD
3~~0) .!":J .... 3
-. ~ :J 0 3; Cll Ql
.., < :J ;::;:
o 0 o.:J"~ '0 :J :J :J Cll CD
:J 3: en 0) ~ee ....
(jj'< 0) 0 CD :J
<- 0 0. o 3 :J 3 5- Cll-ee eeCD ....
(") CD -..... en :::l CD CD 3 ee
ii: 3 Q.:J":J" -.0) Cll'O ee iii' ~
CD C/I ee 0 Cll Cll 3 CD
CD c: CD -- (") .... 0) ~3~ ~ III 0.
:J Cll..,'O -CD CD :J :J <
.... iii (jI .., i ~ 0. 3 - ." ii'
5' '0 0
Cil :J - CD ." Cil ..
-0 :::l Cil :J -<
:J - .... :J C/I
III
. ,-
.f.
0107 Joint W.M.A,B, AND P.U,A.B, #2/97 April 18, 1997
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
WILD WATER KINGDOM
Gasoline Powered Go-Karts
In 1996, the Authority agreed to the construction of a go-kart facility at Wild Water
Kingdom. The electric powered go-karts proposed at the time are not cost effective and
gasoline powered equipment is proposed until alternative fuel vehicles are a practical
alternative.
Moved by: Richard O'Brien
Seconded by: Michael Di Biase
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT subject to all required terms and
conditions imposed by the Authority being satisfied, Wild Water Kingdom be permitted to
use gasoline powered go-karts for recreational use only, until such time as alternative
fuelled vehicles are a practical and cost effective alternative;
AND FURTHER THAT representatives of Wild Water Kingdom report back to the Authority
in 1998, and annually thereafter, on the future use of alternative fuelled vehicles and
other technological improvements.
RECORDED VOTE
Maria Augimeri . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
lIa Bossons .................................................... Nay
Victoria Carley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Michael Di Biase . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Eldred King .................................................... Nay
Joan King ..............................,...................... Nay
Jim McMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Richard O'Brien ................................................. Yea
Donna Patterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Paul Raina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Bev Salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Deborah Sword ................................................. Nay
Richard Whitehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
THE MOTION WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOT CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #2/96 of the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board, the
Board recommended and the Authority subsequently approved the construction of an
electric go-kart facility at Wild Water Kingdom. Such approval is necessary under the
terms and conditions of the Wild Water Kingdom lease.
Joint - W.M.A,B, and P.U.A.B. #2/97, April 18, 1997 0108
The Authority is in receipt of a request from Wild Water Kingdom to construct a go-kart
facility which will use emission-controlled gasoline powered go karts.
The facility will be located within the existing leased area of Wild Water Kingdom,
immediately adjacent to Finch Avenue, south of the main entrance and about 300 metres
north of the railway tracks and abutment. See attached illustration.
In the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan, the proposed go-kart facility is
located within a public/commercial management zone. This zone designation identifies
the area as suitable for existing or potential high intensity recreation and educational uses,
facilities or services and complimentary commercial development.
Representatives of Wild Water Kingdom will be in attendance at the April 18th meeting to
discuss the proposal. Attached is a fact sheet illustrating the comparable noise and
emission levels for equipment used in facilities such as this.
RATIONALE
The proposed go-kart facility is part of the total recreation experience available in this
location. The go-kart facility, along with the mini-golf and batting cages, will compliment
and support the water activities which are the primary feature of this recreation venue.
Because water facilities alone are very weather dependent, these complementary
activities extend the season and ensure attendance on marginal weather days, The
proposed Pitch and Putt Golf Course to the north will create further opportunities to build
attendance at all activities in the area.
Wild Water Kingdom has entered into discussions with operators of go-kart facilities for
the construction of the proposed facility. In the course of these negotiations, Wild Water
Kingdom has become aware that the electric vehicles they were hoping to use are not an
economical and practical alternative. The cost of such vehicles is too high to make the
facility financially viable. Also, electric powered vehicles used outdoors have potential
safety and maintenance problem and the performance of the electric vehicles will not
provide a satisfactory experience for users. Finally the electric go-kart company that Wild
Water Kingdom was dealing with is no longer in business.
Consideration has been given to alternative fuels such as propane and natural gas. Both
require the use of special fuel tanks and other modifications to the vehicles which at this
time cannot be safely and economically implemented. Natural gas may be a future option
but the site at Wild Water Kingdom is not serviced as yet.
Representatives of Wild Water Kingdom are requesting that the Authority approve the use
of emission controlled, gasoline powered vehicles until the alternative fuels can be safely
and economically implemented. Wild Water Kingdom has entered into an agreement with
an operating partner who has considerable experience and expertise in this field and who
is prepared to pursue the use of alternative fuels. To have the facility operational in
1997 requires that approval be granted to proceed with gasoline powered vehicles.
0109 Joint W,M.A.B. AND P,U.A.B. #2/97 April 18, 1997
Site Plans
The proponent is preparing detailed site plans. The facility will include a 3/4 mile track, a
small children's area with electric powered vehicles and a maintenance and storage area.
A covered maintenance facility will be constructed in the future. The track will handle 30
single occupant and 10 double occupant vehicles initially. The maximum number of
vehicles the track will accommodate is about sixty.
A meeting of the Claireville Technical Advisory Committee was held on April 15th at
which this proposal was discussed. There were three main areas of concern expressed by
the Technical Advisory Committee: noise, engine emissions and the philosophical issue
of the Authority condoning such an activity.
Noise
Staff is confident that the concerns around the noise levels and the impact on the
surrounding area can be addressed by recent improvements in the equipment and
mufflering technology and by the distance between the proposed track and adjacent uses.
The proximity of major arterial roads (Finch and Steeles) which are truck routes, the
railway, and highways 427 and 407, and air traffic create significant background noise
levels already. Hours of operation will be restricted to limit late night or early morning
noise issues.
Emissions
As noted in this report, the technology is improving with respect to these
gasoline/alcohol powered vehicles. The proponent has indicated their willingness to use
state of the art equipment and to pursue alternative fuels as they become available.
Appropriateness of the Activity
The philosophical issue of whether the Authority should be supporting a use that
generates exhaust emissions is a difficult one. The approach taken by staff is that this is
not only an opportunity to support Wild Water Kingdom and their business development,
but it is also an opportunity to exercise some influence on an industry by supporting an
operator who is committed to using the best available technology and perhaps more
importantly, being able to influence the development of new technologies and use of
alternate fuels.
The Authority can control the proponent's and any successors' operation through
specific conditions within our agreement such as what equipment must be used and
monitored and we can also require their active pursuit of new technologies and alternative
fuels. It may also be possible for us to facilitate partnerships with appropriate
organizations and agencies that might assist in research and development of improved
equipment.
Based on the discussion at the April 15th Technical Advisory Committee meeting, staff
are recommending the following as conditions which must be satisfied in order that the
Authority can support the go-kart proposal.
Joint - W.M.A.B, and P,U.A.B, #2/97, April 18, 1997 0110
. noise levels for the vehicles must meet the" legal requirements of the province and
local municipalities
. only emission-controlled four stroke engines of less than 6 hp will be used for the
main track (children's cars with electric power may be available in a separate area
. there will be regular inspection of the emission-control devices to ensure that they
are functioning properly
. all applicable Provincial and municipal regulations relating to operations, fuel and
safety will be strictly enforced
. used oil and other hazardous substances must be properly recycled or disposed of
in accordance with municipal and provincial regulations
. hours of operation will be limited to the period of no earlier than 10 am and no
later than 10 pm.
. Wild Water Kingdom and the go-kart operator shall make every effort to secure and
implement state of the art, environmentally friendly engine technology as soon as
it is practically available, and report to the Authority at least annually on their
efforts to secure such technology
. Wild Water Kingdom shall agree that approval of the Authority will be required if
there are to be significant changes to the operation of the go-kart facility and if
there is to be a different operator.
Subject to these conditions, staff recommend that the Authority support the proposal for
the gasoline fuelled go-karts within the Wild Water Kingdom leased area.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Wild Water Kingdom advises that the initial capital investment for this facility is about
$600,000. Further investment will occur when a covered maintenance facility is
constructed in 1998. The Authority does not participate in this capital investment.
As stated previously, the Authority's share of gross revenues would be the same as for
other Wild Water Kingdom attractions. All terms and conditions of the Authority's lease
with Wild Water Kingdom will apply to this facility. Estimated gross revenue for the go-
kart facility is $500,000 annually.
The Authority has approved the 1997-1999 Business Plan which includes direction to
increase lease revenue from recreation activities by $225,000 by 1999. This
recommendation is consistent with the business plan proposal.
For information contact:
Jim Dillane, ext. 220
0111 Joint W.M.A.B, AND P.U.A.B. #2/97 April 18, 1997
'\
..- .
I! ... "
(~ ' -
I
. ......
.
.
:
,
Proposed
, Go-Kart
Area
I
.. ..-.. ......
-
.,.., - ......... tz::rTt
., ~ c_ =-=--.... - '''.~ -.--, ~
- ~ ~...~."' ~.. ::. -:. ,'-. --'L.. ~ .;~'"/'
---..--.- '~'-'. / :/~ -
Joint - W.M,A.B. and P,U.A,B, #2/97, April 18, 1997 0112
# ~...
"
.
NOISE AND EMISSION LEVELS ON WEBBER GO-KARTS \
>>
These tests were conducted on 12/14192 at our facility in San Bernardino, J
California. The weather was clear and dry with an ambient temperature of 70
degrees. The vehicle used for testing was a Webber V-Racer equipped with a 5.5
HP Honda GX160KIRN Engine with a standard muffler.
. OPERATING NOISE LEVELS
7 METERS 10 METERS 30 METERS
74 (d8~A) 68 (dB-A) 64 (d8~A)
EMISSIONS LEVELS He % Co
Span Check 0 0
Idle (1200 RPM) 160 2.7
Wide open (3900 RPM) 70 2..9
Please be advised that these levels are within the limits of ~lIfomia emissions Standards.
TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS
"5c1:-HP~SIREN' ~', " ' .' '';'''~'' ' I --
I ,:.I' _...~.., .... . ,.... . I
.' ; '''I?AJ,~ THRESHOLD
"'" : 'AJrr~~NE' .--
I
, "" I ' AMPiiFIED' ROCK MUSIC I--
.' ,
. ,
I ni'uNDER .-
.
,. '" I
RIVETER ..
," ......... I .
' START"OF UNSAFE LEVELS
: . Y - I ~ t I
LOUD' ORCHESTRA
- I . ~
AVERAGE FACTORY I
" '''1 CONVERSATION .
"
BACKGROUND MUSIC I t t I
AVERAGE RESIDENCE . I
SOFT MUSIC . I I
QUIET WHISPER I I . I I I I
AEROBIC ROOM . I I I I I I I
HEARING THRESHOLD . I I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 $0 so 70 SO gO 100 110 120 1:\0 14
- (dB) (A-weighting)
C
0113 Joint W.M.A.B. AND P,U,A.B. #2/97 April 18, 1997
RES. #019/97 - TOUR OF FACILITIES AND OTHER WATERSHED FEATURES
RES. #E19/97 AND ISSUES
Possible Tour for Authority Members.
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Victoria Carley
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff be directed to arrange a
full day tour for members to visit Authority facilities, and locations which illustrate
watershed management and public use issues, in the western end of the Authority's area
of jurisdiction, on Tuesday, June 10, 1997.
AMENDMENT
RES. #020/97
RES. #E20/97
THA T Tuesday, June 10, 1997 be deleted from the main motion and replaced with
Friday, June 6, 1997.
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS .......................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On June 7, 1996, members of the Authority and staff toured several locations in the
easterly end of the Authority's area with an emphasis on ESA's and storm water
management. If the members have the time, a tour could be arranged for the western
end of the jurisdiction with a variety of stops to highlight waterfront sites, key locations
on the Humber and perhaps a visit to the Headwaters Trout Pond. It will be difficult to
find a date but I have suggested Tuesday, June 10, 1997 for consideration.
Report prepared by:
Brian Denney (Ext.2421
Joint - W.M.A,B. and P.U,A.B. #2/97, April 18, 1997 0114
RES. #021/97 - CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
RES. #E21/97 Review of the editorial changes to the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan by the Claireville Technical Advisory Committee.
Moved by: Lois Griffin
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff amend paragraph 2 on
page 8 of the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan to read as follows:
". . . habitat areas will be regenerated, and existing public use/commercial facilities
will be maintained or new facilities considered". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/97, held on April 4, 1997, resolution A46/97 was adopted that
states in part:
UTHA T the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan, dated February 28,
1997, as attached, be approved".
Because some minor editorial changes were made throughout the text, resolution A47 /97
was also adopted that states:
uTHA T the Claireville Conservation Area Technical Advisory Committee review the
highlighted changes contained within the Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan, dated February 28, 1997 and advise the Full Authority of the
decisions of the Committee".
The Claireville Technical Advisory Committee members were requested to review the
recommended changes to satisfy themselves that the changes did not alter the original
intent of the Management Plan.
On April 15, 1997, staff met with the Technical Advisory Committee. The Committee
recommended the wording of paragraph 2 on page 8 be left as presented to the
Watershed Management Advisory Board on February 28, 1997, which reads:
". . . habitat areas will be regenerated, and existing public use/commercial facilities
will be maintained or new facilities considered".
The remaining textual changes were acceptable to the Claireville Technical Advisory
Committee.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, ext. 211
0115 Joint W.M.A,B. AND P.U,A.B, #2/97 April 18, 1997
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :50 a.m., April 18,1997
Richard Whitehead Craie Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
Ipl
~
", the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #3/97
April 18, 1997 Page D 116
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the North Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, April 18, 1997. The Chair, Lois
Griffin, called the meeting to order at 11 :55 a.m.
PRESENT
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Joan King .................................................. Member
Jim McMaster ............................................,.. Member
Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . Member
RES. #022/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Joan King
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/97, held February 28, 1997, be received. . .. CARRIED
0117 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
DELEGA TIONS
The following lists of delegates spoke with respect to Environmentally Significant Areas
(ESAs), please refer to Res. #025/97, page 0118.
(a) Mr. Robert Cumming of Emery Investments
fe: ESA 90
(b) Mr. Claudio P. Brutto of Brutto Consulting Ltd.
fe: ESA 90
(c) Mr. Bob Murgatroyd of R. E. Murgatroyd Ltd.
fe: ESA 90
(d) Mr. Donald F. Given of Malone, Given, Parsons Ltd.
fe: ESA 140, ESA 126 and ESA 98
(e) Mr. Nick De Boer
re: ESA 52
(f) Mr. Steven Aube
re: ESA 126
RES. #D23/97 - DELEGA TIONS
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Joan King
THA T the above delegations be received. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter, dated April 18, 1997, from Mr. M. Jepp of Urban Development Institute,
re: Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs). Please refer to delegation list above,
and Res. #025/97, page 0118.
RES. #D24/97 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Joan King
THAT the above item of correspondence (a) be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0118
RES. #D25/97 - ENVIRONMENT ALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs)
Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory
The adoption of changes to the Authority's inventory of ESAs as a
result of recent field investigations and evaluations.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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;
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.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D26/97
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Joan King
THAT Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) #52, #90, #93, #126, #136 and #140 be
deferred back to staff for further review and that a report be brought back no later than
October 1997;
THAT Environmentally Significant Area #93 be withdrawn;
THAT staff be directed to meet with Mark Jepp, representing Urban Development
Institute (UDn to determine if UDI would like additional ESAs deferred for further review,
prior to Authority Meeting #3/97 on April 25, 1997.
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0119 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
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;
(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 are,as.
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).
One ESA, the King-Vaughan Complex, was proposed to be taken in advance of the 1996
annual report since the boundaries were already under public review as part of the
Township of King's secondary plan for the King Community. At the Authority meeting
on January 24, 1997, a representative of one of the landowners requested that the item
be deferred as they had not had time to review the information. As a result, the
Authority adopted the following resolution.
RES. #A291/96
NTHA T the King- Vaughan Complex Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) item be
referred back to staff"'.
Subsequently, staff have spoken with the landowner, Mr. Romita, several times and met
with him on site on February 17, 1997. The boundary of the ESA within his property was
walked and it was confirmed that the plantations that he was wanting to manage were
not part of the ESA thus satisfying his concerns. The King-Vaughan Complex has been
included as part of this annual report on ESAs.
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0120
1 996 Annual Update on ESAs
To the end of 1996 field season, investigations have been completed for the following 14
ESAs:
1 ) Eight sites identified in the 1982 ESA Study were re-evaluated:
. ESA 58 Spiranthes, remains unchanged from the original study;
. Boundary extensions were made for ESA 52, Castlederg; ESA 56, King
Creek Forest; ESA 90, Jefferson Forest; ESA 93, Bloomington; ESA 96,
Duffins Marsh; ESA 98, Whitevale Corridor; and ESA 126, Frenchman's
Bay;
. The descriptions for all sites were updated to reflect the new designation
criteria approved in 1993.
2) Six new ESAs were identified:
. Three in the Humber watershed, ESA 135, Mellow Swamp; ESA 136,
Spiraea; and ESA 137, King-Vaughan Complex;
. Two in the Rouge watershed, ESA 138, Rouge Park Swamp; and ESA 139,
Milne Woods;
. One in the Duffins watershed, ESA 140, Seaton Node.
A table listing these ESAs, including the criteria fulfilled and the boundary changes , is
attached. A map depicting the general location of the ESAs is also attached. The full
descriptions can be found in Appendix WM 1 /97.
1996 Landowner Contact
Over 460 owners of land within or adjacent to the new and updated ESAs were
contacted early in March, by using the assessment roles, Staff received between 25 and
30 enquiries from people with questions or concerns. The majority of the calls related to
the Jefferson Forest (ESA 90). More than half of the landowners contacted were
associated with this very large ESA that contains a number of estate residential
developments and is surrounded by agricultural uses.
The most common questions asked related to existing uses. Staff assured landowners
that existing approved uses and the enjoyment of their property would not be affected by
the adoption of the changes in the ESA boundary. Others were concerned about the
implications to their future plans for development. Staff clarified that this type of
resource information is provided to the municipalities and is used by this Authority when
reviewing proposed changes in land use with the intent of safeguarding the features and
functions of these significant natural areas.
0121 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
Staff also received a number of requests from landowners for additional information and
technical advice to assist them in protecting and enhancing the features and functions of
the ESAs on their properties. For example, areas that could be planted were identified and
advice on appropriate species was given.
DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will continue to work towards achieving an up-to-date inventory of ESAs within the
jurisdiction. The primary focus of the 1997 field investigations and Field Reports will be:
1 ) Sites that need to be evaluated or updated to support the Authority's plan input
and review activities.
2) Sites within the Humber watershed to support the implementation of the Humber
watershed strategy.
3) Several kettle lakes and wetlands within the Oak Ridges Moraine.
For information contact: Dena Lewis, ext. 225
\
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0122
Attachment #1
.
J ! ,
1 en
I I )0- w
>-
I. I en Q iil ~ I
w
. I ,.. :::l w
Iii I iil U ~ ~ >-
l/) c
- I I ,. ; : .
II: w .( .
;>> !J
! l/) u ~ .
A~ en co
!.oJ ...
. 2! I
I
- -
- ' 0 eX)
. 1'1
-c ~ =
0- -
E~ co Q.
J::.- 'C E
0- 0 0
~ >. Z 'J -
l/) Cl
... 0 c: _ 1'1
l.o.CD .9 ~ -
... -
0 0
co a. ~
l/) 0
0
::
;;0
alCl _
-- C'""
c: _ 0,.., _
Oen~-CXl
- <<) C\- &t)
g'o6x-
.-l.o.>~ en
E Q.eo
ggg'E:5
iIi~~85
cu ...
- c..
-
eo l/)
..,
10
It'l--
_ION
_1'11t'l
'"=--
~ 0 01
o Cll ... ~
l.o. 0 co
...~
~._ Cll
CU Q.::
co l/) en
... 0
U U
01
c:
iO:
0123 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
Attachment #2
NEW. REVlSED AND DElETED ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
1998 FIELD SEASON SUMMARY TABLE
WATERSHED CfUTERIA BOUNDARY MUNICI-
ESA NUMBER AND NAME FUlFIll.ED MODIFICATION PAUTY
.'
HUMBER
52 Castlederg 2. 6. 7. 8 extend east Caledon
56 King Creek Forest 2.3.5.6.8.9 extend north KIng
58 Spiranttles 5 none King
135 Mellow Swamp 5.6.7 new ESA Caledon
136 Spiraea 2. 5. 6. 7 new ESA King
137 King Vaughan Complex2, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 new ESA King
ROUGE
90 Jefferson Forest 2. 5. 6. 7, 8 large extension Richmond Hill
93 BloomIngton 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 extend east. north Richmond Hill/Aurora
138 Rouge Pari< Swamp 5.6.7 new ESA Scarborough
139 Milne Woods 6.7 new ESA Markham
DUFFINS
96 Duffins M~h 4. S. 6. 6. 9 extend north. west Pickenng/Ajax
98 Whitevale Oorridor 3. S. 6. 7. 8 extend east. west Pickering
140 SeB%Cn Node 2. S. 6. 7, a new ESA Pickering
WATERFRONT
126 Frenchman's Bay 1, 4, 5. 6. 7, a, 9 extend south, east Pickering
Criteria by number and title:
1 geological feature
2 hydrological function
3 corridor
4 essential habitat
5 rare species
8 quality habitat
7 remnant habitat
!J extensive habitat
9 provincially significant (ANSI or class 1-3 wetland)
.
April 1 8, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0124
ESA90
Environmentally Significant Area #90
>",en regiolt
ClIft_lion
City of Richmond Hill
..>'
..
_ E.S.A. #90 - Jefferson Forest -
(f)
scale:
630 0 630 1260 1890 Meters
, - 1996
0125 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
RES. #D27/97 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT
1995-1999
Continuation of the site development at Colonel Samuel Smith
Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the 1997 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 $825,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Over the past four years, much of the site development, landscaping and wetland
enhancement work at Colonel Samuel Smith Park was completed. Official opening of the
park took place in June, 1996,
Further site development work still to be completed, include pathways, navigation lights,
landscaping and final armouring of the outer shoreline. In 1996, a coastal engineering
study was undertaken to assess the stability of the outer shoreline and final shoreline
treatment designs were developed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The major development components for 1997 include the final armouring of the
breakwater and construction of a series of groynes and beaches to protect the south
shoreline,
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.
In addition, landscaping and grading will be completed at the southeast headland
(Hardpoint 3) and along the south interior shoreline of the boating basin.
Subject to the progress of the final shoreline armouring, the 1997 development program
includes the installation of navigation lights at the ends of the breakwater and southerly
headland (Hardpoint 4),
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for 1997 is $825,000, and funds for this work are located in Account
No. 204.
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: Joe Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
.
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0126
. -.~ ~ UJ lLJ
-o:::~ !=
:::E<(O U1......
I j (/)o...U I'Z
- -oJ -
Wf-lD (j)lLJ
Q) =>ZO (j)~
L.. :::EO...... _0..
I ::J <: lLJ 0
0' (/)0::: O.....J
. - -oJ lL.. lL.. lLJlLJ
~ u... wo:::O U1->
5UJ~ olLJ
~ -oJf- 0..0
~ 0<(- 0
x u3:u a::
0..
-~ ..,
c i~;
..
E
_0
0..
c.
[;....
..
-c
0,_
_0;
'E~
-... N~
Q ...
~o
E~
0_
lI'Ic
0
- .
..-
c.
0"
00 ~
(.J~
--
c:
'0
Q,
"'C
~
C
Z
~
c,j
~
iii
...i
---,
..
:c
co
~
0 c
'C ,2
-' 0 ;;
'............... -- co
c '>
0
0 Z
-.:J
..
..
Q) 0
~
~ 0
0 Q:
.....J
0
0127 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
RES. #028/97 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY
AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront,
City of Scarborough
Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works
along the Sylvan Avenue sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of
Scarborough.
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the 1997 construction program for the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of
Scarborough, under the" Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley Shoreline
Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total cost of $650,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
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. In 1995, the rubble core revetment was completed to the westerly end of
the project. In addition, approximately 60 metres of final armouring was completed.
During 1996, the armouring of the east headland (No.1) was completed and headlands 2,
3 & 4 were approximately 80% armoured. In addition, the entire length of access road
was raised by approximately 1 metre, and imported clean fill was placed and graded along
the base of the bluffs.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In addition to completing the headlands commenced in 1996, it is proposed that an
additional three headlands be constructed, including final armouring, and to raise the
access road and backslope to the final design height. Further, staff propose to construct
the easterly underwater reef and beach section, to create nearshore aquatic habitat as part
of the fish compensation component.
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.
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0128
Environ'mental monitoring for the project in 1997 will include a fisheries survey, and
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
1997 to provide input and direction to the project implementation. The success of this
project and its implementation can be attributed to the continuing participation of the three
community representatives on the Committee. Three newsletters have been sent out to
the community to keep them informed on the work progress.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001", approved at Authority Meeting # 1/97. The
total budget for 1997 is $650.000 and funds for this work are located in Account Nos.
133-03 & 133-23. A request for $325,000 Provincial funding has been made for 1997.
In 1996, the Province provided 50% participation.
For information contact: Joe Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
0129 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
map
'..
~
...
0
'c
c
C
0
Q)
~ I-
0 U
~
w
~
0
0::
a..
I-
z
W 0
~ w
W 0
<..:) -<
c: <: Q:
0 Z c.:l
'&l w
<: Q:
Q) ~
s.. 0
"0 W Z
c: Z -<
IS ::J 0
0 w w
~
.. 0:: ...J
C:>. o~ r;:
0....
s..,_ :7:0\ w
os.. (/') ~
....0 m
.c 0 ,
c:.... lLJ'- ~
IS=' => 0
::::IS z~ ~
'Oc: w 0
C.o ~~ Q:
0- -<
s......
....IS z-
Q)> ~
E; <: 0
O'l ~>.
Q)C:
.co >-:::
....C,1 (/')u
A
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0130
RES. #D29/97 - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO DON WATERSHED
REGENERATION COUNCIL
Mr. Tracy Smith, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
Membership appointment to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Mr. Tracy Smith of the Ministry of
Natural Resources be appointed as a member to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council;
AND FURTHER THAT Mr. Smith be requested to serve and contribute to the Don Council
until the end of the Council's term, being November 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Mr. J.K. Barker, the recently retired District ManagerlDirector GT A of the Ministry of
Natural Resources corresponded with Mr, Brian Denney of this office requesting that Mr.
Tracy Smith be appointed as a member to the Don Council. MNR would like to have a
stronger role in some of the strategic initiatives and to have representation on some of the
committees.
For information contact: Adele Freeman (Ext. 238)
RES. #D30/97 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting # 1/97
The minutes of Meeting # 1/97 held February 20, 1997 of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #1/97 held February 20, 1997, 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
0131 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
MOTION TO DEFER
RES. #031/97
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT the report on the Humber Watershed Alliance be deferred to the next Watershed
Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/97, to be held May 16, 1997. . . . . .. CARRIED
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0132
RES. #032/97 - YORK REGION LONG TERM-WATER PROJECT
Class Environmental Assessment
Response to Authority concerns with respect to the Region of York's
proposed Long Term Water Project.
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THAT BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report and the
response from the York Region Long Term Water Project be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to monitor progress of the project insofar as it may
affect Authority interests.
AMENDMENT
RES. #033/97
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THAT Authority staff be directed to determine if the proposal can still be subject to a
ubump up" to a full environmental assessment and advise Members at Authority meeting
#3/97, to be held on April 25, 1997.
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0133 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
BACKGROUND
To accommodate projected future growth in the Region of York, the Region invited
proposals for a public/private partnership to develop and implement a long term water
supply strategy. In March 1996, Consumers Utilities was selected as the Region's private
sector partners. In July 1996, staff received notice of this project and identified that it
would be of interest to the Authority. We asked to be kept informed. The York Region
Long Term Water Project, October 1996, Class Environmental Assessment - Summary of
Alternatives was subsequently forwarded to the Authority for comments.
A staff report and recommendations were considered by the Executive Committee at
meeting #11/96 and the Committee resolved:
"RES. #8188/96
THA T the staff report regarding the Region of York Long Term Water Supply
Project, Class Environmental Assessment - Summary of Alternatives, dated
December 4, 1996, be received;
THA T a copy of the report be forwarded to the Region of York and Consumers
Utilities as the Authority's preliminary comments with respect to the proposed
project;
THA T staff be directed to pursue these concerns with the proponents and to report
on this matter to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory;
AND FURTHER THA T representatives from the Region of York and Consumers
Utilities be invited to be present at the Advisory Board meeting. ,.
The following areas were of interest to the Authority:
. the use of the Class Environmental Assessment process for a project of this potential
magnitude;
. the impact of this proposal on growth and settlement patterns in York Region and on
the watershed management interests of the Authority, including stormwater
management;
. the consideration of alternatives that involve a diversion of water from one lake basin to
another, (i.e. Georgian Bay Independent; Georgian Bay with expanded Metro Supply);
. the potential environmental impacts of the routing of the proposed pipelines on the
natural environment resource base, particularly the valley and stream corridors and the
Oak Ridges Moraine, and the potential impacts on any Authority owned lands. The
Authority has had an opportunity to review and comment on any of the background
technical reports that address potential impacts on the natural environment;
April 18. 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0134
. how the overall water supply strategy meets the relevant objectives of the Authority's
watershed management strategies, (i.e. 40 Steps to a New Don; Legacy: A Strategy for
a Healthy Humber) and further, how the water supply strategy meets the goals and
objectives of the Metro Region Remedial Action Plan; and
. the proposed methods of treating and managing wastewater.
Staff forwarded the report and the Executive resolution to the York Region Long Term Water
Project and has received a reply, dated March 3, 1997, which is appended to this report.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
It appears that the main issues raised by the Authority are satisfied by the response of the
York Region Long Term Water Project. In particular, the indication is that valley and
stream corridors will not be proposed for the routing of the infrastructure to implement the
project.
Staff will monitor the progress of the project and bring forward information regarding its
implementation where it could affect the interests of the Authority.
For information contact:
Alyson Deans ext. 269
-- - - --
.
0135 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
,.;,(.~':- - '
.... ~
M'!.~' . Consumers
LONG TERM WA7D PRojEer Utili:ties ~
.
.
~ard1 3, 1997
- -
Ms. AIyson C. Deans, Manager
Corporate Planning & Communications
Metropordan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 154
Dear Ms. Deans:
Re: York Region I Consumers Utilities
Lang renn Water Project
As discussed with you recentty, we are providing the following comments with
respect to the issues raised in your December 13. 1996 communication to your
Chair and members of the Executive Committee.
We would first like to emphasize that the development of a long term water supply
strategy is a necessary step in implementing the Region's Official Plan. The Plan
states that "It is generally the Region's intent to supply major urbanized areas with
water from the Great Lakes, thus freeing up groundwater resources fer agricultural,
rural and recreational uses and optimizing emergent flow into creeks, streams and
rivers. .
While there are other elements to the long term water strategy that was adopted by
Regional Council an December 19, 1996, the selection of a preferred external
supply option to enable expansion of the Great Lakes supply within York was a key
component
~ would emphasize that the exercise has been entirely geared to servicing the
anded water demands attributable to the Regional Official Plan.
We feel that use of the Class Environmental Assessment fer this project was, and
continues to be, appropriate. The documentation fer the Class Environmental
Assessment describes the following types of water projects as activities subject to
the full planning process (the most rigorous) of the Class EA;
17250 YONCE STREET Bo.r147 NEmIWUcET, ONTA6iO OY 6Z1
TEL: (!}OS) 830-0900 1-888-YORK-HzO ~S) i64-6344
.
Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0136
April 18, 1997
. *~~ ..~~~~hment
.
M~ Consumers
Utilities ~
-
-
. Page 2-
1. Construct a new water system
2. Construct new water treatment plant or expand existing water treatment plant
beyond existing rated capacity
3. Establish a new surface water source
4. Artificially rec..,arge and existing aquifer from a su~ce water source for
purposes of water supply
As well, the Class document addresses the issue of Master Plans which involve an
overall system approac.., rather than a project specific one. We believe the Master
Plan concept is applicable to us.
The consideration of the altemative involving a water taking from Georgian Bay was,
in our opinion. necessary. The Class Environmental Assessment document
requires that .all reasonable solutions shall be identified and described.'
We feel that details with respec: to pipeline routing can be addressed later. The
corridors we have identified are one kilometre wide and therefore provide
considerable flexibility in actual pipeline location. We would note that the general
intent is to follow existing road allowances. We would not be proposing construction
in or along valley and stream corridors.
We have on hand a considerable quantity of technical material relating to the
project. We would welcome you to visit us here so that we can review it with you.
Yours truly, '
~~
N. L Embree, P. Eng.
Joint Project Manager - York Region
NLElan
0137 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
RES. #034/97 - TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY BOARD
Review of Terms of Reference for the Watershed Management Advisory
Board.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference for the
Watershed Management Advisory Board be established as follows:
To initiate, study, report and recommend a comprehensive program of watershed
management for the region under the jurisdiction of the Authority, and without restricting
the foregoing, the specific Terms of Reference shall include:
. development and implementation of watershed management strategies and
shoreline management strategies, based on ecosystem planning approaches, which
integrate environment, society and economy and are widely supported by
municipalities, landowners and communities;
. policy, program and project development in the areas of environmental management
of urban growth; protection and enhancement of "green infrastructure";
ecologically sound agricultural practices; protection and restoration of headwaters,
marshes and other terrestrial and aquatic features;
. research and monitoring to understand and track watershed health;
. planning land acquisition including identification of critical properties for public
ownership to protect significant features and environmental functions such as
habitat linkages;
. inspire and support community involvement in all aspects of environmental
management on a watershed basis;
. operation and maintenance of all Authority water management structures;
. location and phasing of remedial flood and erosion control projects and
environmental regeneration activities;
. development and operation of the flood warning and forecasting system;
. planning and development of waterfront recreational projects and environmental
regeneration activities;
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0138
. recommendation and administration of regulations for fill, construction and
alteration to waterways applicable to valley and waterfront lands, and the means of
their enforcement;
. management agreements for Authority lands to be maintained by other agencies or
enabling the Authority to care for the lands of other owners . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority Governance Review adopted by the Authority at Meeting #11/96 on
December 20, 1996 changed the name of the Water and Related land Management
Advisory Board to the Watershed Management Advisory Board.
The review also recommended:
THA T the Terms of Reference for these Boards should be reviewed by the
respective Board and modifications made if required, to ensure they reflect the role
of developing programs, recommending strategic directions and monitoring the
delivery and outcomes of programs and projects that fall within the responsibilities
of each Board;
The previous Terms of Reference for the Water and Related land Management Advisory
Board were as follows:
To initiate, study, report on, and recommend a comprehensive program of water
management in the region under the jurisdiction of the Authority, and, without restricting
the foregoing, the specific Terms of Reference shall include:
. policy, program, and project development in the areas of flood control, erosion and
sediment control, storm water management, land acquisition, shoreline
management, lake Ontario waterfront development, and conservation land
management;
. operation and maintenance of all water management structures;
. location and phasing of remedial flood and erosion control projects;
. planning and development for waterfront development, including landfills,
structures and recreation facilities;
. consideration of acquisition and creation of lands for hazard and conservation
purposes and/or for the development of waterfront recreation facilities;
0139 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
. development and operation of the flood warning and forecasting system;
. recommendation of regulations for fill, construction, and alteration to waterways
applicable to valley and waterfront lands, and the means of their enforcement;
. provision of conservation services on private, public, and Authority lands, including
farm plans and farm pond services, reforestation, shrub planting, farm tree
replacement, streambank stabilization, and the management of designated
environmentally significant areas.
The primary change is to illustrate our emphasis on the preparation of integrated
watershed management strategies. These strategies must embrace all aspects of the
Authority's programs as well as attempt to influence the activities of other agencies,
municipalities, businesses and individuals.
The following Terms of Reference are put forward as suggestions by staff for discussion
by the Board:
To initiate, study, report and recommend a comprehensive program of watershed
management for the region under the jurisdiction of the Authority, and without restricting
the foregoing, the specific Terms of Reference shall include:
. development and implementation of watershed management strategies and
shoreline management strategies, based on ecosystem planning approaches, which
integrate environment, society and economy and are widely supported by
municipalities, landowners and communities;
. policy, program and project development in the areas of environmental management
for urban growth; protection and enhancement of "green infrastructure";
ecologically sound agricultural practices; protection and restoration of headwaters,
marshes and other terrestrial and aquatic features;
. research and monitoring to understand and track watershed health;
. planning land acquisition including identification of critical properties for public
ownership to protect significant features and environmental functions such as
habitat linkages;
. inspire and support community involvement in all aspects of environmental
management on a watershed basis;
. operation and maintenance of all water management structures;
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0140
. location and phasing of remedial flood and erosion control projects and
environmental regeneration activities;
. development and operation of the flood warning and forecasting system;
. planning and development of waterfront recreational projects and environmental
regeneration activities;
. recommendation and administration of regulations for fill, construction and
alteration to waterways applicable to valley and waterfront lands, and the means of
their enforcement;
. management agreements for Authority lands to be maintained by other agencies or
enabling the Authority to care for the lands of other owners.
Report prepared by: Brian Denney (ext.242)
0141 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
chart .
. e: - - c
>- C a 0_
a a: c: CD .s
~ CD --c Q.
0 a: - E CCD
. -a ~.. .!! -
"5 - CeCD c CD E CD- CL-a C
c CD ca CD cCD CD
-a .. CD ECDCD 0= 1;0 _CD= E:!
c CD ca Co CD aCD .c.c-o
a E. CDCDe Ee ~c> GO
- CDca .ca:ca c Ee ~.!!. --,
c CD CDa acn~ C o ca ... -
- C eI. a.c-o '0 0
CD a ca.. C~-e c o E
E ,gc ~i.s :>-
~ c:. a 0 CD Ii.= cel.
-
CD CD ~ E...~ >:2 ~ ii:c ~.2 CD -0 -c
ca - - ..~. -.e:
. a -0 D<.c.!~CD _.2 c J -.'en_. ~o
c: CD ~ =rn.!!~8 e .C: - CD 0 8"a. "8~= --
o CD E- e:-
en . .c ...oW~ a. -- ::I~
~ - _CD c=
.W - ::I - -c o c cao :s g E CD
- CD o CL CD CD "CD OCDe: EI
... -0 ... ~ca
CD ca -"C -a >.c c: "C -!! CD
- CD c: ca CD OCD
..J .c 3: c _ cac .!==
- . a:ca I . I 3: a:: W~ -I CD DCD u!!
m "-a
- CD ..
en - .
Z . 0
0 ::= I . I I I I I
a-
en
w
CC
Q - "C
C C CD -
2 CD CD en _iii
<I: E ~
CD - CD o ;
Co c: - - - . -
en CD 0 .E -CD 1:1- C
- CD o => ca CD en CD
W - Ii a: CD en CD 1ft __0
..J >- - > ::I CD ~Q.ca c :::: Q E
E _CD
0 - CD - c: :> ~-= CD CD CD C. =
- Q-cCo
... E 'Q en CD- -c= Ea - "3 c:
a: 0 CD CD :>- CD- CDc:~ CD c: CD 0;:
.c Q CD c_ CD.!!:! ~Q c..CDen a- => C" ...
Q CD a; CD ... - Q.f! en _ c:>>:: W 0
- (,) CD -c: III en CD Q.
'CC :: ::I = CD >- caea.. "C
<I: C al"C 0- -Coc: - Co- c: CD
< CD .. - ::I == CD':: 111-- _ _ c: CD a:
:> c.s CD .. ::I ~.. 111-0
0 - - ::I"C aal - 0 _ CIJ CD 111- . a;
- - CD .. CD - - - -~ Q-c.. =.s.ai=
m ::I :: CD >oa - a CD- 1110_ CD 13
u.. "Co CD _ .s 0 -C C 13
U -::I .:.:: CD ::I ::I - 1ft 0 c:
> c= ':=c c< ~c:_ -c-c:;:: :c
CD ... c CC::ICD a
CC ~ CD >- ::I C CD CD c_ O 0 Q ::I~O~ CD C
0 W CD .. ~<( ~= <(0 (J Co CD u.Eu._ > i!:
o 0 en en
en co!!
- CD >
> c"C
Q ~< . . I . I . i
<
u.. .
0
> CD =
a: ca c:
c:t "C c: - - ::I C
C C o 0 e 0 -c_ "C ...
::i CD 0 ca: c~c: c.:.:: CD
. -C'" 0"
...0;: 'CDoc CDa CD CD
:E c: CD o-c _;::.2 ...CD c:
CD :> Q - CD ,,;:e: e:-- C ~ 0
~ "C E a; ::leU a CD CD - III CDCJ 0
.. "C--c 'CD EO=>
en CD Co- CD CD_ - .. ~- 'E .:.:: c:
0 o c: _Q.CD Q= CoCD: Q.o 0
CD - 0 oou:: CD CD ,g .!!' CD CD
CDu - - .2.=e: CD
>- - -C c: - CD CD CD
:> CD - 0
.. CD - cc::o a . =>-u :> - CD >~
0 -C 0 CD CD_ e:ca CD 0 CDo=
'" Ecne .Ec -cco "Cc> --
"5 - c: c=
"C =0 CoE~ =ca E.2- CDO~ = 0
e:- CD CD
C c:'CDCD .ECDCD -- CD-CD .5";: CD e.:!
CD-" . - - a .. c: ca CD
CD C ... CD :> = e: -=.:.:: a-- c-c e.c
'" CD CD CD CD 0 0 ~'E- OCDe: CD CD 0 o 0
:J _ Q. 0- o Q.CJ e: a III _c.CD _ c._ u:
a.. 0< __a.. A.oU a.. o a..
.2
:is
::I
a- t t . I I .
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0142
RES. #D35/97 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BRAM EAST SECONDARY
PLAN
City of Brampton, Humber River Watershed
Receipt of correspondence from staff at the City of Brampton outlining
proposed modifications to the Bram East Secondary Plan related to the
Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan and the proposed
Williams Parkway Extension.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the correspondence from the City
of Brampton dated April 8, 1997, be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Brampton and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs &
Housing be advised that The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority will
support the approval of the Bram East Secondary Plan subject to the incorporation of the
proposed modifications and wording as suggested by staff at the City of Brampton in their
letter of April 8, 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/97, held April 4, 1997, staff was directed to bring a final report
for Authority approval regarding proposed amendments to the Bram East Secondary Plan
related to the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan and the proposed Williams
Parkway Extension. (Resolution #A25/97)
Authority staff has met on a number of occasions with representatives from the City for
the purpose of finalizing proposed wording for the Bram East Secondary Plan. Attached is
correspondence received from the City of Brampton dated April 8, 1997, which outlines
proposed modifications to the policies and schedules of the Secondary Plan.
There are two main areas of concern relating to the Claireville Conservation Area lands as
contained within the Bram East Secondary Plan, being the land use designation of
Authority lands within the study area and the proposed Williams Parkway Extension.
0143 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Proposed Amendment 1 in the attached City of Brampton letter relates to Authority lands
situated at the northwest corner of Highway 7 and McVean Drive. A new policy is
proposed which would have the effect of designating the lands Special Policy Area 1
(Office), prohibiting industrial uses and identifying that there shall be a predominance of
office uses and associated commercial uses with a high standard of design and
landscaping that is complementary to the adjacent Conservation Area lands.
Proposed Amendment 2 in the attached City of Brampton letter relates to Authority lands
situated at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and McVean Drive. A new policy is
proposed which would have the effect of designating the lands Special Policy Area 2
(Public Use/Commercial), prohibiting industrial uses and identifying that there shall be
public uses and associated commercial uses that are suited for the existing or potential
high intensity recreational and educational uses, facilities or services with a high standard
of design and landscaping that is complementary to the adjacent Conservation Area lands.
The balance of Authority lands within the Bram East Secondary Plan will be designated
Conservation Lands in accordance with the approved Claireville Conservation Area
Management Plan.
Authority staff is of the opinion that the proposed policy wording and schedules as
suggested by staff at the City of Brampton in their April 8, 1997, correspondence is
consistent with the adopted Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan regarding land
use designations of Authority lands, and therefore acceptable.
.
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0144
PROPOSED WILLIAMS PARKWAY EXTENSION
On April 2, 1997, Council of the City of Brampton advised of their commitment to
commence an environmental assessment study process regarding the proposed extension
of Williams Parkway in 1997. Correspondence to this effect was received by the
Authority at Meeting #2/97, held April 4, 1997.
Proposed Amendment 7 in the attached City of Brampton letter proposes to incorporate
additional wording into the policy provisions associated with the Williams Parkway
extension, identifying the need for an environmental assessment which demonstrates a
clear need for the transportation capacity, explores and evaluates all alternatives before
they are constrained by further development, and fully assesses, the social and
environmental impacts of each such alternative including the impacts on the Claireville
Conservation lands and the associated tributaries of the Humber River. Additionally, the
proposed wording specifically references the need to consider the management techniques
identified within Section 9.4.2 of the approved Claireville Conservation Area Management
Plan should the final alignment remain within the Claireville lands.
Authority staff is of the opinion that the proposed wording suggested by staff at the City
of Brampton in their April 8, 1997, correspondence is consistent with the adopted
Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan regarding the proposed Williams Parkway
Extension, and therefore acceptable.
0145 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
CONCLUSION
The proposed modifications set out in the City's letter of April 8, 1997, as they relate to
the Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan and the proposed Williams Parkway
Extension is consistent with the adopted Claireville Conservation Area Management Plan.
Subject to the incorporation of the proposed modifications and wording into the Bram East
Secondary Plan, the Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority will support
the approval of the Secondary Plan by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing.
For information contact: Luch Ognibene (Ext. 284)
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0146
map .- .
It The Corpor:lDoa of the City of BramplDD 2 WcIT'&ftlPDI' s_ West
Ba=qIIDn. ON !.by 4tt:
~ Planning and BuDding Department I'l:IIlIIin&: 905117 4-ZQSO
101m A. Marsba1l. M.c.P_ M.C.1.P_ Commissioner Fu: 9051174-2D99
...... ... 0..- k r --"II s.rric&s. 8laiIcIini. BuiJdinI: 9051174-140 I
....... PaIicy ... ~ Urt.l Ocsip 3Dd Zoaina Fu: 9051174-1499
April S. 1997 RECEIVED
Mr. Brim E. Dczmey
!he M=opolitan TorantD ami Region Coasc:rvation Awhority APR 9 1997
- 5 Shordmm Drive
Downmew, Onl3rio - PUN RE'/IEW secnON
M3N 1S4 M.T,~,C.A.
D=r Mr. Dc:m=y:
RE: Br:am E:ut (formerly E:astpte) Secoadary PWl
MTllCA's Proposed Amendments
Pl2mm1g rue: P"'~S~l
In rcspouse to your Ic:ttcr of~~ 19. 1997. ami a subsequent meeting with Luch Ognibene and Gary
Wilkins em April 2. 1991. :0 discuss ~ MTRCA conccms as addressed in the above-aotcd letter. the
following oudines the n:xmal ,...,_dm...,rs to the Bram East Secondary Plan as tmtatively agreed to by
your staft As wen. attached far your :'CView, is a revised section of Schedule SP41(a) of the adoptcd
Bram East Secondary Plan wbicf1 shews the proposed :tm~m.,.-, to the Imd. use designations within
the Mrn.CA lmds (CWrvUle Cocscr"r.uion lands).
TENT xnvv.t. V J,~"'F.n ..\.MVNn~ TO THE B'RAM EAST ~F.("nNT)ARV 'PT AN:
NOTE: words proposed to be included ~ identified by double uadcrfuring and words proposed to
be deleted are idcmified by S1rila: oua..
Amendment #1: '"3..2.16 (new policy) In the Special Policy Ar= 1 (Office) designated Mixed
Commcrcialllndusttial on the northwest parcel of Highway 7 and McYe:m Drive. there shall be a
predominance of office uses and associatcd commercial uses with a high standard of design and
landscaping that is complc::mcn!3rY to the adjacent Conservation Ar= lands. Industrial uses on this
parcel ofland shall be prohibited. ..
Amendment 112: '"3..2.17 (new policy) In the Special Policy Ar= 2 (Public Use/Commercial)
designated Mi'tCd CommcciallIndustria on the southwest parcel of Highway 7 and McYe:m Drive,
there shal1 be public uses ami associated commercial uses that are suited for the e:tisting or potential high
intensity recrctional and cdw::lrional uses. facilities or services with il high smndard of design and
landsc:1pini that is complementary to the adjacent Conservation Arc:1 lands. Industrial uses on this
pUCel ofland sh:IJl be prohibited....
Amendment #3: '"3..3.1 L.mds designatcd Yalleyland on Schedule SP41(a) have been
identified by the Conservation Authonty 3S having inherent environmental haz:lrds including flood ~
ero~ion susccpnbility ;md conaibution... ~
Amendment #4: '"3.3.2 .-Setbacks. if re~ifea. s~l be determined by the Cons~tion
Authority md the City prior to draft :1pprov:1l...~
0147 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
2
Mrn.C.~' S Proposccl.J.ft1-'--!D duI Sam East Secoudaty PIm
. April 8. 1997
Pagel
AmmdmaU5: '"3..3..3' Some of the Valleytmd dem.,-;_ all Sc:!zcdWe SP41(a) r=tlect
!he M=opoJilm Toramc me! Rqion C=s=vuicm A.u%harity (MnCA) fill Ima --,;01:1. program. Ik
fiR IIpplilllillll iI apppll'I III ill_ i &R lIeP.!Mt __ ... ........, ~t:~_~ If' men I_not are
d~"ed!'O not fino!n 'Mrt of~e "r.I..llev =d stn='n ~dnt' !he ilp-'!pal AaR_ ,f" ulHlYl....
-r-<:j-. then the rc1cvmt adjaccct!md. use dc:sigzw:iaa(3) will zpply to the ma affccD:cl ~ .. G
pII!Nl wUhaut fiIrthc:r -........m......t :0 this pIan. ..
Amllldmlllt #6: '"3.3.15 _'Th.e loc:tticn. siz: and ftmctUm of stmm WUC' mmas=n=t
&ciIities may be amalgamated. mme!:! to !he ~I of' the ~tv ot"B=tmt :mr+ the Memmolit:1n
l'CI'nTtm :md R~on Con~~rion ~utJol"rr'~1 in ord=:a r:ducc the lDIaI.:mmbcr of f3cilities required in
Bram Eut. Due to the concepta.a.l ~_ ..
Amemmmt tn: "4.1.9 A 40 :c 45 mc:c right-of-way W111 be emelUhcd far the ex!e::si.on
md ccnstnu:tian of W-u1i3ms ?3ricway within d1c secondary plan iIrCl through the subdivision approval
process and othe: appropri2u: c=s as ::cc:essary,
The aIi<rnme!'lt nrt.he -nad :" o;ub;~ ~ :m ~""'e:'lt:l.I1~~~ -n !'e"1iew al~"tivf! =~~:;::
conmo'ction ~::nlrnl~: Ine W;j1:~!'l ~v =~e!ltal .l..~ent wiil ~~
need for the t=~~ncm c:m~C!~ ~t ~ui~ be -m.~dm :: ~~~~ :::;:: ::=u:~
~~~ to tile '.md~~ll' .,e!~ "tle~ :t.It=ative.ot ~ ~ " ~~l~~
~~~~ tb,e ~oe1al :md ~~-~ ;~e~ of ~=;:~:~= a; :r:~~::~;
~~I ah!>'!'lme:'lt l"e!T!am!l ""'~ the C!~ne 1 1
Con!l~rinft .l..r=. M:m"~e!!t '01:m .~n -"e ccm~d~ '
The aIigmne:tt of the road will be /i",,.!i--n through sw:!1 processes and;:ar-:icWar auz::man .shall be give
to the Cl:ri'!"vTUe Cat!!I~tiOT! '_rl~ valley CZ'Os:sing:s, the: imz::-scctian of Williams Parkway with
GorewiY Drive relanve to the !oca::cn or a. Brampton Hydro Uansfacner Stztian and the iIm:rsection of
Williams PuXway and Rigaway 50, =clarive to the aIigmnC1t ofLmgmffRoId in :!1c City ofVaupan.
Ameudment #8: -S.B.I Public utility and ather ~tics such as City worIc: yards. tdCi'none
switching tac:JitI=. hydro tnnsfcr---= s:a.:iOIU. wau: and sanit:lry pumping stltions are pc:nitted in my
designation an Sc:::.eawe SP41(a). providc:d all other necessary apprcvW are obtained. ~ th~
nllev :md ttrelIm corridor it qhalt :!!!o ~e crnhi~t !'O the aTlnmval of ~e ~=nolitan :It!
lle!rion Ccm!erv:ttlon .t.uthoritv,"
City ofBmnpton Council expec:s m e:xpcditioU3 P:ovincial3pprOval of the Bram East Secondary Plan
DOW that the: major portion of :he B~tcn Offic:ia1 Pbn bas been apptavcd by the Ministc:r of
Municipal Afbirs and Housing. A~y. City staff'lt'a3 directed by the Planning and Building
Ccmmit:cc at its me:ting of ~ 24. 1997, to provide Colmcil with a comple:: set of qencylministry
~"Uts and my applic:1ble modific:l.1icm to the adopted Bram East Sec:onda:y Plan by April 21, 1997
10 ihat tnesc: modifications em be c::do~cd ::,y City Cot=il an April 28. 1997.
It is my undentandi:ng that ~.' Robe:: W1:y::: of Aquafor Bc:ech Limited ba.s b= consulting with
MntCA m1I to resolve any '..s:Ncs p~g to :he West Humber Subwu=hed Study (WHSS) and it is
also my understanding th:tt ':he final :-:port of:u: WHsS is in production. AsNming that all of the major
out!t;mding MTR.CA i3SUC:S have: be:: rc:soived vnU1 regani :a :he WRSS and if the fcregoinz
/
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0148
3
MTRCA's Proposed ,4o.-...f "- I CD the Bmu E:lscsc:cand:uy PWt-
, . April 8. 1997
P.2p 3
IIXICZldmem ami the :UtICIu:d a=p are s:u:isf3.dDry CD MIRCA. I IrIISt that MTRCA will support lhc
approval of the Bram E:1St ~t"."i"TY P!m by the Miuim:r oCMamicipal AfWa ami Housin;.
Yours truly,
.
- -
<:~ -
.
- -----
Colin CIumg, Policy Pla:aner -
PlamIing Policy ami R.csc:Irch.
cc: Bill Wintcrllalt
1:!',.T:t :Qgnib~~ MIRC:A.i
UarY Wilkins. MI1tCA
Br=da. Stan. the Minisuy ofM1micIpal AfWr3 md Housing
CC'CcchWls'lnmcasrJ2-a11r'CLdoc .
0149 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
4
.
-
!
j
_:=iiUJ:ii:..oo.. :.
......a....~.~!~1I
~.:::::~~:::::::.:. ..1;.') IV.o,;
..............O.O.d.O.. .
.o..o......o.o.~oo~o.o~o
...............o..~oo....o ...~
...........o..oOO.O..~d..O ........
..............o.o..o~o..~~ ...........
:::::::::Qi.irriU.:::::~:o. ::::::::::sa.;:.
......... ...."....< ...........~
......O~~.:~..~Q4~~..........4 c
....... Be ;iI'..~.................,.
...0..00.....0. ." ~":3I 0 0 ......... 0'" , a..........".
............ ....... .~~........... ~
.............~:t..o.~o.. 0.........2"'.. ...
..0........0...0...... 0.00 0......... _
..........o......~o..oo.........o.o...........a 1
....0..0..0.....>>0000........ .0...........
................~ooo.o....o .............. 1rJ
..........o...o:to...o.oo..o~.............~
.............~QO~......o.............._ ~
...... ....0.... O~ ... ..................,. ~_
... .......... ~.......... .......... ...... 0.. /
.:::::: ::: ::::::: :::: ::::: ;:::::::::::~ c; :::~
BRAMEAST
SECONDARY PlAN ,- -~ T
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -
-..w..-. _:sNCI:
ii ::-=:-- -.-
0: ........~
.............. ---
.............
.--., '-....
:.:.:. ~/""a....ey - '-4 ....
-
~~ -...
1-- --~ - ,..,
-~/- c-y
......-
....... ~..... ImmnDW:
<: - ! -----
1DIoD~ _ --:- ...--<<...
- ,-.,-~
I- t _01--'
. --- -~ .....-
,.-- -...
III ~~ . . C1P"2lI'I~
....
~~ ~ -....--.,
~ -'-"-"_'1_,
wN/;f -- ..-..-%1-....' c:...... ...... -
--- ------_....-I
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0150
RES. #036/97 - ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE - INITIATION OF MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE REVIEW
Review of the Rouge Park Management Structure.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated April 10,
1997, on the initiation of the Review of the Rouge Park Management Structure be
received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
When the Rouge Park Alliance was established, it was given a three year mandate which
expires in the Spring of 1998. The Alliance is therefore starting a review to determine a
recommended management structure for the future. One of the first steps in the review is
a session for public input on April 17, 1997. The materials which have been prepared for
use at the session are attached, as they provide a good overview of the issues and a
framework for discussion.
FURTHER WORK
The Chair, Mr. Dick O'Brien, is participating in the review as a member of the Alliance from
Metropolitan Toronto, as are Councillor Cho, the Authority's representative and Brian
Denney, the Authority's alternate representative. Councillor Harrison also participates as
the representative from Metropolitan Toronto Zoo and Councillor Barber as Markham's
alternate member. It will be very important for the Authority to participate fully in the
discussions as the success of the Rouge Park is heavily dependent on the management of
the Rouge Watershed. Further reports and recommendations will come forward as the
review progresses.
For information contact:
Brian Denney, Ext. 242
Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
0151
-
r~
Rouge Park
Rouge Park Alliance
Community, Workshop
Participan~s Workbook
Rouge Park Alliance Community Workshop
Scarborough Civic C#Jntre, Room M47 /42
Thursday, April 17, 1997
6:30 - 9:00 p.m.
- ... .
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0152
Table of Contents
A Word from the Chair ....................................................... 1
Workshop Agenda .................. ...................... ... ...... .......2
Background - The Rouge Park Alliance Today, . . . . . . .......... . . , , . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 3
Map ~ the Rouge Parle , . . . . . , . . , . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . , , , . . . . . , , , . , . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . , . 4
Worksheet #1 - Organi:z:a:tionallssues , . . . , , , , . , . . , . , , , , . . , , , , , , , , , , , , . . . . . . , . , , , , S
Worksheet #2 - Participation and Funding ".........,.,.............,....'"'.,,, 7
Worksheet!#3 - Looking to the Future , . , , . . . . . . , , , , . , . . , , , , , , , , , . , , , . , . , , . , , , . , , . 9
Worksh=t #4 - 2 Key Questions ,........".............."",.,.",........", 10
Workshop Evaluation Form, . . , . . . , . . . . . . . , . . , . , , , , . . , , . . , , , , , . . , , , , , . , . . , . , " 11
.-.-- . -.
0153 Wa'tershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
.
.
~ 09:07A Rouge P.~ (415) 287-2425 P.1O
J v.. no.. ~ ~ADo-
Rouge Park J6IA Old FiDdl AftDUe Tel: (416) Zs..aOUGE
Sc:arbarougb. ON MIS SKi &z: .(416) 2B7-Z42S
.
A Word from the Chai,.__
The Rouge Parle Alliance is the organi2:uion that oversees park management. planning md funding
for the Rouge Parle - the I~ park in an urban are:1 in North Americ:a.
For two ye:us now, the Alliance has been working in parmership with local communities and groups
to cmblish this unique parle. Much has been accomplished in this initial stan-up phase. including
development of programs and facilities within the current parle boundaries. and most reecntly.
initiation of planning to.:xtcnd the parle up to the headwaters of the Rouge River in the Oak Ridges
Moraine.
As we enter the final Ye::lr' of our 3 year :n.andate to establish the park _ the Alliance is now r=dy to
consider establishing a more permanent body to m:utage. plan, and ~nsure sustainable funding for
the Rouge Park for many years to come. Given the uncen:timies relating to the curren status of
municipal. govemmC1t, we ne:d to ensure that the organization. and its funding, are stI'UCtIlr=d with
enough flexibility to continue with its mission.
Your advice on what you cxpcc: from your Pm Managemcm group _ both now. and in the future-
is key to the design of an cffc:c:ive OrganizariOTL We are very pleased that you have joined us in this
process to develop a sustainable. long-term organization and funding mechanism for the Rouge
Park.
This workbook provides an opponunity to focus your needs. We look forward to your advice. input
and comments., and thank you for your interest in this important initiative. Please remember to hand
in your workbook at the end of the session.
Ron Christie
Chair. Rouge PlU'k Alliance
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0154
-
.
Rouge Park Alliance Community Workshop
Scarborough Civic CiUItrer Room M41/42
Thursday, April 17, 1997, 6:311. 9:00 p.m.
Purpose: To c::'WDine the current role of the Rouge Parle Alliaacc in managing,
pluming and funding the Rouge Park. and to identify oppommitics for a
more permanent organization and funding mechanism for the fuDJre.
Agenda
6:30 Caffee and Rcg:isa:uion
7:00 Welcome s.nd Introductions
Ron CJrnUle. Ciftzl1'. Rouge PCl1'1c A.lliance
7:10 Workshop Purpose
7:15 PreseutatiOD: The Rouge Park AJlian~ Today
Ron Chnstie. Chmr. Rou~ PCl1'1c A.lliance
. Overview of the Alliance
. Organization and Funding Revicw Process
7:30 Challcuce to Participaau: Where Does the AUiaa~ Go From Here!
F ClClliUJlM'
7:35 Roundtables: Towards a Snstaiuble Rouge Park Alliaa~
Ie Working a1on~ Participants Complete:
. Orga.niz;ttional Issues [Worksheet # 11
. Participation and Flmding [Worksheet #2]
. Looking to the Future [Worksheet #31
Group Discussion:
. 2 Key Questions [Worksheet #4]
&:40 Reports !'rom the Roundtables
8:55 Next Steps and Closing Remarks
9:00 Adjourn
0155 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
Backgrounder - The Rouge Park Alliance Today
How and When w.s the AJDIInCtl Fonned?
In 1994, the Province of Omario released a Rouge Parle Manqement 'Plan developed
through a multi-stakcholder process. The Hoaourable David Crombie was asked by the
Provine: to recommend a. managt:meut structure and funding framework for the Park and
subsequcntiy, in 1995. the Rouge Parle A1lianc:e was formed to begin implementation of the
Rou~ Park Management Plan.
Who are the Members of the Rouge Parle Alliance?
The AUianc: is cum:miy composed of ten diverse panncrs: the City of Scarborough. the
Mwncipality ofMeaopolitm Toromo. the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (MTRCA). the ~etro TorontO Zoo, the Provinc: of Ontario, Save the Rouge
Valley System Inc.. a!ld the Towns ofMarXham" Pickering. Richmond Hin and Whitchurch-
StDufiViJle. The Allianc: draws on the str'e:Dgttls. mandales. roles and abilities of its partnm
to implement the Rouge Park Management Plan.
Whllt is the AllillnC8's "VISion to,. the Parle?
The Alliance seeks to not only plan and manage the P3lt. but to protect and enhance its
nattlra.I and c:u1tural hc:ntage. and promote public involvement, appreciation. undemanding
and =njoymem of the parle.
What Does the Alli.ncB Do?
The Alliance wodes in partnership. along with local communities and organizations. to pl.
and manage the parle. Acl:omplisbmems include the dcvelopmentofprograms and facilities
within the current parle boundaries.. and most rec:c:ndy, the initiation of planning to e:ttc:nd
the parle up to the hcadwa%ers oitbe Rouge River in the Oak Ridses Moraine.
How is the Alliance Funded?
Funding for the first three years of the Alliance is provided by the Province of Ontario~ the
bai3l'lCl: is provided from interest earned on Rouge Park Alliance investments. In addition.
c:aoital funds are orovided bv the Federal and Provincial Governments.
3
.
April 18. 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0156
.
"-
l~;
-~... ;
-
.. ..
~. ....,.".....
-, ",
-
- ~-
Rgure 7
PrapORd Rouge Pwrlc Norm of Steela Avenue
~ Rouve Parir leaisung and 12'0120-.11
~ Ocnicnal Parle Corridor
-..
~ /J.,
~ ez-,.on tD H..dwn.~ Cnt~no
0 Oalc RIdges Morain. ~ l .-
Q '"-
W._~ 9ounc1ary
Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
0157
[ Worbheet #7: Organizational IsSues I
1. Wh.t an: your main iDtere:s(s) in the Rouge Park?
.
2. What fimctions should the management of the Park be carrying out to ensure that your
interests are satisfied?
.
3. m aen=aJ. what should be the: 3 most important n:spollSlbiIities of the Park's management?
i.
. ..
S
April 18. 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0158
.
ii .
iii
In your opiIIion. how well arc these t'CSpOnSlbilitic:s curtemly being met? (Please be specific)
4, List 5 attributes which you belicve should be ~ in the Park's management
organizmon (amibures could include t1cability. cost~ClI:SS., efficiency, wrness, ctc:,)
1.
2-
3.
4.
1
I 5,
I
J
6
0159 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
,-
, Worlcsheet #2: Participation and Funding t
1. c~. an Alliam:e of10 partDI:S CJYa!eCS tbI: <Th... rem oftbe Rouge Parle: the City
of Scarborough. the Municipality ofMettopo1itu TCIIODtO., tbI: Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Coase:rwIiaa Aud10rity (MTRCA). tbI: Mam TClftIIIU) Zoo. me Provine: of Ontario.
Save tbe Rouge VaJIey Sysu:m Inc... and the TOWIIS ~ Pickering. Richmond Hill
md Wbitchun:h-Stouffitille.
i) Does this pu1naWp approach seem like a good model for park manasement? Why 01' why
DOt?
ii) What changes to the composition of the Alli2ncc do you suggest. if any?
iii) Would an alternative be better? (e.g. prime n:spot1S1'bility with one body. such as the
Province. MTRCA or a municipality'?)
7
/
April 18, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 D160
.
2. Funding for the first tbr= years of the AlliaDcc is providcd'by tbe Province of Ontario; the
bahm= is provided from iDmre:st eamcd on Rouge Pm: AI1i8IIce investmc:nt!. In addition,
c:api1al funds are provided by the Fcdcr31 and ProviDcial Gtm:mmems.
i) CaD you think of any other opportunities which could help make the Park's management
orsmization more SUS"'in2hle'?
8
0161 Wa'tershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
.
- .
l Worlt3heet #3: Looldng to the Future I
As)'Oll think about the Rouge Park, md the UI v..:.-I:.on bebiad it, what 3 main accomplishments
would you lib to see the Rouge Park ~ o.~oa achieve:
i} , years &om now?
1.
2.
3.
ii) 10 years from now?
1.
2,
3.
, ,-
9
..
- .. -- I
. -- -... '/
Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 0162
April 18, 1997
.
. t WorlcshHt #4: 2 Kev Questions ,
I After tile P:ut plans !lave been completed. who do you believe 3bould:
1. ,~ the Rouse Park Marmgrommr PIan and ~~ oftbc Parle up to the headwaters
oftbc Rouse RMr in the Oak Ri~ Moraine? (c.g. cum:m parmcrship approach; primary
1eSpODSi1n1ity with one body such as the Province. M'l'RCA or a muniCipality; other)
2. , Pay for the oner.mnl! costs of the organization which is responsible for ensuring
implemCtltation of the Rouge Park Management Plan and extension of the Park up to the
headwaters of the Rouge River iD the Oak Ridges Moraine?
I
10
0163 Watershed Management Advisory Board #3/97 April 18, 1997
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:50 p.m., April 18,1997
Lois Griffin Craie Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/pl
~
"the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #4/97
May 16, 1997 Page 0164
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, May 16, 1997. The Vice Chair,
Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10: 15 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Jim McMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Joan King .............................................,.... Member
Richard O'Brien ..............................,.....,.., Chair, Authority
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES. #037/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THA T the Minutes of Meetings' #2/97 and #3/97, held April 18, 1997, be received . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
PRESENT A TION
(a) Mr. Alan Willison, Enforcement Supervisor, explained how Authority Enforcement
staff carry out the Enforcement of Ontario Regulation 158, under Section 28 of the
Conservation Authorities Act.
RES. #038/97 - PRESENT A TION
THA T the above noted presentation (a) be received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0165 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
RES. #039/97 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Adoption of the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed
Alliance.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference for the
Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, as appended, be adopted;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to take all actions necessary to establish the
Humber Watershed Alliance in time for the first meeting to occur in October, 1997.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A staff report was submitted to the Chair and Members of the Watershed Management
Advisory Board for consideration at their April 18, 1997 meeting which indicated that
Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance would be forthcoming. The Terms
of Reference were distributed at the Board Meeting on April 18, 1997 but consideration of
the matter was deferred to the meeting scheduled for May 16, 1997.
The Terms of Reference incorporate the advice given at the Humber Alliance Planning
Meeting held on April 2, 1997 (minutes of which were attached to the aforementioned
staff report). It was recommended that the structure of the Humber Watershed Alliance be
inclusive of the many interests of the Humber watershed but workable through the
subwatershed committees.
The Terms of Reference, which include a membership framework, are required to begin the
selection process for the resident members of the Alliance.
RA TIONALE
On December 20, 1997, the Authority approved Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber
and A Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber.
Objective 25 of Legacy states: "Create a Humber Watershed Alliance to facilitate
implementation of the Humber Watershed Strategy.
. Model the Alliance after the Humber Watershed Task Force, with representation
from citizens, interest groups, agencies and elected officials.
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0166
The Alliance will:
. Undertake fundraising initiatives, support local community groups, promote
education and awareness of watershed issues through community events and
technical seminars, and initiate projects designed to protect or improve the health
of the watershed;
. Promote the Humber River Watershed as a Canadian Heritage River;
. Promote signing of The Humber Pledge which addresses the protection,
conservation and regeneration of the watershed;
. Appoint those who actively support The Humber Pledge as "Patrons of the
Humber" ;
. Continue the established relationship of reporting and accountability to the MTRCA,
and through the MTRCA to the municipalities and the public;
. Liaise with the Province of Ontario and other agencies on watershed management
issues in the Lake Ontario basin.
DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will advertise the availability of spaces for residents on the Humber Watershed
Alliance and the selection process will take place shortly thereafter. The first meeting of
the Humber Watershed Alliance is anticipated for October, 1997.
For information contact:
Beth Williston, Ext.334
-
0167 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
Attachment 1
THE HUMBER WA TERSHED ALLIANCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
May 8, 1997
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0168
Attachment 2
PART 1: RELATIONSHIP TO THE AUTHORITY
1.1 Mandate r
The Humber Watershed Alliance, established by 1.2 Rules of Conduct
the MTRCA, is a subcommittee of the
Authority's Watershed Management Advisory The Watershed Alliance shall follow the Rules
Board. As such, all recommendations from the of Conduct of the MTRCA, as adopted by
Watershed Alliance to the Authority shall be Resolution #3 of the Authority Meeting #2/86,
made through this Board. or as may be amended, A quorum will consist
of a majority of the members, All meetings will
The Watershed Alliance will operate in be open to the public.
approximate two year terms, with the first term
commencing October 1, 1997. For the first The Watershed Alliance is not a formal
term, the the priority activities for the commenting body of the MTRCA. At their
Watershed Alliance to implement have been discretion, Authority staff will advise the
determined, as set forth in this terms of Watershed Alliance of Authority projects being
reference, For subsequent two year terms, the planned or undertaken within the Humber
Watershed Alliance will recommend priority watershed and of major planning initiatives or
activities to the Authority for approval. The projects of others where the Authority may be
Watershed Alliance chair will report quarterly to a commenting or permitting body,
the Authority on the progress in implementing
priority activities. 1.3 Meetings and Attendance
The Watershed Alliance will develop a two year The Humber Watershed Alliance will meet
work plan for approval by the Authority. Annual quarterly, Either the member or their alternate
work plans will be developed based on the two are required to attend all meetings,
year plan, for Authority approval prior to the
end of the first quarter of the year. All members will prepare effectively for and
participate in, at least one of the five
The Watershed Alliance will work within a Subwatershed Committees, shown In Figure 1,
framework of Subwatershed Committees, as Watershed Resident members will represent the
shown in Figure 1. A Subwatershed Committee subwatershed in which they live, Members who
will be established for each of the Main work in the watershed will represent the
Humber, East Humber, West Humber, Black subwatershed in which they work. Members
Creek and Lower Humber subwatersheds. who have interests in more than one
Technical Steering Committees may be formed subwatershed will be appointed to a particular
from time to time to support the work of either subwatershed by the Watershed Alliance,
the Watershed Alliance or a Subwatershed
Committee. Establishing such a Committee will At the discretion of the Watershed Alliance,
be made at the discretion of the Watershed members active on a Technical Steering
Alliance, subject to available staff and funding, Committee, (figure 1) who are not the regular
Subwatershed representatives for the area in .
To achieve their mandate, the Watershed question, may discontinue their involvement at
Alliance will adhere to the basic principles of the subwatershed level for the duration of the
sound ecosystem management. The Technical Steering Committee's work and still
interrelationship between physical, biological, retain good standing as members of the
cultural, heritage, recreation and economic Watershed Alliance. Refer to section 5 for more
processes, and the integration of conservation, details on the Technical Steering Committees.
restoration and economic activities will be the
basis for achieving watershed health. Members unable to fulfil this commitment will
be replaced on a semi-annual basis,
,
0169 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
G) -
. G) G)
:: 5
Attachment 3 E Cl
8 u:
U
r- .8al
EJ:
:> I!!
xS
... III
~~
o :>
...JOO
------
&: -
'0 ::
c: Oe
:>
0 E
U 0
c: U
0 "C
"" .><Ql
_0 III
15 ill~
i ... III
~ UOj
-":t
II: 1!!.g
~ lJlOO
III
III
::
.----- Oe
Q) >0- S
u:t:
c: .... n U
ca 0 I 1lial
. _ ..c: G) .oJ:
00 =:; E I!!
C 0
<(<( a :> III
I III xiii
"0 Q) ~ I i ~ - :t
lB.o
Q)..c: fi al ~Jl
\ ..c:_ C5 I a"O J:
~ 0 ~ ~ Ol
J: 0 - 15 -
Q)- "5 "OlJl ~
- < 1!~ G)
ca a. III
3::E ; .~ 15 ::
- .0 Oe
.... en I - >
~~ E E
Q) c: I :> 0
.0 .Q i x U
E<<i ~ ...al
1llJ:
:::l- .0 Ol
I~ E ...
:>S
X III
_ :t
lQ.g
UJOO
G)
III
::
Oe
E
0
U
..."0
III III
.oJ:
E I!!
:>s
X III
oS ~
III :>
\ ~oo
Cl
oS 4D.!2
15 ~~!
III
-Ol
OOQl ."~.,,
- Ol ~ .!b~
o~ Oe iO '8 ~ I
"fig/il Q.12"
i~ :I
~u.5. !~ii
.2~6
o~
\
\
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0170
Attachment 4
1.4 Authority Staff Support
The Authority will provide a staff secretariat to
support the Watershed Alliance, including the
Subwatershed Committees and the Technical
Steering Committees.
~
Subject to available funding, the staff
secretariat will include:
- Humber Watershed Specialist
- Humber Watershed Secretary
- Project Manager, Subwatershed Committees
- Project Managers, Community Action Sites
The Watershed Alliance and its Committees
will otherwise strive to be self-sufficient in
achieving their goals.
From time to time, the assistance of additional
MTRCA staff may be required on a project or
issue specific basis. Provision of such
assistance will be determined when a project
plan is completed by either the Watershed
Alliance or a subcommittee, and approved by
the MTRCA's Oirector of Watershed
Management.
The project plan will clearly identify
membership requirements, including MTRCA
staff, Watershed Alliance members and
auxiliary members. The project plan will also
identify expectations of the member's
responsibilities, time commitment and projected
project funding availability and allotment.
1.5 Budget
The MTRCA will budget for and administer the
Humber Watershed Strategy implementation
project. Funding will be allocated for:
-Watershed Alliance expenses
-Staff secretariat support
-Watershed communication initiatives
-Initiation of Community Action Sites.
Funding is limited, thus the majority of funding .
for project implementation will be generated by
the Watershed Alliance and its Subcommittees.
.
Fundraising initiatives must be coordinated with
the Conservation Foundation of Greater
Toronto.
\
\
\
0171 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
Attachment 5
PART 2: PURPOSE
The Humber Watershed Alliance has been 8. Liaise with the Province of Ontario and
established to implement Legacy and A Call to other agencies on watershed
Action. The members of the Watershed management issues in the Lake Ontario
Alliance represent the partnership which is basin.
essential for ensuring successful
implementation. 9. Facilitate large watershed projects in
the Humber Watershed that cross
The priority activities for the first term of the municipal boundaries. As well, support
Watershed Alliance are divided into two projects which will protect, regenerate
sections: Items for Action and Administration and celebrate the Humber watershed.
These activities shall include, but not be limited
to, the following: 10. In conjunction with the Authority and
others, host technical forums designed
Part 1: Items for Action to improve watershed planning and
practices.
1. Pursue the designation of the Humber
watershed as a Canadian Heritage Part 2: Administration
River.
1. Oevelop a two year work plan for
2. Implement Clean Waters, Clear approval by the Authority. Update this
Choices, the Report of the Metro work plan and the work plans of the
Toronto Remedial Action Plan, designed Subwatershed and Technical Steering
to restore the polluted waterways in Committees on an annual basis, or
the Metro Toronto area, by establishing more frequently if necessary.
a framework to delist the Humber
watershed through determining 2. Set priorities and coordinate the work
watershed indicators and targets. of the Subwatershed Committees
through the approval of their work
3. Oevelop a watershed report card to plans, as outlined in section 5.
report on progress made in achieving
watershed health. 3. Appoint new, or dissolve existing
technical steering committees, as
4. Oevelop The Humber Pledge and pursue outlined in section 6.1.
its adoption by municipal committees,
agencies, businesses, community 4. Review membership semi-annually,
organizations and others throughout the including the nomination of new
watershed. members and the replacement of
members who are not fulfilling the
5. Appoint those who actively support commitments outlined in 4.2.
The Humber Pledge as "Patrons of the
Humber". 5. Revise the Humber Watershed Alliance
Terms of Reference including the
6. Lead and assist jn obtaining financial priority actions, every two years, for
and in-kind resources and determine approval by the Authority.
spending priorities.
7. Act as a forum to effectively
communicate with and educate, all
watershed stakeholders.
\\
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0172
Attachment 6
PART 3: MEMBERSHIP
3.1 Summary of Members .
Watershed Residents
The successful implementation of Legacy and Five watershed resident representatives from
A Call to Action is dependant upon the each of the five subwatersheds (twenty-five in
interaction between a number of partners, total). The terms for selecting the Watershed
including the watershed municipalities, Residents are outlined in section 3.2.
watershed interest groups, watershed
residents, watershed businesses, and agencies Watershed Interest Groups
with a mandate that pertains to watershed One representative and alternate from each of
health. As such, representatives for each of the following groups:
these groups will be invited to join the Humber -Action to Restore a Clean Humber
Watershed Alliance. -Humber Heritage Committee
In total, the Watershed Alliance shall not Watershed Business Associations
exceed sixty members including: One representative and alternate from each of
the following groups which have a specific
The MTRCA interest in the Humber watershed:
The Authority Chair or other designated -Ontario Aggregate Producers Association
Authority member. -Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement
Association.
Watershed Municipalities -Urban Oevelopment Institute.
One Council member and staff alternate from
each of the regional and local municipalities Other Public Agencies
within the watershed: One representative and alternate from each of
-Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto the following groups which have a specific
-Regional Municipality of York interest in the Humber watershed:
-Regional Municipality of Peel -Environment Canada
-City of Toronto -McMichael Canadian Art Collection
-City of Etobicoke -Niagara Escarpment Commission
-City of North York -Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
-City of York Affairs
-Town of Richmond Hill -Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and
-City of Vaughan Recreation
-Township of King -Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
-Town of Aurora -Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
-City of Mississauga -Ontario Ministry of Economic
-City of Brampton Oevelopment, Tourism and Trade
-Town of Caledon -Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
-Township of Mono
-Township of Adjala-Tosorontio. This list of 55 members may be changed by the
Watershed Alliance and approved by the .
Authority, to a maximum of 60 members.
\
0173 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
Attachment 7
3.2 Appointment of Members 3.3 Tenn of Appointment
Watershed Municip.lities Membership appointments will be for a duration
The Authority will request that local and of two years. First term appointments will be
regional municipalities within the Humber effective, on confirmation by the Authority,
watershed appoint one of their members as a between October 1997 and November 1999.
member of the Humber Watershed Alliance and The Watershed Alliance may then recommend
a staff person as an alternate. The appointed to the Authority revisions to the membership in
members and alternates should represent a section 3.1 to meet changing needs. Changes
riding within the Humber watershed. In the to the municipal appointments in the first term
absence of the appointed member, the may be required based on the results of the
alternate will have full voting privileges. 1997 municipal elections and shall be
confirmed by the Authority in January 1998.
Watershed Residents
Applications for membership will be requested Watershed Resident resignations may be filled
from persons residing within the Humber by the Authority based on the recommendation
watershed. The selection committee will of a selection committee consisting of the
consist of two members from the Watershed Watershed Alliance Chair, a nominated
Management Advisory Board and one MTRCA Watershed Alliance member and a MTRCA
senior staff representative. The committee will senior staff representative.
recommend twenty-five watershed residents to
the Watershed Alliance. 3.4 Compensation
This selection committee will consider the Members will be eligible for travel expenses to
following: all Watershed Alliance, Subwatershed
-Oemonstrated interest in the watershed or Committee and Technical Steering Committee
community through affiliation with local meetings, according to Authority policy.
committees such as Environmental Advisory Compensation will be paid quarterly.
Committees, Local Architecture Conservation
Advisory Committees, Local Business 3.5 Auxiliary Members
Improvement Associations, Trails Associations,
Humber Regeneration Projects or with a The primary responsibility for implementing
background in education. Legacy lies directly with the Watershed
-Willingness to meet potential time and work Alliance members. From time to time, expertise
commitments. from outside the Watershed Alliance may be
-Geographical representation within the required on a project specific basis. The
subwatersheds. Watershed Alliance will be responsible for
-Professional expertise or knowledge of the soliciting the assistance of auxiliary members.
watershed in an area which will assist in the
implementation of Legacy and A Call to Action. Auxiliary members will be invited to attend and,
at the discretion of the Chair, participate in
Watershed Interest Groups, W.tershed Watershed Alliance meetings. Auxiliary
Businesses .nd Other Public Agencies members will have no voting privileges. At the
The Watershed Interest Groups, Business discretion of the Watershed Alliance, the
Associations and Other Public Agencies listed auxiliary member's travel expenses which are
in section 3.1, were selected because their not reimbursed by their employer, will be paid
interests are representative of the Humber . .-according to -Authority policy.
watershed.
3.6 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
At the discretion of the Watershed Alliance and
upon confirmation by the Authority, other The Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed
affiliations may, from time to time, be added to Alliance will be elected by the Watershed
the membership categories provided the total Alliance from among its members. The
does not exceed 60 members. Authority may appoint an interim chair until an
".< election takes place. The chair and vice chair
. In the absence of the appointed member, the will be ex-officio members of all Committees.
, _1._...__...- ...:11 1..._.._ .l..1I .._...:__ __:..:1____
\
\
\
\
May16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0174
Attachment 8
PART 4: SUBWATERSHED COMMITTEES
4.1 Purpose 4.2 Membership
.
The five Subwatershed Committees, Main The core membership of the Subwatershed
Humber, East Humber, West Humber, Black Committees will consist of Watershed Alliance
Creek and Lower Humber, have been members. However, from time to time
established to implement Legacy and A Call to expertise from outside the Watershed Alliance
Action at a community-based level. may be required on a project specific basIs. The
Subwatershed Committee will be responsible
The priority activities for the first term of the for nominating auxiliary members, pursuant to
Subwatershed Committees shall include, but the terms outlined in section 3.5.
not be limited to, the following:
4.3 Terms of Reference
Part 1: Items for Action
The initial Terms of Reference for the
1 . Oevelop and facilitate implementation Subwatershed Committees will be developed
of Community Action Sites withir each by MTRCA staff for consideration by the
subwatershed. At any particular time, Committees at their first meeting. The Terms of
implementation of one multi-facetted Reference may be revised by a Committee,
site will be targeted. Concurrent subject to the approval of the Watershed
implementation of smaller projects Alliance.
should be encouraged.
4.4 Resources
2. Encourage and support the work of
local individuals, community groups and Funding may be available for projects and
businesses in implementing Legacy. activities of Subwatershed Committees based
on approved work plans and available Authority
3. Foster communication and education in funding. Subwatershed Committee members
the communities on subwatershed are encouraged to secure other resources and
issues, projects and initiatives through partnerships for Watershed Alliance projects
Watershed Alliance public meetings, and activities, whenever possible. In-kind or
workshops, displays, publications, and other support for projects and activities will be
cultural events. welcome from businesses, industries, other
government agencies, private foundations,
4. Assist the Watershed Alliance in educational institutions and others.
establishing indicators and reporting
progress for the Remedial Action Plan's 4.5 Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair
process for delisting the watershed.
The Chair and Vice-Chair for each
5. Assist the Watershed Alliance in Subwatershed Committee will be elected by
gaining financial and in-kind resources the Committees from within the Watershed
through local, project specific Alliance membership. The Chair will report on
fundraising initiatives. progress to the Watershed Alliance on a
quarterly basis. .
Part 2: Administration
1. Oevelop annual work plans for approval .
by the Watershed Alliance, including
resources and estimated budgets to
support the proposed activities. The
work plans will be subject to available
f, rnrlinn ::>nrl MTl=lrA c::t::!ff rpc::nllrr.pc::
\
\
\
\
0175 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
Attachment 9
PART 5: TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEES
--
5.1 Purpose 5.2 Membership
Technical Steering Committees will be given a Membership requirements will be outlined In
mandate by, and will report directly to, the the project plan prepared for each Technical
Watershed Alliance. Each committee will Steering Committee, as outlined in section 1.4.
establish its own terms of reference and work Membership should include one representative
plan, to b~ !;Ipproved by the Watershed from each Subwatershed Committee. This will
Alliance. ensure that there is watershed-wide
representation on the issue. Oepending on the
The establishment of such committees will be nature of the issue, this subwatershed-based
subject to available MTRCA staff resources and representation may not be necessary.
funding as outlined in sections 1.2 and 1.3.
Committees could be established to deal with Expertise from outside the Watershed Alliance
such issues as: will likely be required for specific projects, and
should be identified in the project plan. The
- Working with the Remedial Action Plan to Subwatershed Committee will be responsible
delist the Humber watershed, including the for nominating auxiliary members, pursuant to
establishment of watershed indicators and the terms outlined in section 3.5.
targets.
5.3 Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair
- Marketing and communicating the Humber
Watershed as a Canadian Heritage River, if so The Chair and Vice-Chair of each committee
designated by the Canadian Heritage Rivers will be Watershed Alliance members. The
Board. chairs will be responsible for addressing and
implementing the terms of reference and
- Oeveloping a prioritized trail plan for the reporting to the Watershed Alliance on a
watershed, including a plan for land acquisition quarterly basis.
if necessary.
5.4 Duration
- Studying issues that relate to the economic
costs and benefits of environmental protection Each Technical Steering Committee will be
and enhancement. dissolved once their work is substantially
complete. New committees may be struck by
- Oeveloping a framework to facilitate many the Watershed Alliance from time to time to
groups participating in watershed regeneration deal with specific implementation items, as
with access to technical support and determined by the Watershed Alliance.
acknowledgement of effort.
Smaller committees can be added for specific
- Building relationships with the business projects but the Watershed Alliance will
community through involvement in community generally be limited to five activelstanding
activities as a precursor to requesting committees at anyone time. This will ensure
fund raising support. the necessary focus and effort required and to
limit, to a reasonable level, the demands on the
Watershed Alliance members, staff of the
Authority and other agencies.
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0176
RES. #040/97 - V ALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Report on the review of specific policy provisions within the Valley
and Stream Corridor Management Program.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the review of the
Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) was adopted by the
Authority in October of 1994. There was a two year consultation process that preceded
its adoption where input was received from our watershed municipalities, the Don Task
Force, the development industry, environmental interest groups and others. Our success
with its implementation has demonstrated that this Program is an important tool in
achieving Authority watershed management objectives.
Even though the Program was adopted in 1994, discussions have continued internally and
with various watershed partners on several specific policy provisions. For example, in
January 1996 the Authority received a staff report regarding the City of Vaughan's Official
Plan Amendment 400 land use planning policies pertaining to the 10 metre "buffer".
(Refer to Res. #A323/95; Meeting # 12/95.) At that time, Authority staff identified the
need to develop more detail around the VSCMP "buffer" requirements. Most recently, the
Urban Development Institute (UDI) forwarded comments on the Program that were of
particular interest and concern to the development industry. We have been working with
UDI members to clarify and resolve their concerns to the extent possible.
RA TIONALE
Staff is completing a review of specific policy provisions set out in the VSCMP for
Authority consideration and approval. We believe that the fundamental principles for
valleyland management established in the Program do not require substantive revision, but
that we need to further detail certain policy and criteria based on the knowledge gained
over the past three years. The key areas under review are:
a) The 10 metre "buffer" adjacent to valley crests, flood plains and meander belts.
Our work includes the preparation of a definition and rationale for the buffer and
more detailed recommendations regarding ownership, permitted uses, and physical
requirements.
0177 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
b) Watercourse alterations in subwatersheds draining less than 125 hectares.
Our work includes the preparation of more detailed recommendations regarding
under what conditions a watercourse draining less than 125 hectares may be
altered.
c) The meander belt.
Our work includes the review of the methodology for determining and applying the
meander belt adjacent to watercourses for erosion and environmental purposes and
the preparation of more detailed recommendations, if any, that result.
Staff will also be preparing recommended wording revisions to other sections of the
VSCMP that may arise from the rationale and recommendations arising from the above to
achieve consistency and clarification.
Through very informal discussions with several of our municipal partners, we believe that
this work will be both timely and important.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Beginning in June or July, report(s) will be brought forward to the Authority detailing draft
policy recommendations. The report(s) would then be circulated to others for review and
comment prior to staff finalizing recommendations for Authority approval.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Staff will be retaining the services of one or more professionals, as required, to assist in
this work. Costs are not expected to exceed $5000.
For information contact:
Renee Jarrett, Ext. 315
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0178
RES. #041/97 - MUNICIPAL WATER BILL - PROGRESS REPORT
Status of the investigation into the use of municipal water bill
revenue as a source of funding for certain Conservation Authority
programs.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue
discussions with the member municipalities to determine which aspects of existing
Authority activities could be funded by municipalities from water bill revenues and to
explore opportunities to address other watershed management priorities with funding
based on water consumption.
AMENDMENT
RES. #042/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THA T the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following:
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue
discussions with the member and local municipalities where applicable to determine which
aspects of existing Authority activities could be funded by municipalities from water bill
revenues and to explore opportunities to address other watershed management priorities
with funding based on water consumption.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In response to a recommendation of The Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto at its Meeting held on December 4, 1996, the following AuthoriW resolution was
passed on January 24, 1997.
0179 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
Res. #A288/96
MTHA T staff be directed to work with Metro staff to investigate which M. T. R. C.A.
programs might properly be charged to the water rates;
AND FURTHER THA T staff coordinate efforts in this regard with those of
neighbouring conservation authorities and the Regiona/ Municipalities of Peel, York
and Durham. M
Following this direction, Authority staff have met with representatives of the Metro
Finance Department and have consulted with staff of Metro Works, who have all indicated
support for the potential use of water bill revenue for funding certain conservation
authority programs. Authority staff are in the process of preparing a report for discussion
with municipal staff. The report is being prepared jointly with staff of the Credit Valley
Conservation Authority, as it will also serve the basis for a submission to staff of the
Region of Peel. Peel staff have expressed an interest in considering the feasibility of
charging certain CA programs to the water bill.
The report is intended to establish the principle that conservation authority watershed
management programs are important in protecting water uses for environmental and
human needs. The programs help protect the quality and sustainability of water supplies
and the capacity of rivers and lakes to receive wastewater effluent. This relationship
between watershed management and municipal water and wastewater servicing interests
provides the rationale for funding certain conservation authority programs using revenue
from the municipal water bill. MTRCA programs that would be eligible for this source of
funding would be those that contribute to the management of watershed features and
functions affecting water quality and quantity. For example, this would include any
programs that contribute to the understanding, protection, and regeneration of watershed
features and functions or that promote awareness and stewardship to reduce the impact of
human activities. Watershed features which perform especially critical hydrological
functions include wetlands, forests, valley and stream corridors, and porous soils. Staff
are currently evaluating programs to determine eligibility.
The Grand River Conservation Authority has in fact already developed a new funding
arrangement with two of its member municipalities. Based on an evaluation of GRCA
programs, staff determined that approximately 43% of GRCA programs contribute to
water quality/supply. Starting in 1997, the Region of Waterloo and the City of Brantford
derive 43% of the GRCA's levy from municipal water bill revenue and the remainder from
the general tax base.
New York City and Boston have both identified watershed management as a core
component of their long term water supply strategies, and have demonstrated this
commitment through funding arrangements that are based on water bill revenue. Other
municipalities, such as the City of Regina and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-
Carleton, have also adopted aggressive programs to restore degraded water quality
through storm water retrofit and other regeneration projects. These municipalities have
introduced or are considering a fee on their water bill to generate revenue to support
regeneration activities.
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0180
In addition to establishing the rationale for linking CA programs with funding from water
bill revenue, the joint MTRCA-CVC report will also reference the experiences from other
jurisdictions, address the equity issues associated with other water users (i.e. non-public
supply) in Ontario, and outline the benefits of a user-pay approach to water management.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
It is anticipated that both Peel and Metro staff will be taking reports to their respective
Councils in June, 1997. The main intent of these reports is to establish the rationale for
charging certain CA programs to the municipal water bill. If this principle is supported by
the Councils, then further discussions will be necessary at a detailed budget level prior to
implementation.
Authority staff are in the process of scheduling meetings with staff of the Finance
Departments at the Regions of York and Durham, in order to inform them of possible
arrangements in Metro and Peel and to ascertain their level of interest in considering a
similar approach.
For information contact:
Sonya Meek, Ext. 253
0181 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
RES. #D43/97 - AN EVALUATION OF ROADSIDE DITCHES AND OTHER
RELATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Completion of study and communication of results.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report entitled MAn
Evaluation of Roadside Ditches and Other Related Stormwater Management Practices,
dated May 5, 1997, be received for information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Executive Committee Meeting #1/96, held on March 8, 1996, it was resolved that
J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. be retained to undertake an evaluation of roadside
ditches and other related stormwater management practices at a total cost not to exceed
$19,490 including GST (Res. #E14/96). The purpose of the study was to provide
information that would assist designers and reviewers in assessing the potential use of
alternatives to the traditional curb-gutter-sewer system as a road drainage measure.
The impetus for this study arose in urbanized areas where ditches provide a road drainage
function. Public complaints over clogged culverts and the "weedy, unkept" appearance of
the ditch coupled with municipal concerns over maintenance requirements and costs have
prompted many municipalities to undertake "local improvement projects" whereby the
ditches are commonly replaced with curb-gutter-sewer systems. However, as these
projects are now subject to the new provincial requirements for storm water quality
control, and land constraints in already urbanized areas often pose limitations to the use of
source control and end-of-pipe facilities, questions have been raised as to the
environmental benefits provided by the existing ditch systems. These same questions
have also been raised in association with new urban developments.
The project involved an evaluation of roadside ditches and other types of storm water
conveyance systems according to a series of environmental, engineering and planning,
social, and economic considerations. The evaluation was based on the findings from a
literature review; a survey of municipal engineers and planners, developers, and real estate
agents; a review of system specifications; and cost data provided by municipalities. The
final deliverables of this project are a Final Study Report and Factsheet. A copy of the
Executive Summary is attached.
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0182
Some of the key findings and implications of this study include:
. Water quality - Field monitoring of the pollutant removal capabilities of the various
systems has been limited, with widely ranging results. Grass swales, grass swales
with check dams, and grass swales with perforated pipe underdrains have been
reported to remove 20-90 % of the total suspended solids loading and 20-100 % of
the phosphorus loading of storm water runoff. Further monitoring is needed.
. Conveyance - Limited monitoring of grass swales and exfiltrations systems has
indicated that these systems are capable of completely capturing runoff from small
storms (i.e. no runoff). Therefore, these systems could prove to be effective in
certain locations for reducing erosive flows and promoting groundwater recharge
(where water quality is acceptable). Again, further monitoring is needed.
. Economics - An economic comparison of alternative drainage systems found that
the capital and maintenance costs ranged from $31,447/yr/1000 m of roadway for
a grass swalelperforated pipe system to $45,730 for a conventional
curb/gutter/sewer system with an oil/grit separator and an end of pipe facility.
While both systems meet the same specified design objectives, the non-
conventional system costs less. The study findings do not seem to support the
commonly held belief that maintenance costs associated with alternative systems
are greater than the traditional curb-gutter-sewer system. Further practical study is
warranted.
BENEFITS
The results of this study will promote the consideration, use, and further evaluation of
alternative road drainage systems, which will help implement the recommendations of the
Authority's watershed strategies and the Metro Toronto and Region RAP. The main
contributions of this project are:
. comprehensive documentation of the state-of-the-art knowledge of alternative road
drainage systems and factors affecting their ability to address environmental,
engineering, social and economic objectives
. original modelling and development of rating curves that designers can use to
assess the flow conveyance capacities of alternative systems
. compilation of reported pollutant removal efficiencies of alternative systems
. a procedure to conduct a detailed cost analysis in order to effectively compare
various alternative drainage systems
. a "selection tool" - a step-by-step procedure for selecting the optimal road drainage
alternative according to site specific characteristics and expectations.
0183 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Copies of the final report will be distributed to member and local municipalities and other
partner agencies, and made available to other interested groups. Copies of the factsheet
will be broadly distributed throughout the storm water management community and posted
on the MTRCA World Wide Web site. A brief seminar presentation of the final study
findings is planned for June 17, 1997 at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Invitations will be
sent to representatives of local and regional mUAicipalities and other partner agencies. In
addition, staff have been invited to provide a brief presentation to the Metro and Area
Municipal Engineers Committee on May 29, 1997.
A proposal has been submitted to the Great Lakes 2000 Clean Up Fund for funding to
support a follow-up study, which would test and refine the Selection Tool using four road
retrofit case studies. Staff are advocating the need for further field monitoring of road
drainage systems under the Storm water Assessment Monitoring and Performance
(SWAMP) Program. It is anticipated that several monitoring initiatives will get underway in
1997.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funding for the study was provided by the Great Lakes 2000 Clean Up Fund and the
Ministry of Environment and Energy.
For information contact:
Sonya Meek, ext. 253
\
\
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0184
The Metropoluan Toronto RegIon Evaluation of RoadsIde Duches
Conser-Iatlon Author/fl. and Other Related Stormwaler Management Practices
Executive Summary and Study Findings
Background and study objectives
Stormwater management measures which are often implemented in order to mitigate the negative
environmental impacts related to urbanization include;
i) "Lot Level Controls" which are oriented towards maintaining the hydrologic cycle and
are based on the premise of controlling problems at their source,
ii) "Stormwater Conveyance Controls" which recognize that the timing ot stormwater runoff, and
what happens to stormwater as it is being conveyed to a receiving water, can have a major
impact on water quality, flooding, erosion, and groundwater recharge, and,
Hi) "End-of-Pipe Stormwater Management Facilities" which are the more traditional dry
I wet ponds and wetlands and deal with the problems at the outlet.
In most cases, it is a combination ot various stormwater management practices which should be
adopted for a given site. However, because of a potential lack of information and possible biassed
perceptions, the adopted drainage alternatives do not always represent the optimum balanced
solution between local environmental, social and economic expectations.
In order to better understand how, when and where various alternative roadside drainage
techniques could be used to provide a system with an optimum balance between the various
objectives, the present study was commissioned by the Metro Region Conservation. A copy of the
Terms of Reference are provided in Appendix A.
In general terms, the objectives of the study were to further investigate and report on the
environmental, engineering, social, and economic advantages/disadvantages associated with the
use of roadside ditches and provide a comparison with other possible alternative road drainage
systems.
Study approach
The study objectives were addressed by:
Conducting a Literature Review in order to further document the experience of other jurisdictions
with roadside ditches and with other types ot BMP's associated with roadside drainage.
Conducting Surveys and Interviews in order to identify and 'quantify public attitudes and
perceptions, the experiences and costs associated with various types of roadside drainage
alternatives. Other.issues which,were identified through such inquiries included safety and possible
effect on property values.
Comparing Drainage Alternatives in terms of their capacity for water conveyance, water quality
treatment, groundwater recharge and ability to meet SWM requirements, safety, Right-at-Way and
lot planning, public attitudes and perceptions, and economics (capital and operational costs).
\ ,
0185 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
The Metropolitan Toronto RegIon EvaluatIOn of RoadsIde Ditches
ConservatIon Authority and Other Related Storm water Mana~ement PraCl/ces
Developing an Assessment Tool to help identify and compare applicable alternative drainage
systems for a given site. The selection tool accounts for site and development characteristics as
well as the potential stormwater management functions of the various alternative drainage features
and their capital and operational costs.
Highlights of study
Literature Review
Over 200 relevant references comprised of scientific articles, books and newspaper clippings were
collected during the literature search. Most (70%) of the collected literature was published within
the last 6 years and from the source of the literature it is clear that concerns related to the
management of stormwater runoff is wide spread throughout developed countries.
Very little information was found on the specific use of typical roadside ditches as a BMP option or
as part of the treatment train. Although some design information on roadside ditches is available,
the information is rarely related to hydraulic or hydrologic considerations.
Literature shows trend toward emergence of new approaches to SWM and initial testing to
determine advantages I disadvantages and design information on alternative drainage systems is
adequate. However, monitoring data is still sparse and sometimes inconsistent. Furthermore,
literature is weak in areas of maintenance, long term performance, public preference and overall
costs.
The potential use of alternative drainage systems is seldom completely and jointly evaluated in
terms of SWM objectives, cost, ease of integration in the ROW, and public acceptance. In many
European communities, the use of non-structural BMP's, such as public education and citizen
involvement programs are emphasized.
The reports provides an overall summary of the literature review in Section 2 of the report and a
complete list of the collected references is provided in Appendix B.
Surveys and Interviews
Two questionnaires were formulated for the purpose of the survey. A technical survey was sent to
125 municipal engineers and planners while a more qualitative survey was sent to 72 real estate
agents and developers. Because a door to door survey was not feasible, the latter group was
selected to reflect public opinions. In order to provide the most realistic and representative sample,
the of real estate agents and developers were selected throughout the Greater Toronto Area.
The use of computer enhanced photos (see below) were incorporated to help better visualize a
roadway with a ditch, a grass swale, or a curb. By means of sketches, the surveys also made
reference to other-alternative drainage systems' some. of which are listed in the table below.
IF Sahmmn and 4.HIJCrarCf Inc I 9Ii I n3 Pal!e v
,
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 D186
The Metropolitan Toronto RegIon Evaluallon of Roadside Dllches
C onservallon A uthorllV and Other Related Storm water Mana~emenr PractIces
..-........-. .... .. .~~ ~'C",. ....--... -- -~"".:-e -,- '. '-.- .
'. ........:.~:..~:::..-- ,..... ... l'>"'lt-;~....,.: ....-. ~~.....". ~-~
., -- ,- .... ~. -- " __....lil_ -"'-'.......- - e
~ .c: ',:.",...- ~ ..
~ ..
~ ~ "
.- Q -..
.:: 't
""
Ei: -"
"
- ..,-
-" s;;
; 5;
'5:::- ..c::;
>:.. S~
" .."5 .. ..
l: ~~ .."
,,~ l~
::;- ~t; -""
"'-"
~~ .;) ~ ,,-
~"" ~5
Alternative drainage system considered in surveys
. Grass swales '. Grass swales with storm sewers
. Grass swales with raised culverts '. Grass swales with di~~ed driveways
. Grass swales with mfiltratlon systems · Grass swales with in I tration manhole system
. Grass swales with perforated pipe systems · Curb & gutter and sewer with exfiltration
. Curb & ~utter with greenbelts ' ~stem
. Oil & gn separator and sumpless ' · urb & gutter and sewer with filtration system
catch asins ' · Grass swales with curb and gutter (no sewers)
. Grass swales with curb & gutter and sewer ' · Grass swales with check dams
Out of the 197 questionnaires which were sent out, a total of 52 were filled out and returned (32 from
the municipal engineers and planners and 20 from the real estate agents and developers). In the
latter group, 90% of the respondents were developers.
The questionnaire survey with municipal engineers and planners identified a strong willingness to
try alternative drainage systems in either new developments or retrofit situations. In fact, over 30%
of the municipalities who participated in the survey have already implemented some types of
alternative drainage systems. When asked if they would used such systems again, most said yes.
Reasons for not wanting to try alternative types of road drainage systems were highly focussed on
the oerceotion that such systems are in general more expensive to construct and maintain.
Although the survey with real estate agents and developers did indicate a preference for the curb
and gutter system in urban areas and grass swales and ditches in rural areas it was not concluded
if in fact this is a preference or an expectation of what is commonly seen.
The survey results were used in various sections of the report and a general summary is provided
in Section 3 while the questionnaires and a complete breakdown of responses are presented in
Appendix C.
Comparison of drainage alternatives
The comparison and the selection of drainage alternatives cannot be limited to how well they convey
or treat stormwater but should also consider how well they can be integrated in our communities and
at what cost. Some of the issues which are addressed in Section 4 of the report are described
below.
Storm water conveyance: When the use of surface conveyance systems such as ditches and
swales are contemplatet!, their successful design and implementation will often be based on the
proper consideration of: i) the available space, ii) the desired level of service, iii) the type of surface
vegetation, and iv) slopes and the effects of culverts. The advantages and constraints associated
with such design parameter were addressed in the study through the development and application
of a step by step hydrologic I hydraulic analytical procedure which is described in Section 4.1.
, r. ''7'"rHU"''''' nl1r1 1 r;<;:nrrnrr<; Inr I 9ti I n3 Pa!!e VI
\
"-
0187 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
The Metropolitan Toronto Region Evaluation of RoadsIde Ditches
Conservallon Author/IV and Other Related Storm water Management PraCllces
Based on simple geometry it was demonstrated that roadside ditches with 3: 1 or 2: 1 side slopes can
effectively be constructed within Right of Way widths of 20 to 27 m if sidewalks are not present.
When sidewalks are located 1 m from the property line, the available space between the sidewalk
and the road is significantly reduced such that ditches with 3:1 side slopes are too shallow to provide
adequate road base drainage if required. Under such conditions, the use of roadside ditches or
grass swales would require the use of under drains.
With respect to the required level of service, and based on the survey results, the conveyance
capacity of any drainage system should in general be 1:5 yrs for the minor system and 1: 1 00 yrs for
the major system.
The type of surface vegetation in roadside ditches and swales was found to have an important role
in controlling flow velocities below critical levels for erosion in steeper areas. For example, the
allowable flow in a typical roadside ditch can be more than tripled when the vegetation height is
maintained at 30 cm as compared to 5 cm.
The combined effect of the shape of a roadside ditch or swale and the type of vegetation can also
significantly attenuate runoff peak flows. As such it was demonstrated that for a 5 ha area with 40%
imperviousness. the design peak flow in a roadside ditch with 3: 1 side slopes and natural vegetation
could be 30% lower than the design peak flow of a conventional curb and gutter system. Such
reductions in flows could represent significant savings for downstream infrastructure.
Culverts and their spacing can significantly reduce the maximum drainage area which can be
serviced by roadside ditches or swales. For example, it was found that the use of 450 mm culverts
spaced at 20 m could limit the maximum serviceable area to 2.5 ha as compared to approximately
30 ha if culverts were not present.
The use of check dams or raised culverts was shown to be most effective where surface slopes are
small (ie. 0.5% or less). The maximum height of check dams or raised culverts should be based
on the consideration that the retained water must infiltrate within a reasonable time (ie. less than 12
hours). For typical infiltration rates of 3 to 7.5 mm/hr for a topsoil layer and grass cover this would
possibly limit the height of a check dam or raised culvert to 50 mm or less. At such low heights they
would only provide some tangible benefits if used in swales with side slopes of 5: 1 or less.
Stormwater quality treatment erosion and groundwater recharge: The potential effectiveness
of a given drainage feature in providing some level of quality control is dependent on many factors,
some of which are still being studied and understood. Although monitoring data is still limited for
some types of BMP's, they can nonetheless provide an indication of performance. The table below
provides a summary of documented pollutant removal rates for various BMP's. Other aspects are
discussed in Section 4.3 of the report.
,
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0188
The .\4e:.-opoh:an Ton'~'n Region Evaluation of RoadsIde Dllches
ConservatIon AuthorrlV and Dthl!r Related Stonnwater Management PraCllces
Ranges of BMP pollutant removal rates (%)
TSS TP TN Zn Pb BOD Bacteria Oil &
Type of BMP grease
Porous pavement 80-95 60-65 75-85 98 80 80 nla -
--
Infiltration 0-99 0-75 0-70 0-99 0-99 0-90 75-98 -
Infiltration Trenches 90-99 60-75 60-70 90-99 90 90 90-98 -
Extended Detention pond (dry) 29-75 1 0-56 24-60 40-57 24-61 - 50-90 -
Extended Detention pond (wet) 60-91 30-90 40-80 50 57 - 75 -
Wetland 40-94 (-4)-90 21 (-29)-82 27-94 18 nla -
Sand Filters 60-85 60-80 (-110)35 10-80 60-80 60-90 50-70 --
Grass swales 65-98 9-100 24-100 50-90 50-91 - - -
Grass swales w/perforated pipes 90 75 - 75 93 - -- ---
Grass swales with check dams 20-40 20-40 20-40 0 0 - -- --
Vegetative buffer strip 28- 70 70 - 51 25 - -- --
Oil and grit separators 50-80 - - - - - -- 98
(eg. Stormceptors) Public attitudes, perceptions and preferences: The knowledge and/or the understanding of
public attitudes, their perceptions and preferences with respect to streetscape features can become
a valuable asset in determining what type of alternative drainage systems could be acceptable or
could become a resistance factor. From the interpretation of the survey responses, it was found that
public opinions can vary from area to area and mostly between urban and rural settings, As such,
general public opinions are summarized in the table below and further discussed in Section 4.4
Summary of general public preferences
Urban Setting Rural Setting
. A curb & gutter drainage system is . Grass swales or roadside ditches are acceptable but grass
somewhat expected swales are somewhat preferred in terms of maintenance
. One sidewalk located next to or away from requirements and perception of safety.
the curb. . Sidewalks are not important.
. Underground franchise utilities. . Above or below ground franchise utilities.
. Street lighting should be available. . Street lighting should be available.
. Municipal trees should be planted. . Municipal trees should be planted.
· Curved street layouts. . Curved street layouts are somewhat preferred but not has
· Parking on streets allowed. much as in an urban setting.
· No pooling of water on street. . Parking on streets is not as important as in an urban setting.
· No pooling of water on street.
Safety considerations: Safety issues can be related to motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and
homeowners. Drainage components which may have an influence on safety include: i) the presence
of a curb, ii) the presence of ditches, iii) the presence of culverts, and iv) the presence of catch
basins. Drainage functions with may influence the level of safety include: i) depth of water on street,
ii) surface flow velocity, iii) system backups and basement flooding.
With respect to documented.causes of accidents very little has been found during the course of this
study to provide viable statistics on urban accidents or damages which may been caused by
drainage related features or functions. Inquiries with insurance companies have found that such
information is not collected or analysed. Even basement flooding is not documented to determined
if the cause was from the failure of a sump pump or a sewer backup.
J.F. Sabourin and ASSOCIates Inc. /96103 Page viii
\
\
0189 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
The Metropolitan Toronto Region Evaluation of RoadsIde Ditches
Conservallon AUlhorltv and Other Related Storm water Mana~emenl PraCllces
However, some statistics of highway accidents in which drainage structures were involved are
available and are presented in Section 4.5 of the report. It should be noted that drainage structures
were secondary to the accident's cause and that other factors such as driver error or poor road
conditions may have initiated the accident.
Right-of-way, road and lot planning: The potential use of alternative drainage systems must
consider; i) possible integration of system within development and right-of-way widths, ii) presence
and location of sidewalks, iii) presence and location of trees within the public road allowance, iv)
type of roadside landscape treatment, v) presence and location of utilities, vi) road design, and vi)
lot imperviousness, widths and drainage. Each of these issues are discussed in Section 4.6 of the
report and incorporated in the Selection Tool.
Municipal perspective and tendencies: According to the surveys and interviews conducted with
municipal representatives, the majority of the respondents indicated the willingness to positively
consider the use of alternative drainage systems in new developments or retrofit situations in either
urban or rural settings.
The most popular alternative drainage systems that have been or would be considered are; i) grass
swales, ii) grass swales or ditches with raised culverts, iii) grass swales or ditches with infiltration
trench systems, iv) grass swales with perforated pipe systems, and v) curb and gutter with greenbelt
system (ie. backyard swale system).
Economics (capital and maintenance costs): Details on capital and maintenance costs were
obtained from various municipalities, developers and literature. The information was used to
developed itemized tables of annualized costs for most features which can be found in a drainage
system. Annualized costs were obtained by dividing the construction or replacement cost of a given
item by its expected longevity and by then adding the associated annual repair and maintenance
costs.
Although it was found that prices and the frequency of various maintenance activities can vary from
one municipality to another, the approach developed in the study provides a method with which a
comparison of total annual costs can be made between practically any drainage systems. Based
on this approach it was found that the total annualized cost (capital and maintenance) associated
with roadside ditches is much less than usually perceived.
As an example, the total annualized capital and maintenance costs for four different systems
designed to provide at least a 1:5 year level of service with quality and erosion controls based on
a 25 mm storm are compared in the table below.
Total annualized capital and maintenance costs
(per 10 ha of drainage area at 400'" imperviousness based on 1000 m of roadway wIth..o m deep lots and a 20 m ROW)
System #1 System #2 System #3 System #4
Convantlonal curti and guitar systam Uka Systam'l but with a Stormcapto Convantlonal ditch systam with and of Grass awala syatam with perforatad
with concreta plpas and and of pipe unit 'or quality control and and of pipe pipe 'aclllty 'or quality and aroslon pipe systam and Infiltration tranchas
facility for quality and aroslon control. 'aclllty 'or aroslon control. control. Road hu no subelrains. capabla of ..talning and Inflltratlng tha
Rlno" 0' a 25 nvn stonn.
$42,949 $45.730 $36.447 $31,447
NOles ') Cost for land rllquored by end 01 Pipe faCIlity or Iossas In tax revenues are not Included
1) Cost assumas that drtc:hes are 50% efIioenI m nlmovl1ll sedllT1ents II property consUUded. drtched roads may not require an end of pIpe faCIlity In whIch ca.. tha cost
can be raducad by $6,400
2) Total annual costs a.. based on "average" total costs and indIVidual costs may vary be_n ml61cpalrtHls
Details on the compilation of the various costs are presented in Section 4.7 of the report.
,
- \ \
,
\
May 16,1997 ~tershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0190
The Metropolitan Toronto Region Evaluation of Roadside Ditches
Conservation Authorrtv and Other Related Stonnwater Management Practices
Public Education and Feedback
. As the use of stormwater management BMP's move closer to the source so they are to the
public. Many European communities are promoting what they call "gutter education" as part of
a non structural BMP. Such efforts can also be used to reinforce the need to pick up after our
pets.
. Public education should be emphasized to promote the purpose, use and potential benefits of
using alternative drainage system components including the use of lot level controls.
. Developers who promote the use of alternative drainage systems should educate future home
buyers where such alternative standards may entail a higher risk of occasional inconvenience
(eg. Ponding at the back of the lots). When possible, local authorities should provide assistance
to such endeavors.
. Public perception on maintenance requirements for alternative drainage systems should be
further evaluated. - ..
.
New design standards
. There is a need to develop new additional ROW standards which show how to incorporate
various types of drainage alternative features. The absence of such standards is often the
reaso.n for not allowing new types of systems to be used.
- . Further discussions are required with the various types of public and private utilities in order to
promote coordination and the understanding of potential concerns with the use of alternative
drainage components.
. Design standards for the use of alternative drainage systems should be included in the Ontario
Provincial Standards for Roads and Municipal Services.
. Where narrow lots are proposed and where the potential culvert spacing is a major constraint,
the use of double driveways at the property line could double the culvert spacing.
. The use of rear lanes in high density residential areas could increase the opportunities to use
alternative road drainage concepts
Effectiveness of alternative drainage systems
. Monitoring results for the various types of drainage alterative should continue to be collected in
order to update the SWM Potential Function Table use by the Selection Tool.
Further economic evaluations
. Additional economic evaluations are required to further substantiate the costs identified in this
report. This could be accomplished through site specific case examples.
Selection Tool
The selection tool which was developed in this study needs to be tested in real case Scenarios. - .
.
Such exercises may identify the need to refine the method.
.
.
. .
\
\
\
0191 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
The Metropolitan Toronto Region Evaluation of RoadsIde Ditches
ConservatIOn AuthOr/tv and Other Related Slormwaler Mana~ement Practlces
Public Education and Feedback
. As the use of stormwater management BMP's move closer to the source so they are to the
public. Many European communities are promoting what they call Wgutter education" as part of
a non structural BMP. Such efforts can also be used to reinforce the need to pick up after our
pets.
. Public education should be emphasized to promote the purpose, use and potential benefits of
using alternative drainage system components including the use of lot level controls.
. Developers who promote the use of alternative drainage systems should educate future home
buyers where such alternative standards may entail a higher risk of occasional inconvenience
(eg. Ponding at the back of the lots). When possible, local authorities should provide assistance
to such endeavors.
. Public perception on maintenance requirements for alternative drainage systems should be
further evaluated.
New design standards
. There is a need to develop new additional ROW standards which show how to incorporate
various types of drainage alternative features. The absence of such standards is often the
reason for not allowing new types of systems to be used.
. Further discussions are required with the various types of public and private utilities in order to
promote coordination and the understanding of potential concerns with the use of alternative
drainage components.
. Design standards for the use of alternative drainage systems should be included in the Ontario
Provincial Standards for Roads and Municipal Services.
. Where narrow lots are proposed and where the potential culvert spacing is a major constraint,
the use of double driveways at the property line could double the culvert spacing.
. The use of rear lanes in high density residential areas could increase the opportunities to use
alternative road drainage concepts
Effectiveness of alternative drainage systems
. Monitoring results for the various types of drainage alterative should continue to be collected in
order to update the SWM Potential Function Table use by the Selection Tool.
Further economic evaluations
. Additional economic evaluations are required to further substantiate the costs identified in this
report. This could be accomplished through site specific case examples.
Selection Tool
. The selection tool which was developed in this study needs to be tested in real case scenarios.
Such exercises may identify the need to refine the method.
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0192
RES. #D44/97 - AQUATIC PLANTS PROGRAM
Introduction to the 1997 Program
To provide information about the 1997 Aquatic Plants Program
currently underway.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report dated May 6,
1997 regarding the Aquatic Plants Program be received for information. . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
An important step towards the remediation and ultimate delisting of the Metro Toronto
waterfront under the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan, will be promoting the value of
natural areas to the general public. A key vector to achieving this is through education
within the school system. While the Aquatic Plants Program addresses the problem of
inadequate sources of local wetland plant material, it more importantly provides
opportunities for local schools to become involved in regeneration.
The program was initiated by the Bay Area Restoration Council of the Hamilton Remedial
Action Plan and is co-ordinated by McMaster University in Hamilton. Their goal was to
provide locally sourced wetland plant material for the Cootes Paradise Restoration Project.
With the assistance of McMaster University and the Royal Botanical Gardens, the Aquatic
Plants Program was initiated in the Toronto region in 1995. On a pilot scale this program
was designed to provide Col. Samuel Smith Park Wetland Creation Project with locally
sourced Soft Stem Bulrush plants. Approximately 60 schools participated, providing over
700 plants. In 1996/97 the program was expanded to include all of the MTRCA's
jurisdiction. With the continued assistance of the Royal Botanical Gardens, the 1997/98
program has approximately 500 classes participating (an estimated 12,500 students) from
seven different school boards. This years program has the potential to provide over 7,000
soft stem bulrush plants to various wetland projects across the MTRCA's watersheds.
The MTRCA acts as a liaison linking participants and local wetland projects within the
MTRCA's watersheds. The program starts with the growing of wetland plants from seed.
A kit containing seeds, containers, soil and instructions is provided to participants in
February. The information provided allows the plants to be grown in a window setting of
a typical classroom. The degree to which teachers incorporate the plants into their
curriculum is up to them. DeJ:5ending on the age of the class, teachers have incorporated
this program into a pond study, wetland unit, or plant unit. Students participating in the
program range from 3yrs to 19yrs old.
0193 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
In early June, participants are encouraged to join a local wetland project to plant their
material. The MTRCA co-ordinates classes wishing to visit wetland projects with area
projects in need of volunteers or plant material. For those participants who cannot
participate in a planting day, their kits are delivered to either the MTRCA or the City of
Toronto Greenhouse at High Park where they are cared for until planted by staff and
volunteers in a local project.
The benefits of this program are achieved on many different levels. It provides:
. wetland projects within the MTRCA's watersheds with regionally indigenous
wetland plant material grown from seed.
. participants with the opportunity to become actively involved in restoring local
natural areas.
. teachers and students with a "hands-on" learning experience.
After running almost three years in MTRCA's jurisdiction, the Aquatic Plants Program has
successfully involved seven school boards and over 300 different schools, propagating
hundreds of valua + ble softstem bulrushes for wetlands. As a result of the program,
Metro's municipalities, school boards, schools and the Metro Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, have formed valuable working relationships in an effort to restore
wetland habitat in the Greater Toronto Area.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During the weeks of June 2nd to 5th and June 16th to 19th, classes will be joining
MTRCA staff at a variety of local wetland projects. The day is open to any Authority
Members who may wish to join us. The following is a list of project sites and dates:
I PROJECT LOCATION I DATE I TIME I
Colonel Samuel Smith Park Monday, June 2 9:30 - 11 :00
1 :30 - 3:00
Don Valley Brickworks Tuesday, June 3 9:30 - 11 :00 -
1 :30 - 3:00
Grenadier Pond, High Park Wednesday, June 4 9:30 - 11 :00
Thursday, June 5 1 :30 - 3:00
Agnew Farm Pond, Black Creek Project Monday, June 16 9:30 - 11 :00
Tommy Thompson Park Wednesday, June 18 9:30 - 11 :00
1 :30 - 3:00
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0194
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for the 1997/98 program is $25,000 under account number 251-64.
I PARTNER I AMOUNT I
Metro Toronto RAP $10,000
City of Toronto $ 5,000
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 $10,000
Cleanup Fund (requested)
I TOTAL I $25,000 I
For information contact:
Jennifer Vincent, Ext. 349
.
0195 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
,
Attachme~ M;TROTORONTO&.~GlON GREAT LAKES 2000 ~
o Rf;Mf;OIA.. AU/ON PLAN CLEANUP FUND ~
~
.
AQUATIC PLANTS
PROGRAM
--
Growing emergent plants from seed
INTRODUCTION
Over the past century, the Metro Toronto area has suffered a
serious loss offish and wildlife habitat. As an example. almost
all of the wetlands which used to exist on the Toronto water-
front have been lost, and in the waterSheds wetlands have been
destroyed through the development ofuman and agncultwal
communities. Remaining natwal areas and the wildlife
dependent on them are under pressure.
The Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP), an organiz-
ation of public and government bodies, has identified these
problems and have prepared strategies to improve the overall
health of the ecosystem in the Greater Toronto Area The
Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon Conservation Authority
(MTRCA) is active in 1IIlplementing projectS that put RAP
plans into action. The Aquatic plants program has been deve-
loped to provide multiple benefits to both human and wildlife
components of the environment. Your panicipation m t1us
program will assist with the creation and restoration ofJocal
natUral habitats and provide panicIPants with an oppommity
for "hands on" experience in environmental science.
The Aquatic Plants Program starts with the growmg of wetland
plants from seed. The informanon provided in this brochure will
allow you to accomplish this withm the typical classroom settmg,
at home, or in your office. Where the program ends is up to you;
the plants you grow can take you on-site to help build or restore
a wetland site nearby, or if you cannot plant them yourselves,
you can donate them to a local project through the MTRCA.
~
V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
5 shoreham dnve. downsvlew. ontano. m3n t54 (416) 661.6600 FAX 661-6898
hnp:J/www.mlrca.on.ca
~
~
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0196
,
Attachment 2
There are three catqories of aquadc plants: emel'Kents, PROCEDURES
lubmel'Kents, and Ooadn~eat aquatics. Emel'Kents VOw
up throullh the surface of the water and include plants These instructions contain general planting and
such as cattails aDd bulrusbes. Submel'Kents VOw UDder growing infonnation.
the water and include plants such as Canada waterweed
and COODtail. Floadnl:-1eaf aquatics llJ'ow with their We suggest that you stan growing these seeds ASAP so
leaves on the surface of the water,llke the water Illy. that your plants have enough growing nme before the
This prollJ'UD foc:uses OD llJ'owinll emerlleDt plants for summer break.
three reasoDS. First, the seeds of emerlleDt plants are
held above water, maldnll them easier to coDect. SecODd. ~
emergeDt seeds caD be Ilerminated aDd erown in less
water than the other types. And ftnally, emerlleDt plants
are sturdier than the otber types, maldnll them easier to J}
transport and transplant. ~
MATERIAlS ~
Each kit includes: ~
. seeds;
. iDstrUcnons (this handout);
. 2.5 litres of stenhzed potting soil;
. 1 dishpan; and STEP 1: Saturate the soil with water. You can use
. 6 four-secnon plannng pots regular tap water; but. as a precaullon agamst
or 12 three-inch pots. too much chlorine, put the water into buckets
The materials provided will allow you to grow at least 16 and let it Sll at least overnight before uslIlg it.
plants. Feel free to experiment with other ways of growing
these plants that might be better suited to your condinons.
Any extra plants you grow will be greatly appreciated. ~
The seeds you receive will be for one type of emergent plant
and wiD depend on the annual availability of seeds. Usually
the seeds will be for soft-stemmed bulrush (SClrpUS validus), ~~
but if not the species will be identified on the seed container; ~ fj
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.
The soil is a co=ercial potting mix that has been treated
to remove most of the organisms which can kill young
seedlings. It is important that the potting mix conta1Il organic STEP 2: Fill each section of the pots
matenal and that it does not pack down too much wben it
becomes water saturated. Generally, any commmercial 3/4 full with the saturated
potting or seed-stanlIlg soil can be used. soil. Scatter a pinch of seed :,.
on the surface of the soil of
There is nothing particularly special about the dishpans. each section. Carefully
They hold enough water to keep the soil saturated and are place the pots in
sturdy enough to be easily moved around. the dishpan. The
dishpan will hold
The pots are used for both gerID1I18nng seeds and growlDg 12 three-inch pots
plants. Each secnon will hold a slIlgle plant for transplanting. or 24 cells.
Seeds can be started in any clean conta1Iler or pot wwch will
withstand soaking and allow water to enter from the bottom. Ii
These pots can be purchased at a garden supply shop. The
dishpans and pots are reusable but must be washed and
rinsed with diluted bleach to destroy orgaDlsms wwch are
harmful to seedlings before StartlDg the next batch of seeds.
.~
0197 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
.,
Attachment 3
STEP 3: Add water to the dishpan (not the pots) slowly. STEP 6: Allow the seedlings to establish themselves;
The water will come up through the bottom of then remove all but the largest one. You can
the pot to saturate the soil. The seeds will germuwe try to transplant the smaller plants that you
on either the surface of saturated soil or when remove to another pot.
submerged. This means that as long as the water
level in the dishpan is at or below the surface of
the soil, the plants will do fine.
STEP 4: Cover the dishpan WIth saran wrap m between
watenngs to create a hUInld and warm greenhouse-
like envuonment until the seedlings become too large.
STEP 7: As the plants get larger, they will send roots
out of the pots and IIIto the dishpans. Clip
these roots off so the growmg rootlJlass stays
IIIside the pot. Make sure that you keep the
water in the dishpan at a suitable level to keep
the soil saturated.
STEP 5: Place dishpans under or near light source. Most
of the seeds will start to grow in one or two weeks.
Try to provide as much light as you can. Unless
you have large (lOOOW) halogen bulbs, it IS
unlikely that you can provide too much lighL If
possible use a combination of fluorescent (e.g.
tube) and incandescent (e.g. bulb) lights. The
fluorescent lights are weak III the red SIde of the
spectrum. while the IIIcandesc:entlights are weak
in the blue side. The combmanon gtves a ncher
spectrum that more closely approxunate5 sun1ighL
Use whatever lights you have ava1lable. and put
them close to the planls. If you can put your plants .
near a south-facmg window, the sunhght will help.
If the plants are on a windowsill. putnng a1ummum
foil around the back on the inside will reflect more " ".
sunlight back on the plants. If you have a nmer for ~
your hghts. a sixteen-hours-on. eight-hours-off . '
cycle (tunes to correspond to wben the sun IS up)
is also helpful.
~
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0198
.,
Attachment 4 ~
HELPFUL HINTS
Seeds Not Growing
The seeds you receive will be for a very hardy type of
plant. You should have no problems gettmg them to grow.
However, do not feel discouraged if not all of the seeds
germinate. This is to be expected, and you should not
worry that it's anything you are doing improperly. Some
of the seeds are not well formed, and the resulnng 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 indIViduals.
TRANSPLANTINq
. For transplanting into a wetland, the plants should be
Air Temperature approximately 30 em Iugh. Taller plants tend to be floppier
If you can control the air tempel1lture in your growmg area, and can break during transportation to the site: smaller
you can try to reproduce seasonal tempel1ltureS. In June of plants may not survive as well. Don't worry if your plants
1993, the avetage high tempel1lD.1re was 220C and the average are not 30 em by mid-June, the MTRCA can take care of
low was 12'C. In July of 1993, the average Iugh was 270C them until they reach an appropnate height. For planuog.
and the low was l6'C. Place a thermometer on the soil a sturdy plant WIth a tight root mass is most sUllable.
surface close to your seeds. If you are using a lot of lights,
you may notice that they are beating the soil several degrees You can contact the MTRCA in Mayor early June to arrange
above room temperature. Aim to adjust the soil surface a nme for your group to plant thell' stock: otherwise plants may
tempel1lture to the range of 12-27'C. be dropped off at the MTRCA if you are unable to plant them
yourselves. If you have any questions about this proJect, or
would like more infonnanoo on Wetland Projects ID the MTRCA
area, please call the MTRCA office at (416) 661-6600. ext. 349
and reference the Aquatic Plants Program.
~
Aimsy Plants
If the plants are growing flimsy and tall. they are either
not gettmg enough light or are too warm (or both). Try
increasmg the light and decreasing the temperature (if
possible ).
~
~ , h'ty
II the metropolitan toronto and region conservation aut on
... S shore ham dnve. down5v.ew, onlano. m3n 154 (416) 661.6600 FAX 661-6898
htlp:llwww.mlrca.on.ca
Establisbed m 1957 to manage the renewable natural resources of the regJon's waterSbeds,
the Authonty IS a provtDClaltmunlclpa1 partllerslup with parnclpanon from the Province of
Ontano; The MunICIpality of Metropolitan Toronto; the RegJonal Munlclpalines of 0 Pn...." O...no. c......
Durham, Peel, and Yorl:: and the Townsblps of Adjala-Tosoronno and Mono. \;1 ~:='~~:;'"
~
0199 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
RES. #D45/97 - NOMINA TION OF THE HUMBER RIVER AS A CANADIAN
HERITAGE RIVER
Municipal support for the nomination of the Humber River as a
Canadian Heritage River.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report and the
Abstract, as appended, be received;
THA T the Authority request the endorsement of its member municipalities within the
watershed in support of the designation of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage
River;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to request letters of support from its member
municipalities within the watershed.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D46/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THAT paragraph two of the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following:
THAT the Authority request the endorsement of its member and local municipalities
where applicable within the watershed in support of the designation of the Humber River
as a Canadian Heritage River.
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority, at its meeting held on December 20, 1996, approved Legacy: A Strategy
for A Healthy Humber which is a management plan to protect the natural, heritage,
cultural, recreation/tourism and economic resources of the Humber River watershed
through actions based on partnership and stewardship. Further, Legacy: A Strategy for A
Healthy Humber recognized the outstanding influence which the Humber River has had on
Canada and recommended that the Authority bring forward the nomination of the Humber
River as a Canadian Heritage River based on its outstanding natural heritage, human
heritage and recreational values.
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0200
The outstanding role which the Humber River has played in the development of Canada
has been thoroughly documented in'Humber Watershed Task Force background reports.
Through a unique combination of natural and environmental features, humans were drawn
to the watershed long ago and established communities which have flourished. The
relationship which people have had with the natural features of the watershed during the
past has ultimately resulted in the development of Canada's premier cultural and economic
centre and the creation of one of the largest connected public greenspace systems in the
region.
For information contact:
Bob Burgar, Ext 270
Abstract
The Humber River will playa unique role in the Canadian Heritage River System (CHRS)
because it is an outstanding example of a river which demonstrates Heritage Values of
Canadian significance. The role of the Humber River in the CHRS will be to protect,
integrate, and promote its unique and outstanding natural heritage, cultural heritage, and
recreational values and opportunities.
Over thousands of years and into the present, geological processes such as glaciation,
erosion, flooding and deposition have shaped the Humber River watershed into a region of
unique and outstanding natural heritage value. Physiographic features contained in the
region, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment, are some of Ontario's
most outstanding natural features. These features, and the many environmentally
significant areas along the valley and stream corridors of the Humber River, provide critical
habitat for flora and fauna, in addition to providing a diverse and resource rich environment
for human occupation.
Symbolic of the interaction between the water, land and people is the Toronto Carrying
Place Trail, one of the first and most widely used transportation networks in Ontario. The
Carrying Place Trail, which has been designated nationally significant by the Federal
Historic Sites and Monuments Board, was formed over thousands of years by peoples
moving up and down the length of the Humber River. It was used by Ontario's aboriginal
peoples and subsequently by Euro-Canadian explorers and settlers to access the land and
natural resources surrounding the Humber River.
The influx of people from all areas of the globe, to the Humber River, is a pattern of the
past and the present. This has led to the development of the Metropolitan Toronto area
into one of Canada's premier and diverse cultural, recreational, and economic centres.
Today, opportunities for people to explore and enjoy the natural and cultural heritage
features of the Humber River are provided in many recreational settings. The Humber River
contains one of the largest linked public greenspace systems within an urban context, with
trails providing access and linkage to many natural, cultural and recreational destinations.
These destinations include areas of significant natural heritage value like the Humber
Marshes, areas and points of significant cultural heritage value such as the McMichael
Canadian Art Collection, and areas with significant recreational value such as High Park.
0201 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
The final report of the Humber Watershed Task Force, Legacy: A Strategy For A Healthy
Humber, and the companion document, A Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A
Strategy for a Healthy Humber, together constitute the management plan for the Humber
River. The management plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and will ensure that the integrity of the natural heritage, human
heritage, and recreational values of the Humber River are protected.
May 16, 1997
RES. #D47/97 - JOLL Y MILLER
City of North York is acquiring the property through funding provided
by the North York Parking Authority.
Moved by: Bev Salmon
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to work with
the City of North York and the North York Parking Authority to achieve as much green
space as possible, adjacent to the Don River, through the re-design of the parking area
and the site plan approval process;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to work with the City of North York to achieve
suitable restoration of the Jolly Miller structure in accordance with Authority policies for
such flood vulnerable structures.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D48/97
Moved by: Bev Salmon
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THAT the Authority requests that the City of North York reaffirm its previous intention to
revert the lands designated as a parking area to greenspace after a twenty-year period.
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0202
BACKGROUND
The Authority attempted to acquire the Jolly Miller site over a period of approximately
three years. An option to purchase the site was negotiated and a funding partnership
involving Metropolitan Toronto, North York, the York Mills Valley Association and a
private sector partner was pursued. Metropolitan Toronto and the York Mills Valley
Association agreed, conditionally, to participate. The Province of Ontario declined. A
private sector partner expressed interest but negotiations were not completed. The City
of North York decided to pursue acquisition of the site independently, with funding from
the North York Parking Authority.
A conditional agreement to purchase has been completed between the owner and the City
of North York. The North York Parking Authority has requested approval of an Official
Plan Amendment to allow for a parking lot to be maintained on the site and operated by
the North York Parking Authority. An appropriate Official Plan designation and zoning for
a commercial use within the Jolly Miller building is proposed. The City of North York will
be seeking a lessee to undertake improvements to the Jolly Miller building.
A sketch is attached which illustrates the intent of the site plan.
For information contact:
Brian Denney, Ext. 242
\
0203 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
map
--- - .
I I
ICft' ...".. -
~
II
I
, 1
PrlASE I !
~ c:, lDI<IlOO
0
~..-
...... .,.,....~
..~.....~.....
_..............~ ....-......
....-....---.-....
..-.-..ft'
~_...-
-
-- -
-- ,
---
--
..... .---...-..
.
....... ..-...' -- ----
--- -~.-----
--
~...===-.
----
.-- ---
-.... ....... .....A.-___
----.- - - -
---
----- ... ......... ........ ..
_.~ ....~ ..-n
. ..... .-
..... --~....... ..... ................-...
-------- ....,
--- ~==_~.=_z-=:1.8
-- ...~:::=;:w.-=--~:~
-
I-
IU -- (j)
& -- ~~-
\I)
~ a=-=
z .,.,. = ~-Eiiill
0
>- --
......... ........~...... ...,
"'''''II"~ -- ..--..-.
..... ... ....... -.......-
....... -.. . --.....-. .. -~....-..---
.....-....~-~- -
,."ILL 5TREET :..-=~=~~........~ -
......----------..... .. "II!-
........ -...-...- ..-.......... ..
- - --
-- ......2
- -- ,",I
- ~-
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0204
RES. #049/97 KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING
Continuation of annual maintenance dredging of Keating Channel and
commencement of Cell One Capping at the dredged material disposal
site at Tommy Thompson Park.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Harbour
Commissioners be requested to continue maintenance dredging of the Keating Channel in
1997 and to fund one third of the cost for the dredging and the Capping of Cell One up to
a total of $300,000;
THAT the City of Toronto be requested to fund one third of the cost for the dredging and
the Capping of Cell One up to a total of $300,000;
THA T the Authority contribute its one third share of the cost of dredging and the Cell One
Capping up to a total amount of $300,000;
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority continue with the associated environmental
monitoring program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) dredged Keating Channel from the time of its
construction in the 1920's to about 1974. As the dredging became more expensive and
disposal of the dredged material more difficult, the THC sought partners in the work.
Transport Canada initially agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not
dredged, eventually the delta would spread into the north east corner of the Inner Harbour
and affect shipping channels where the federal government was responsible to maintain
safe navigation depths. The MTRCA also agreed to participate on the basis that if the
Channel was not dredged, the threat of flooding in the lower Don River valley was
increased. The MTRCA's participation was the subject of an environmental assessment
between 1980 and 1986 which was subsequently approved. Hence, a three party
agreement was struck which saw the cost of dredging shared three ways during the
period 1986 to 1991 i.e. THC, Transport Canada and MTRCA.
The cost sharing agreement which began in 1986 was to fund the cost of dredging the
material which had accumulated between 1974 and 1986. It did not specifically address
the funding of the maintenance dredging which is required annually. The channel will fill
in over time if annual dredging is not maintained.
The federal government, represented by Transport Canada, advised the THC that no
federal funds will be available for maintenance dredging unless Environment Canada
assumes the federal involvement. The MTRCA has also been advised that no funding will
be available from the Federal Government.
During the first five years of maintenance dredging (1992 - 1996), the THC, City of
Toronto and the MTRCA participated in the cost sharing.
0205 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
RA TIONALE
There is a continuing need for dredging of the Keating Channel. Recent studies for the
City of Toronto on Ataratiri confirmed the connection between the dredged channel and
Lower Don River flood risks. In addition, some navigation interests still exist in the north
east corner of the harbour. THC has estimated an annual siltation rate of between
30,000 to 50,000 cubic metres.
The approval of the Keating Channel Dredging Project under the Environmental
Assessment Act imposed conditions on the capping of the dredged material within the
disposal cells at Tommy Thompson Park. There are costs associated with the
construction of the proposed cap which were not part of the original funding for the
dredging project. It was anticipated that the cap could be constructed by placing clean fill
over the dredged material, which would have been done at no net cost. However, the
desire to create wetland habitat, while enhancing the existing fish habitat in the disposal
cells which is consistent with the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and the terms and
conditions of approval under the Environmental Assessment Act, has resulted in a
solution requiring approximately $600,000 in funding over a 2 to 3 year period.
Cell One is now full and therefore must be capped to meet the requirements of the
Environmental Assessment approval.
DET AILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
The THC will coordinate and carry out the dredging program. It is estimated that up to
46,500 cubic metres of material would be dredged from the channel and disposed of in
Cells Two and Three of the Endikement (Tommy Thompson Park). MTRCA staff will
continue the environmental monitoring program for the dredging and disposal operations.
We anticipate the plan for the wetland cap will be approved by the Regional Director,
Ministry of the Environment and Energy in accordance with the Keating Channel
Environmental Assessment and the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan/Environmental
Assessment.
Subject to receiving the final approval from the Ministry of the Environment and Energy
and approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Capping of Cell One will
commence in 1997. Details of the construction and implementation of the Cell One
Capping will be co-ordinated between the THC and MTRCA staff.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
If the regular maintenance dredging of Keating Channel is delayed or deferred in 1997, it
is likely that the cycle of the past 16 years will simply be repeated. It is unlikely to get
easier to find funds in future budgets. With each year the dredging is delayed, the
volume to be dredged increases and the channel capacity decreases. While the existing
Environmental Assessment approval includes annual or biennial maintenance dredging, it
is possible that if the work was delayed beyond that period that an environmental
assessment review may be requested.
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0206
Coastal wetlands are critically important ecological components of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Within Toronto, an extensive coastal wetland the Ashbridge's Marsh, was
destroyed by the early 1900's. Within the Metro Toronto waterfront boundaries, the
Humber and Rouge River estuary marshes are the only remaining coastal marshes. The
shoreline from Toronto to Presquile Bay, including Frenchman's Bay, Duffins Creek and
other coastal marshes within the MTRCA jurisdiction has lost approximately 31 percent of
the original 2,044 acres of functioning wetland area.
Within the TTP area, Cell 1 represents only one of many opportunities to replace a portion
of the historical Toronto wetlands. Including the embayments, there is potential for
approximately 95 ha of coastal wetland habitat creation with an "urban wilderness"
landscape. Although, the creation of a wetland at Cell 1 will not alter the history or trend
of wetland loss in Ontario, it will offer an opportunity for local wetland rehabilitation with
additional opportunities for public education, recreational benefits, wildlife habitat
improvement, ecosystem diversity, and other environmental benefits. In addition, the
construction of a wetland would be useful as a demonstration of what can be achieved in
the way of wetland creation and the management of Confined Disposal Facilities within
the Great Lakes basin.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total cost of the Keating Channel dredging for 1997 is $450,000. This is to be
shared equally by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour
Commission.
The total cost of the first phase of the capping of cell one in 1997 is $450,000. This is
to be shared by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission.
The total funding requests therefore for all of the partners is as follows:
MTRCA Citv of Toronto THC
Dredging $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Cell One Capping $150.000 $150.000 $150.000
TOTAL $300.000 $300.000 $300.000
The THC has budgeted a total of $150,000 as its' share of the dredging cost and the City
of Toronto will be asked to confirm its' $150,000 share.
Funding for the Cell One Capping will need to be confirmed by the City of Toronto
($150,000) and THC ($150,000).
The Authority has budgeted a total of $300,000 for 1997 under the Lake Ontario
Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999 with funding available under Account No.
207 (Keating Channel Project) and Account No. 210-04 (Cell One Capping).
For information contact:
Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
0207 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
RES. #050/97 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT
1995 - 1999
Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland Restoration Project
The construction of a pedestrian link between Humber Bay
Waterfront Park East and West, and the enhancement of 1 hectare
of wetland habitat within the Mimico Creek Estuary.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the implementation of the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland Restoration Project under the
"lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at a total cost of $170,000.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The mouth of Mimico Creek is located within the Humber Bay Waterfront Park on the
shoreline of lake Ontario in the City of Etobicoke. The configuration of the waterfront
park has extended the lake-river interface south of its historic location. This extended
channel has led to the accumulation of bedload sediments within the river and has now
established a primary channel and a braided network of ancillary channels. This area of
accumulated sediments provides an opportunity to establish conditions suitable for a
significant wetland habitat. Although this estuary was established through man made
conditions, it follows the natural forces that are associated with the development of other
river mouth marshes.
In 1992, a pilot project was initiated within the western embayment located immediately
south of Lakeshore Road. The embayment perimeter had a well established wetland plant
community consisting of several types of plants including arrowhead and giant bur-reed.
However, the accumulated sediments were devoid of vegetation. In phase I (1992) a
variety of wetland plants were established in four large enclosures placed at different
locations within the embayment. Monitoring of the success of these plantings identified
limiting factors inhibiting plant growth at the site. Phase II (1993) work continued the
establishment of appropriate plant species with the addition of one enclosure, actions
were also directed to defining the impact of turbidity, and investigating possible solutions.
The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail is a component of the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Trail from the Niagara River to Trenton. At Humber Bay Park, the Waterfront Trail is
prominent throughout the park providing access and vistas to many areas. However, in
the park the trail alignment is somewhat fractured. The only connection between the
East and West components of the Park is along Lakeshore Road. In 1996, Metro Parks
and Culture Department initiated a project that would result in the construction of a
pedestrian bridge across Mimico Creek, providing a preferable trail alignment that follows
natural desire lines and allows for a better connective link between the two major park
areas.
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0208
The construction of the pedestrian bridge will complement the Mimico Creek Estuary
Wetland by providing the necessary physical foundation for the wetland. Phase III of the
Wetland Creation Project will result in the creation of approximately 1 ha of new wetland
habitat in conjunction with the construction of the pedestrian bridge. The combination of
improved public access and fish and wildlife h'abitat enhancement provides an excellent
opportunity for public education about coastal wetlands and RAP related restoration
efforts.
RA TIONAlE
The opportunity exists in this project to combine the forces of Metro Parks and Culture
and the MTRCA to complete a portion of the Waterfront Trail, to provide improved and
expanded wetland habitat within the mouth of Mimico Creek, and to provide opportunity
for public education and enjoyment of our natural resources. Metro Parks and Culture
Department has requested the MTRCA to provide the land base upon which the
pedestrian bridge will be secured. During the creation of this base, the opportunity exists
to create the structure necessary to establish an estuary wetland.
DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Construction has begun on the creation of the land base for the pedestrian bridge footings.
Once this is complete, the wetland creation project will begin. Designs for the wetland
have already been completed and approved by the applicable regulatory agencies.
Metro Parks and Culture has invited tenders for the bridge supply.
The project is expected to be completed by the spring of 1998.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
The bridge is being constructed under the capital budget of the Metro Parks and Culture
Department. The landbase for the bridge is being constructed by the MTRCA under the
lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999. The budget for this
component of the project is $100,000 in account number 205-12.
The budget for the estuary wetland creation component of the project is $70,000. Staff
have submitted an application to the Great lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund for $35,000
towards this component. The results of this application are expected by the end of June
1997. Matching monies have been allocated from the Metro Remedial Action Plan
Implementation Project (1995 - 1999).
Approvals for the bridge component of the project are based on the wetland component
being completed. Should funding requested from the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund be
reduced in amount or not received, funding is available from the lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1995 - 1999 to complete the wetland component.
Report prepared by:
Jennifer Vincent, Ext. 349
For information contact:
Nigel Cowey, Ext.244, Jennifer Vincent, Ext.349
0209 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
Attachment 1
Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland Creation Project
AREA OF CONCERN:
Coastal wetlands are a
The Mimico Creek Estuary is located within the Metro diminished resource within the
Toronto and Region Area of Concern as designated by the Great Lakes. In the Greater
International Joint Commission. This project is a partnership Toronto Area alone coastal
between the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the wetlands have been reduced by
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority more than 80 percent. Coastal
(MTRCA). This project is in keeping with the MTRCA's t.ke wetlands are recognized as
Ont.rlo W.terfront R.g.ner.t1on Project$ fo, 1995-1999. being integral to the health of
The Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland Project is in support of the Lake Ontario waterfront by
the goals and objectives of the Metro Toronto and Region providing fish and wildlife
RAP. habitat, critical core habitats,
and areas of public recreation.
BACKGROUND: The restoration and
MImIco ClHk W.,.,.,. rehabilitation of these areas will
In the past, the mouth of Mimico Creek was an area of contribute to the health of the
biological significance along the waterfront. The word waterfront and the Lake Ontario ecosystem.
Mimico takes its name from the Mississauga term Most rivers within Metro Toronto historically supported
.Omimeca. . "The Resting Place of the Wild Pigeons..
Historically, passenger pigeons used the mouth of Mimico extensive estuary wetlands. Due to the local geology and
Creek as a Migratory Itop-over point, and the adjacent coastal processes, the mouth of Mimico Creek never fully
forests were a locale favoured by birds in Toronto. formed into an extensive estuary wetland. Large scale
Abundant and readily, taken the passenger pigeons provided wetlands formed in the mouth of the Rouge and Humber
an income for early settlers who sold them to the Toronto Rivers but are reduced in size from there former state. The
market (Reeves 1992). This wetland creation project will successful rehabilitation of estuary wetlands will be critical
improve the biologica' signifigance of this area and is a in the restoration of ecosystem integrity of the Metro
major step in restoring the environmnetal intregrity of this Toronto Waterfront. This project will concentrate on
area. creating at the mouth of Mimico Creek, functional habitat
Mimleo Cr.... eatuary W.d.nd Cr..den Projeet p.g. . t
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0210
Attachment 2
and landform conditions similar to the other coastal The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail is a component
wetlands. of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail. This Trail stretches
from the City of Trenton to the City of Hamilton and
The mouth of Mimico Creek is located within the Humber ultimately to the Niagra River. It provides a place for
Bay Waterfront Park on the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the recreation close to home for the 3 million people who live
City of Etobicoke. The configuration of the waterfront park near the lake and it helps waterfront visitors understand the
has extended the lake river interface south of its historic interconnections, both natural and cultural, that are so vital
location. This extended channelled to the accumulation of to the health and vitality of the lakeshore (WRT, 1995). At
bedload sediments within the river and is now established a Humber Bay Park, the Waterfront Trail is prominent
primary channel and a braided network of ancillary
channels. This area of accumulated sediments provides an
opportunity to establish conditions suitable for a significant
wetland habitat. Although this estuary was established by
man made conditions, in essence it follows the natural
forces that are associated with the development of other
river mouth marshes.
In 1992, a pilot project was initiated within the western
embayment located immediately south of Lakeshore Rd.
The embayment perimeter had a well established wetland
plant community consisting of several types of plants
including arrowhead and giant bur-reed. However, the
accumulated sediments were devoid of vegetation. In
phase I (1992) a variety of wetland plants were established
in four large enclosures placed at different locations within
the embayment. Monitoring of the success of these G",.t Blue Herons .", frequent huntfHs in estullry wet/.nds
plantings identified limiting factors inhibiting plant growth
at the site. Phase II (1993) work continued the throughout the park providing access and vistas to many
establishment of appropriate plant species with the addition areas. However. in the park the trail alignment is somewhat
of one enclosure, actions were also directed to defining the fractured because the East and West components of
impact of turbidity, and investigating possible solutions. Humber Bay Park are connected on Lakeshore Rd. The
construction of a pedestrian bridge across Mimico Creek
This wetland project at Mimico Creek Estuary will address would provide a preferable trail alignment that follows
the local limiting conditions outlined in the earlier work and natural desire lines and allows for a better connective link
establish an extensive wetland habitat. between the two major park areas.
Mimee Cre.k fltulry W.tllnd Cr..den Project p.g. - 2
0211 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
Attachment 3
The construction of the pedestri.n bridge will complement
the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland by providing the
necessary physical foundation for the wetland. The
combination of improved public .ccess and fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement provides an excel/ent opportunity for
public education about coastal wetlands and RAP related
restoration efforts.
THE MIMICO CREEK ESTUARY WETLAND
I PROJECT:
.
The Mlmico Creek watershed represents one of the most
urban streams within the greater Toronto area. The ilIIreed .1:OIIIIIIDdy found In c.tt"
restoration of its estuary wetland will result in an important thit:hu.
step forward in the restoration of this segment of shoreline . Rehabilitate areas infested with Purple Loosestrife.
and the watershed.
The goel of this project is: . Provide a pedestrian link between Humber Bay ~-
To crellte s wetlllnd complex within the mouth of the along the Metropolitan Toronto W.terfront Tr.i1.
Mimico Creek which enhllnces fish and wildlife habitst. . Highlight the use of bioengineering techniques for
provides IIccess for public enjoyment IInd contributes to the
ecologiclIl integrity IInd biodiversity of the Metropolitlln shoreline stabilization.
Toronto shoreline.
. Establish a habitat complex consisting of coastal
In order to achieve the above goals the fol/owing objectives wetland plant communities
have been identified:
. Establish critical habitat components to improve
. Establish a wetland complex within the mouth of the wildlife biodiversity and prOductivity.
Mimico Creek that tests the feasibility of estuary . Evaluate and monitor a variety of wetland creation
wetland restoration/creation.
techniques.
M1m1co Cr.... Eatu.ry W.d.nd Cr..don Project
P.
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0212
Attachment 4
To achieve the environmental objectives for this project, the the park extended the mouth of Mimico Creek offshore
project details were developed using concept of roughly 500 metres. This situation provided a condition of
conservation design principles. Conservation Design is a small watercourse within a large channel, similar to
defined as the purposeful act of planning and designing for natural landform at the mouth of the Rouge. Over the past
a variety of wildlife habitats and incorporating natural twenty years the bedload sediments have filled in half of the
succession principles to restore or create functional new channel. These sediments provide an opportunity to
habitats. The term .conservation design- was originally create at the mouth of Mimico Creek the landform that
coined by Dr. Walter H. Kehm from the School of Landscape mimics the conditions found at other coastal wetlands.
Architecture at the University of Guelph. While the term is
new, the principles embodied are clearly reflected within
natural systems and the objectives can be achieved through
very simplrstic techniques. Without exception, landform is
the most significant factor contributing to the success of
any restorationlcreation project.
For this project the landform that will be copied is that of a
drowned river mouth marsh. During the post glacial period
many of the watercourses within Metro Toronto acted as
major spillway for glacial meltwaters. These spillways
carved major valley systems into the thick glacial till beds
found on the north shore of Lake Ontario. At the same time
the water levels fluctuated on historic Lake Ontario to
successively flood and abandon the shoreline. This process
set up conditions where the mouth of major rivers were .. .-.. .-..._..~ .._-,..
either situated in a large channel that were flooded by Soft 6Iem bu/twh I. oh.n found MDng
higher lake levels (Rouge and Humber Rivers) or the rivers ",. <<l~. of "".d.nd.
were encapsulated in sand bars (Don River). At the mouth
of Mimico Creek there was never an extensive river mouth
wetland because the watershed is in an area of thin glacial WETLAND CREATION
deposits, the river was less important as a spillway, and the
shele bedrock is close to the surface and prevented major The estuary wetlands found within the Metro Toronto area
downcuttting. Also the coastal processes at the shoreline
prevented the buildup of a river delta or sandbar. are the result of many forces both past and present and
many events in the watersheds and within the region. The
Humber Bay Park was finished by 1976, and the design of marshes that evolved in the estuaries sit in large well
Mimlco Creek Eltuery Wld.nd Creedon Project p_.4
0213 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
Attachment 5
..... ~
- I
fIL. ~
--- Arr~
_ _ _ _ _.D....._
_ _ ___!!:TAIl-
CltOSS-SECTION c-c
~ MlmlCD ClHk mouth _tIMId plUfile
defined velleys with thick beds of accumulated fluvial
deposits. Through time. the rivers meandered in these
sediments and formed primary and secondary channels. water areas a variety of emergent. submergent and floating
Often channels were truncated during storm events and leaf vegetation flourish. These areas not only support
formed extensive back water areas. Eventually the primary wetland plant communities they function .s critical habitat
channels establish a dynamic equilibrium within the valley for fish. birds. and herptiles.
and formed a stable alignment. This alignment allowed the
development of bankside levees which cultivated unique The Mimico Creek is highly urbanized resulting in an
biological communities. watershed that is subject to frequent flooding and poor
environmental conditions. Aerial photographs of the Mimico
Often levees provide enough topographical relief that a Creek Estuary show the extent of eccumulated bedload
community of shrubs species are established on the bank. sediments and the development of a primary channel
This in turn provides additional structural integrity to the forming along the westside of the channel. This channel is
levees and allows the accumulation of additional sediments. the precursor of the development of stream bank levees.
Shrub communities are typically composed of dogwoods Investigation and modelling has shown that if berms were
and willows. In the abandoned meander channel and back established. the channel alignment would be stable and
conditions behind the berms would be ideal for wetland
plant establishment.
Mmloo Creek EaNery Wedend Creedon Projeot pege . II
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0214
Attachment 6
eateblished. This vegetated shoreline with a mixture of
This project will create a series of berms in the estuary to plant types and shoreline conditions will provide additional
provide the proper conditions and mimic levees. Berms habitat.
originating from the stream banks will deflect flows during
all stream flow conditions. During high water levels Once the berms are in place, the grade behind the berms
conditions (high lake levels or high river flows) the areas will be altered to reflect a typical wetland profile. To
behind the berms would collect flood water and act as a increase the diversity of these areas, tree stumps, log
beckwater area, and the force of the current would be tangles, and anchored trees will be placed throughout.
I deflected away from this area. The berms will be They will provide important critical habitat for wildlife.
constructed using a rubble core with a veneer of sand. The The selection of appropriate aquatic plant material for this
rubble core provides the structural integrity necessary to project is based on community compositions found in similar
, meintain the levee during high water level, high flow events. estuary wetlands along the north shore of Lake Ontario, and
I The sand veneer provides a suitable substrate for the specifically within the Greater Toronto Area. The graded
bioengineering efforts and the shrub and emergent plant areas will be inoculated with a variety of suitable aquatic
communities. The finished berms will duplicate the function plants inCluding soft stem bulrush (Scirpus validus),
of a natural levee when the plant communities are arrowhead (Ssgittsris latifolia) and waterlily (Nuphsr sp.l.
Material will be established through a combination of
nursery stock, Aquatic Plants Program, mature transplants,
and seeding. Past experience at Mimico Creek and other
wetland sites has shown that aquatic plants once
established, reproduce vegetatively often doubling their
numbers in one season. For this reason, plantings will be
concentrated in largely spaced nodes. By utilizing the
natural tendencies of these plants to reproduce, a more
natural functioning wetland will be created.
REHABILITATION OF PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
Immediately south of Lakeshore Rd. adjacent to the eastern
bank of Mimico Creek a more or less homogeneous stand of
I Purple Loosestrife has established itself on an island. This
i
I project proposes to remove the loosestrife, alter the
topography of the island making it more suitable for wetland
i plants, and establish a wetland plant community .
I
I Mimloo Craek Eatuary Walland Craadon ProJaat paga .8
0215 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
Attachment 7
-
-- ----- - - -- -- ---'---
---------- -
-~ .M;I _
, CROSS - SECTION .-.
Ptopo..d Purple Loo..WIfe ,.",.,.tIon
A bllckhoe will be uSlld to remove loosestrife and alter the ultimately to the Niagra River. It provides e piece for
topography. The loosestrife will be disposed of by burying recreation close to home for the 3 million people who live
it at least thrlle feet below ground. The island currently is nellr the lake and it helps waterfront visitors understand the
lit an elevation of 75.1 m ASL, water levels through this interconnections, both natural and cultural, that are so vital
area range from 74.7m ASL to 75.2m ASL. By altering the to the health and vitality of the lakeshore ( WRT, 19951.
elevation to 74.8m ASL the area will be regularly flooded. Humber Bay Park trail users currently are diverted north to
The altered IIrell will be densely planted with shrubs and Lakeshore Rd. to cross Mimico Creek and then diverted
aquatic mllcrophytes species similar to the wetland sites. south back onto the trail. The creation of a pedestrian
Thll area will be maintained to ensurll the planted material Is bridge aerosa the Mimico Creek Estuary would provide
functioning. safer pedestrian access and would provide a key linkage
between Humber Bay Park East and West and the Etobicoke
By eradicating this arell of purplll loosestrife and Motel Strip with thll remaining parts of the Metropolitan
establishing nativlI plllnt material, a system more attractive Toronto Waterfront Trail.
to native fish and wildlifll will be created.
BIOENGINEERING TECHNIQUES FOR SHORELINE
PROVIDING ACCESS ALONG THE LAKE ST ABllIZA TION
ONTARIO WATERFRONT TRAIL
Thll use of live plant materials in restoration project cen be
Thll Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Trail is a component divided into two categories; vegetative plantings and soil
of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail. This trail stretches bioengineering. Vegetative planting is the conventional
from the City of Trenton to the City of Hamilton and methods of planting shrubs, trees, etc. to provide soil
Mimlco Creek eetuery Wedend Crullon Project page - 7
~
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0216
Attachment 8
....
-------- ______ _a-_
- - ---
, CROSS - SECTION A-...
A cm......ctJon "'0l11li"11 the pmpo..,J wetJ.nd enh.nce""'" .t the Mlmlco c,.ek bddge CIOuI"II
stability and habitat enhancement. Soil bioengineering is an become established. In Brush layers, the cuttings are
applied science combining the principles of mechanical, arranged in a crisscross configuration perpendicular to the
biological and ecological science to construct living slope (Grillmayer, R, 1995).
structures for erosion, sediment, and flood control (Sotir
and Gray, 1989). Uve plants become the major structural As previously discussed, naturally formed levees often
component reinforcing the soil and providing protection. provide enough topographical relief that communities of
shrub species are established along its banks. This provides
Soil bioengineering systems function immediately providing additional structural integrity and erosion control. Shrub
soil reinforcement and acting as barriers to surface erosion. communities consisting of willows (Sslix sp.) and dogwoods
There are three techniques commonly used in (Comus sp.) will be established used the soil bioengineering
bioengineering; live staking, fascines, and brush layering. techniques discussed. In the Mimico Creek scenario this will
Uve staking is the placement of a live rootable cutting into not only provide additional structural support but will act as
the ground. It can be used on its own or in combination a sediment sink and contribute to the habitat provided.
with another technique (usually to secure the other
technique). A live fascine is a long bundle of cuttings tied MONITORING
together into a sausage-like structure and placed
horizontally to the slope. Fascines are effective at The MTRCA has seasonally monitored waterfront fish
protecting slopes from shallow slides, reducing surface communities since 1989, including Mimico Creek. This
erosion or riling, and capable of trapping and holding soil seven year database provides an excellent baseline for
onto a slope. Brush layers are similar to fascines in that assessing the fish community response to wetland habitat
they are used to break up a slope into a series of shorter creation. In addition. the MTRCA is monitoring water
slopes, provide slope stability, and allow vegetation to quality, and avian and herptile communities along the Metro
Mlmco Creek EetulllV Wedend Cre.don Project page. .
0217 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
Attachment 9
Toronto waterfront. Mlmlco Creek &tuary Wetland Creation Project will aaaiat In
the remediation and enhancement of our natural area. along
The pilot project implemented In 1992 and 1993 In the the Lake Ontario shoreline through Metropolitan Toronto.
western embayment has been monitored regularly. This project specifically addresses the following goals of the
Monitoring has shown a significant increase in the amount Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan:
of wetland vegetation growing within the embayment.
While there has not been sufficient time to make any GOAL 2b: Rehabl1lta1lon of fish III1d wUdllf.
conclusions about avian and herptilel use of the area, they habltet
do appear to be increasing. Further enhancement of the GOAL 2c: Protection III1d rehablUtadon of
estuary is expected to result in further improvements in the w.dands
avian, fish, and herptile communities. GOAL 2h: Ecosystem obHrvadon
,
The success of this project will provide validation of
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT techniques for wetland creation within river estuaries. It
will evaluate guidelines recommending designs and
Various community groups such as the Citizens Concerned techniques to ensure sustainability. Knowledge gained will
for the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront and the assist future wetland restoration/creation efforts. A total of
Lakeshore Planning Council will be invited to participate in 1.93 hectares of wetland habitat will be available at the
the development of this projact by providing comments on completion of this project. Once the vegetation community
plans. assisting in organizing nature tours. and participating is established, the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland will be
in planting events. better able to sustain increased water flow. and predation
by carp or waterfowl. Temporary measures taken to reduce
Students attending various schools in the City of Etobicoke the affects of predation have been successful with wetland
are participating in the Aquatic Plants Program. This plant establishment occurring. Improving water clarity and
program will provide the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland reducing the affects of water current on the site will
Creation Project with locally grown wetland plant material increase plant colonization resulting in long term stable plant
that these students have grown in their classroom. communities.
The creation of a pedestrian bridge will facilitate the
EXPECTED BENEFITS enjoyment of these natural areas by trail users. As the
community begins to recognize the enjoyment and benefit
Wetland and natural habitat areas have suffered tremendous they receive from these areas, our ability to preserve and
decline as our urban areas expand. The completion of the enhance other natural areas will be increased.
Mlmlco Cr.... E8II'.ry W.Uend Creedon ProJeot peg. - S
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0218
Attachment 10
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For additional information on this project please contact: or:
Parks and Culture Department Waterfront Specialist
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
55 John Street 5 Shoreham Drive
Toronto, Ontario Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1 S4
.
f8-~~~ . ~THY. ftl
o~..,. ~v...
~..t; 40th ~.~
\ tpl I ANNVERIARY' "
0"" ~ .; > "57 -'87 :,
O(.ITAN ""\0. e >
METRO !l! z
i IDItro Ng\on CCIIlMfVdan ;;:
.
Mmioo Creek fltu.ry W.tl.nd erlltlon Project ,..g. - 10
0219 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
RES. #051/97 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #2/97
The minutes of Meeting #2/96 held April 10, 1997 of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #2/97 held April 10, 1997, 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
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0220
RES. #052/97 - FEES FOR AUTHORITY PLAN REVIEW SERVICES IN DURHAM
REGION
Receipt and recommended approval of a report establishing fees for
Conservation Authority plan review services in Durham Region, as
submitted by the Central lake Ontario Conservation Authority on
behalf of the five Durham Region CA's.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report, entitled Proposed Fee
Schedule, Environmental Planning and Engineering Input and Review, dated May 12,
1997, as submitted by Mr. J. R. Powell, CAO, Central lake Ontario Conservation
Authority, on behalf of the five Conservation Authorities with jurisdiction within Durham
Region be received;
AND FURTHER THAT pursuant to the Summary Recommendation set out on page one of
this report, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for the area of
its jurisdiction lying within the Regional Municipality of Durham, adopt the following:
1. The Fee Schedule for Environmental Planning and Engineering Input and Review,
dated May 12, 1997, under Section 21 (m.1) of the Conservation Authorities Act;
2. Development of an administrative framework that gives appropriate regard to the
Region of Durham, the area municipalities, the development industry, the Ministry of
Natural Resources "Draft Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation
Authority Fees, January 28, 1997, and the ACAO-UDI Joint Statement of
Understanding;
3. The allocation of planning matters between municipality financed and developer
financed be as presented in the report;
4. The Region of Durham and the area municipalities be requested to assist the
participating Conservation Authorities in collecting the preliminary analysis fee at
time of development application receipt;
5. The Region of Durham, area municipalities, participating Conservation Authorities
and the development industry establish a forum to implement, monitor and review
fee schedules established under Section 21 (m.1) of the Conservation Authorities
Act, and the administrative arrangements relating to same;
6. The target date for implementation of the fee schedule be July 1, 1997 and the
target date for operation of the administrative, review and appeal procedures forum
be October 1, 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
.
0221 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
BACKGROUND
At Meeting # 1/97, held March 7, 1997, the Executive Committee received for information
a status report on the development and implementation of fees for MTRCA planning
services and a draft, GT A conservation UFlat Fee" Schedule for Planning Services and
further directed staff to continue to consult with watershed municipalities and the
development industry before reporting final recommendations for Authority approval. This
direction was consistent with earlier staff reports related to Provincial initiatives to
streamline the land Use Planning and Development Process in Ontario and the financial
details of the MTRCA 1997-1999 Business Plan.
RA TIONAlE
The Central lake Ontario Conservation Authority (ClOCA) has taken the lead role in
bringing our discussions to conclusion in Durham Region. The attached report, submitted
by Mr. J.R. Powell, the CAO of ClOCA, was prepared on behalf of the five Conservation
Authorities with jurisdiction within Durham Region following consultation with the other
GT A conservation authorities, the Region of Durham and area municipalities, the Durham
Chapter of the Urban Development Industry and the Oshawa-Durham Home Builders'
Association. Mr. Powell's report summarizes the background leading to our discussions,
summarizes the input received and sets out our final recommendations and rationale for
same.
MTRCA staff support and recommend Authority adoption of the recommendations
contained in the report.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Durham Region Conservation Authorities Proposed Fee Schedule - Environmental
Planning and Engineering Input and Review report, dated May 12/97 is being submitted to
each Authority Board for adoption. In addition, Councils for each of the Durham Region
municipalities will be receiving correspondence formally requesting their assistance in the
collection of the preliminary analysis fee at the time an application for development is
received. It is hoped that all approvals will be in place to begin implementation by July 1,
1997.
Staff will report on any additional issues or changes that arise as the Report is processed
for approval throug the other Conservation Authorities and municipalities within the Region
of Durham, at the Authority Meeting scheduled for May 30/97 and at subsequent Meetings
as required.
Staff will forward reports affecting the regions of Peel, York and Metropolitan Toronto as
recommendations regarding Authority Planning Fees are finalized in each of these regions.
For information contact:
Renee Jarrett, ext. 315
Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0222
May 16,1997
- -... -.-.....-.... P.2/36
~ Central /
tOO Whi1Ing AvenJe
Oahawa, 0nIal0
" Lake Ontario L t H 3T3
Conservation Tel: (905) S79-Q4 t 1
Fcc (90S) S79-0994
i May 12. 1997. I
i
\ . -
I
I
1 LE'rrER TO:
The C1airman and Members:
Ccmral Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Ganaraslca Rqion Conservation Authority
Kawartha Region Conservation Authority
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Metropolitan TorontO and Rqion Conservation Authority /
Dear Sir/Madam:
Subject: Durham Region CoDSer'Vation Authorities - Proposed Fee Schedule
. Envirnnn'l("ntlt I Plannin2 and En2ineel'ina Input and Review
On behalf of the staff of the above Conservation Authorities. I submit the attached rcpon
for your consideration. I
I
!
Yours truly, I
I
tterdt I
: !
I
I ,
I ,
I
\
Chief Administrative Officer.
1RPlklt
Ene.
.: \1UII\May 12-97. fce
What we do on the land is mirrored in the water. @
0223 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
. .-
DORBAM REGION CONSERVATION AOTHOlUTIES
J
i
PROPOSED FEE~OLZ
EN'nRONME:NTAL PLANNm<; AND ENGINEERDtG
INPUT AND REVIEW
.
,
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO
GANA:RASKA REGION
KAWARTBA REGION
LAKS SIMCOE REGION
METROPOLITAN 'rORON'rO AND REGION
May 12, 1997
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0224
Table of Contents PaR No.
l. Summary Recommendation 1
2. Introduction . - 2
3. Consultations 3
4. . Leiislative Basis for Fees S
5. Ministry of NatUral Resources 8
. Current Policy Direction
6. ACAO . UDI Forum: Joint StaICment of Understmding 9
7. Fee StrucU1l'eS Options for Fmancing Environmental P1annini 10
and Engineering Input and Review
Regional Government Approaches - Established and Evolving
8. Allocation of Costs - Public Sector vs Private SectOr 12
9. The Municipal Role 14
10. Proposed Flat Fee Schedule for C.A. Plannin& Services IS
11. Implc:mcntaIion and Review 18
APPENDIX 1 : UDI-Durham and Oshawa-Durham Home Builders' Responses
APPENDIX II : ACAO-UDI Joint Swemcnt of Understanding
.
i 0225 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97
May 16,1997
J
i
1
- 1 -
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
It is recn~ed that the CeUira.l Lake Ontario Conservaaon Authority. me Ganaraska
Region Conservation Authority, the Kawanba Region Conservalion Authority. the Lake
Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation AU1hority, for the area of their jurisdiction lyin& within the Regional
Municipality of Durham, adopt the foUowinl:
1. The Fee Schedule for Environmen~1 Planning and Engi.neeriq Input and Review, dared
May 12. 1997, wuicr Section 21 (m.1) of the ConsctVation Authorities Act.
2. Developmem of an administrative framework that lives appropria1e regard to the Region
of Durham. the area municipalities, the development industry, the Ministry of Namral
Resources "Draft Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation AUIhority
Fees, January 28. 1997", and the ACAO-UDI Joint StlIT"'"'ertt of Understanding.
3. The allocation of planning matters between municipality financed and developer financed
be as presented and that 50 per cent cost recovery of Conservation Authorities costs from
the private sectOr be established as the ta1ieL
4. The Region of Durham and the area municipalities be requested to assist the participatin&
Conservation Authorities in collecting the preliminary analysis fee at time of
development application receipt.
3. The Relion of Durham, area municipalities. participating Conservation Authorities and
the development industry establish a forum to implement, monitor and review fce
schedules established under Section 21 (m.1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, and
the administrative arrangementS rela.Iin& to same.
6. The tariet date for implementation of the fee schedule be July I, 1997 and the Wiet date
for operation of the administrative, review and appeal procedures forum be October I,
1997.
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0226
. - .2.
INTRODUCTION
The Regional Municipality of Durham, effective 1uly 1, 1996, U$lImed certain additional
powers and responsibili.ties under the Planning Act as delegated by the Province of Ontario.
As part of this process, there was entered imD a "Partnership Memorandum between the
Regional Municipality of Durham and the five Durham A.rca Conservation Authorities
reg~ Provi.ru:ial Delegation of Planning Review Functions" which provides, in pan. as
follows:
"4. Jloles and RespoDSibilities ot the CODSCI'V3t1on Autborities:
a) The Conservation Authorities will assist the Region in its role as an approval
authority through their regular comments to the Region on the following
issues on plaDning applications:
. information and analysis on the existence of natUl'al heritage feamres such
as si&nificaDt woodlots, wetlands, sensitive wildlife habitatS, habitats of
endangered and threatened species. significant vallcylands and areas of
natural and scientific interest on. or in proximity to. a proposed development
site;
- the adequacy of stonnwatm management plans from the perspective of the
Conservation Authority;
- the need for the applicant to obtain permits with respect to Alterations to
Watercourses; Fill. Construction and Alteration to War.erways Regulations;
Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. as well as the need for the applicant to
submit a fisheries compensation plan under the federal Fisheries Act; and
- information and analysis of natW'3l hazards such as flooding, erosion.
unstable slopes and soils. existing on or in proximity to a proposed
development site.
b) Nothing in clause a) prevems the Conservation Authorities from advising the
Region of any issue of interest to them. as it may relate to an application for
development.
S. Implementation
d) The Conservation Authorities will recover the costs. resulting from
performing functions under the Delegation of Revicw, from development
proponents. ..
0227 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
- -3-
CONSULTATIONS
(i) Provincia1 and GT A
Provincial delegation of planning review functions is a process occurring
both within the GT A and beyond under a variety of timetables. As a result,
during 1996 and I!nnrim liTlg to the present, there has been extensive
discussion and consultation among the following agencies. :
I
I
AssociaIion of Conservation Authorities of Omario ,
,
~onofOwmmn.P~g I
I
U.D.I. Omario I
U.D.I. Durham i
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Credit Valley Conservation Authority
Ganaraska ~on Conservation Authority
Grand River Conservation Authority
Halton Region Conservation Aurbority
Hamilton Region Conservation Authority
Kawartha Region Conservation Authority
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Metropolitan TorontO and Region Conservation Authority
Nouawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Additionally, the various Conservation Authorities have had ongoing parallel
discussions with their area and upper tier municipalities and local representatives of
the development industry.
(u) Durham Region Conservation Authorities
On March 25, 1997, the Durham Region C.A. 's circulated a draft report on I
Proposed Fee Schedules - Environmental Planning and Engineering Input and I
Review to the following: I
Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario I
Ministry of Namral Resources
GT A Conservation Authorities
~0na1 Municipality of Durham !
Durham Area Municipalities
Development Industry Representatives (37)
~
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0228
. .- -4-
On April 3. 1997, a meeting was held with the Durham Reaion c.A. '5, Durham
Region PIamDng and representatives of the development industry. A follow-up
meetin& on April 15, 1997, took place to review certain issues in more detail.
On April 16, 1997, a meeting was held with the Durham Region C.A. 's, Durham
Repon Plannin; and representatives of the City of Oshawa. Town of Whitby. Town
of Pickering, Municipality of Clarinpm and Township of Brock.
Appendix I includes responses to the draft report received from UDI-Durham and
the Oshawa-Durham Home Builders' Association. With the exception of which
legislative vehicle is most appropriarc, and subject to worldng OUI various
administrative protocols such as municipal screening of applications, "red-line"
changes. phased plans, the industry appears to be ~raIly in agreement with the
approach proposed.
0229 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97
May 16.1997
. - -5-
LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOB. FEES
Two alternatives were advanced as a basis for establishing the fees in question; tbcsc are
discussed in turn.
The PlaJ1l1inl7 AcT:. Section 69 mala:s the following provisions.
:
1 "69.-(1) The COUDCil of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by resolution,
may emblish a tariff of fees for the pl'OC'l"'I'ling of applications made in respect of planni.n~
matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality
or to a committee of adjusanem or land division commiw:e constituted by the council of the
municipality or to the plannin~ board in respect of the processing of each type of
application provided for in the tariff.
Reduction or waiver of fees
(2) Despite a tariff of fees established under subsection (1), the council of a municipality, a
planning board, a committee of adjustment or a land division committee in processing an
applicaIion may reduce the amount of or waive the requirement for the payment of a fee in
respect of the application where the council, plaoning board or committee is satisfied that it
would be unreasonable to require payment in accordance with the tariff.
Payment under proteSt: appeal to Q.M.B.
(3) Any person who is required to pay a fee under subsection (1) for the processin~ of an
application in respect of a planning matter may pay the amount of the fee under protest and
thereafter appeal to the Municipal Board against the levying of the fce or the amount of the
fee by giving written notice of appeal to the Municipal Board within thirty days of payment
of the fee.
,
,
H~ I
i
I
(4) The Municipal Board shall hear an appeal made under subsection (3) and shall dismiss 1
I
the appeal or direct that a refiJnd payment be made to the appellant in such amount as the I
\
Board determines. R.S.O. 1990. c. P.13, s. 69." ,
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0230
. - -6-
The Conservation Authorities Act
Section 20 sets out the mandate of a Conservation Awhority .
. "The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has
jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation. restOration, development and
mana&ement of natUral resources other than ps, oil, coal and minerals. ..
Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act, sets out the adminisuaIive powers of an
Authority .
"For the purposes of accomplishing its objectS, an authority has power (m. 1) to charge fees
for services approved by the Minister. ..
Pursuant to Section 21 (m. 1), the Minister of Nawral Resources has established the
following, in pan, as services for which fees may be charged.
_ Section 28 permit fees (Fill, ConstrUction and Alteration to W~rways Regulations)
- Plan review
- Response to legal, real eswe and public enquiries
Discussion
Section 69 of the Planning Act is the preferred option of the development industry. Section
21 of the Conservation Authorities Act is the preferred option of the Durham Region
C.A.'s.
Discussions with Durham Region Planning and staff of the area municipalities point up four
major difficulties with ~ Section 69 of the Planning Act.
1. The Region of Durham and the ei&ht (8) area municipalities would have to pass uniform
implementing by-laws adoptin& the proposed fee schedules collectively as their own on
behalf of the five (5) participating Conservation Authorities.
2. Subsequent changes, however minor, would require concurrent subsequent amendment
of the nine municipal implementing by-laws.
0231 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
. .- -7-
3. The municipalities would have 10 amend their administraUve sysmms and financial
reporting procedures 10 account for tbcse fees 10 Council and me participating C.A. 's.
4. An appeal would. by definition. involve the Recioa of Durham. eight area
municipalities. five Conservation Authorities and the development industry appearing
before the Ontario Municipal Board.
I Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act provides a far more workable process.
1. Fee schedules, administrative arrangements and subsequent amendments can be effected
by commnn resolution of the Boards of Directors of the five Conservation Authorities.
2. Municipal administrative involvement can be limited to collecting and forwardin~ the
preliminary C.A. - payable fee at the time the application is received from the
development proponent.
3. Appeals or proposed amendments would be heard by the Boards of Directors of the five
C.A. 's or. altcmalively. by a collectively established joint forum.
. .
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0232
. - -8-
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. CURRENT POUCY DIRECTION
The Ministry of Natural Resources has recently provided some direction in this area through
I a document entitled "Draft Policies and Procedures for the Cha.r&ini of Conservation
I
Authority Fees. January 28. 1997", excerpts from which are reproduced below.
5.0 POUCY
I 5.1 Pursuant to Section 21 (m.l) of the Conservation Authorities Act Conservation
I Authorities may charge fees for the following services:
I
I Section 28 permit fees
, .
i
. Plan review
. Response to legal. real estate and public enquiries
. Extension services (e.g.. technical advice/implementation of erosion control
measures. forest management Irree planting, wildlife/fisheries habitat management.,
management of forcstsln:creaIionalland owned by others)
. Community rdationsiinfotmationleducarion services (e.g., tours. presentations.
workshops, demonstrations, special events)
. Sale of products (e.~. reports, maps, photographs)
. Any services under other legislation (e.g., EPA, LR!A, PLA) authorized under
agreement with the lead minisay
This is provided the service is not supponcd through provincial ifa11t funding.
5.2 Each Conservation Authority must develop written policy or add to its
Administrative Resolutions. a fees administration guideline which includes:
. A fees schedule
. A process for public notitication about the establishment of or any proposed changes
to any fees schedule
. A clearly derined review and revision process
. A process for appeals for fee SUUCOlTeS proposed or in place
0233 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
. - -9-
$.3 For planning, and compliance-oriented activities such as ~ry or permitting I
services. the ConservaJion Authority fee structures sbou1d be designed to recover but I
not exceed the costS associared with administering and deliverina the services on a
progmn basis.
5.4 Conservation Authority fees should not be determined in such a manner as to deter
app1icaDts from receiving due process.
5.5 When developing fee schedules. Conservation Authorities should consider:
1
. the fees of neighbouring Conservation Authorities to promote consiStenCY
. the na1Ure and level of fees charged by local municipalities. and other ~encies and
ministries for related services to prevent duplicative fee strUCtures and to promote
consiStenCy in fee schedules
. setting fees dependent on the complexity of applications and the level of effon
required to administer the application.
ACAO . lIDI FORUM: JOINT Sl'ATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
Commencing in autumn of 1996 and continuing to the present. the Association of
Conservation Authorities of Ontario. in conjunction with staff of Conservation Authorities
in or abuttin& the GTA. have conducted a series of discussions with the Urban Development
Instimte/Omario on provincial planning delegation gener2lly and fees in particular. The
current "swcment of understanding" is aaached as Appendix U,
i i
i
I !
I I
!
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0234
. - .10.
!
FEE STRUCTURES 0Pl10NS FOR FINANCING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
AND ENGlNEEllING INPVT AND llt;YlIliW
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT APPROACHES.. ESTABI.NRlm AND EVOLVING
Three different methods of financing planning and e:nginccring input and review are
c:urrently evolving amoni the various re&ionaJ iovemmems in or adjacent to the GTA.
1. Fee - Nil
2. Fee . Hourly
3. Fee . Flat Rate
These three approaches are discussed using the regional government most closely associated
with each.
Regional MunicipalitY of Hamilton-Wentworth
Halton Region C.A.
Hamilton Region C.A.
Ni~ara Peninsula C.A.
Conservation Authorities provide environmental planning and engineering input and review
in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement with the Region that took effect July I,
1996. There is no fee for services provided by the Conservation Authorities under the
Memorandum of Agreement; costS are recovered as a component of the annual funding
allocation by the Reiion to the Conservation Authorities.
Reltional MunicipalitY of Halton
Credit Valley C.A.
Grand River C.A.
Halton Region C.A.
A memorandum of 3&reement has been put in place effective Jamtary I, 1997. Fees are set
by the Region Wlder Section 69 of the Planning ACL The Region refers plan review and
technical clearance matters to the C.A. 's with the developers bein& char&ed an hourly rate
of $60. Flat fees will be used for minor variances and routine site plans. C.A. 's may
establish "pre-consuitation" fees of $60. per hour. Applications generated by governments
will not be charged fees; costs will be recovered from the Region by levy. The test will be
0235 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
- -
. - -11-
that if you can't assign a "developer face. to the plllnninc docmnenr, it is to be trea%ed as a
levy cost to the ReaiOD.
Re2ional MuniciDality of Durham
I Central Lake Omario c.A.
,
Ganaraska. Region C.A. i
Kawartha Region C.A.
Lake Simcoe Region C.A.
Metropolitan Toronto and Rqion C.A.
A variety of systemS of "flat fees" based on the type of development application and the
\ stages of the plan review process are currently in effect. With the exception of Central
Lake Ontario, all fee schedules were in place before provincial planning delegation
\ occurred.
Restional Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Metropolitan TorolUO and Reiion C.A.
R.eaional Municipality of Peel
Credit Valley C.A.
Halton Region C.A.
Metropolitan TorolUO and Region C.A.
I Re2ional MuniciDality of York
,
.. Lake Simcoe Region C.A.
~ Metropolitan TorolUO and Region C.A.
. , Discussions with the Regional Municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, Peel and York are at
~ . - ..... . various staKes of advancement but are not as far along in the process. Memoranda of
: l--
.: ," aereement are not in place with their participating C.A. 's nor are discussions on fee
". (.1\.'-"..
~.."~ schedules particularly advanced although the general direction seems to be towards "flat
. -~..,. ... fees.. Matters are also affected by the fact that MeC'opolitan Toronto was not delegated
..~..-.. .
<OJ, (! cenain planning powers that fiowed to the 905 Regions and by the fact that Peel and York
.~ have further delegated to their area municipalities many of the approval powers that the
oJ.",. other 90S Regions have retained.
..
<- .
... \
. .
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0236
- - -12 - I
,
I
ALLOCATION OF cosrs . PUBLIC SECTOR VS PRIVATE SECTOR I
,
;
There appears to be general ~ on those planning matters that should be financed by
mwlicipalities and those that should be charged to the development industry.
MunicipaJitY Financed
OfficiaJ Plans
I Official Plan A mP.nn!11{"t1tS
- Policy
- Growth and Settlement
Secondary Plans
Comprehensive By-laws
-land use (zonine>
- speciaJ pwpose Le. Topsoil. Ravine Control. Tree Removal. etc.
I
Zoning By-law Aml!nnmf!nto: l
.
- permitted uses ,
- development standards
MunicipallC.A. Studies I
- land use :
- naJUral systems
- SUbWllICrshed/servicing studies
- JrOwth management studies
- environmental master plans
- floodplain mapping
- master drainagc/servicinl: plans
'-- -
0237 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
. - -13 - I
I
DevclODeT Fmanced
Variance
Condominium
Site Plan ConttOl
Consems
- new lots
- technical adjustments
Subdivision
Official Plan Amendments
Zoning By-law Amendments
I Special By-law ^m~nrl""",,ts
1
i
I The tricky pan is not what matters should be funded by the public and privare sectors
1 respectively. but rather what proportion each contributes to the total workload of the
, Conservation Authority and thus at what level the tees should be set to recover the private
I sector proportion of the total COst. In the absence of hard data. it bas been suggested a
j 50:50 COst a11ocarion be the initial target.
I
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0238
~ 1.. ~
THE MUNICIPAL ROLE
Conservation Authorities em oDIy receive planning fee iDcome from the full range of
planninI applications if both chc rc:ional and area municipa1lUes agree to build collection of
those fees into the planning administration pIOCCSSCS. Conservation Authorities, on tbeir
own, only have the power to collect fees on plans of subdivision aad condominium at the
stages of (1) draft plan conditions and (2) draft plan clcarm:c for registration or (3) on the
full raDle of Plam1in& applicaIions which lie within rqulared areas under Section 28 of the
Conservation Authorities N:.t.
Municipalities will be requested to collect tile preliminarv analysis fee as a cheque payable
by the development proponent to the appropriare Conservation Authority at the time the
developmem application is received. This cheque would then be forwarded to the
Conservation Authority with their copy of the development application. thus rerollil'1ing
outside the internal financial and lIdminisuanve processes of the nnmicipality. The
municipality would not be involved in subsequent preliminary approvals or t1nal clearance
fees - these would be collected directly by the Conservation Authority from the
development proponent.
,
!
I
,
I
I
I
--- ----.
0239 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
.
. - -1S -
i
PROPOSED DIm" AM REGION "FLAT FEE"
SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING SERVICES
The proposed fee schedule would replace the five separate C.A. schedules currently in place
in Durham R.eaiOD.
I
I RATIONALE
I . average costs based on groups of tasks that CA's perform when delivering plan review
I
i services
! . collect fees as key services are delivered i.e. At the front and tail end of the approvals
I
process
. ensure that landowners only pay for those groups of tasks that apply to their specific
application
. ensure that fee rates ON AVERAGE reflect the time and effort actually spent to perfonn
the tasks
. ease of administration
STRUcruRE
The Flat Fee Schedule has been strUCtured around three key groups of tasks that CA's
perform when deliverin~ plan review services. A standard fee has been set for each type of
development application and for each group of tasks. An applicant would only pay for the
eroup or groups of services that are required to process their application. CA tasIcs have
been grouped as follows:
(a) Preliminary ADalysis Fee
The initial a5~~nt of the proposal in relation to the natUral heritage system,
lands affected by natural hazards and other CA interests.
Tasks include:
. receipt of application and processin~ of mail
. creation of corporate record(s)
. determination of CA interests that may be affected (mapping, airphotos and/or site
visit)
. aruUysisof~rwo~if~,reqWred
. preparation and reporting of recommendations
I
I . processing of outgoing mail
j
- - -- -
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0240
--
----- .
. .- - 16-
,
Administration:
- To be collected by the municipality circu1atin& the application for comments at the
time of the application for planning approval (Re&ion and Local Mtmicipa1i1ies)
- Represems a BASE FEE to cover the Authority's cosrs to complete a background I
miew of application with regard to N atur3l Heritage/Hazard concerns
> Should the application not require any funher plan review (eg. NO OBJEcrION) !
tina1 commentS would be issued / only the Base Fee collected
I > If the initial review (screening) indicates additional staff efforts are required in
order to provide comments on the plan (EG. SITE VEGETATIONIHABITAT
INSPECTIONS, SLOPElTOP-OF-BANK, ETC.) A PROCESSING FEE WILL BE
REQUESTED
(b) ProcessiqIPplhn.....ry Approvals Fee
Detennination of developmem limits and recommended conditions, if any. of
approval.
Tasks include:
. site visits
. review of technical reportS
. field surveys and in-house verification
. tinal recommendations - with or without conditions of approval
. processing of mail
Administration:
- To be collected by the Authority after screening comments have been provided
indicaOna staff site inspection work is required
- Processing Fee may not be applicable to all types of Planning Applications (eg.
Variances)
> This stage would flag specific concerns, requests for studies (eg. ES. SWM,
etc.)
- -- --- --- --
0241 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
j . - - 17-
ee) J1aaI CIearaDce Fee
Review and tf!t!hnil!2l approval of SlUdies in suppon of final Plannini approvals.
:
Tasks include:
. site visits
. in-house technical reviews of EIS reportS, engineering Sbldies, etC.
. attendance at review meetings
. finalized ~mm~t'!::arionslclear.mce of conditions
Administration: !
I
- To be collected by the Authority prior to clearance of the application I
I
- To cover all related expenses in clearing all repons and coIlditions
GENERAL NOTES:
1. Stre3mlir,ini initiatives will be implemented to reduce circulations to CA's and to
improve the delivery of other CA planning services.
2. A fee equal to the amount of the Preliminary Analysis Fee will apply to reassess
applicam-driven revisions to a draft approved plan/application.
3. Only one set of application fees will apply when processing and reviewing consolidated
application circulations, ego subdivision fees for consolidated review of
subdivisionlrezoninglOP A applications.
4. If the extent of CA interest is to notify of other permit requirements only, then
Processing and Qcarance Fees will not apply.
I !
I S. Separate fees may apply for the processing of CA permit approvals.
I
I
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0242
- 18 -
IlLAT ~ SOfEDULE. CA PLAN REVIEW SERVICES
APPUCAnON TYP! PAEUMINARY PROCESSING! II1NAL CU!ARANce
ANALYSIS PEE PRIUMlNARY !lEE
APPROVALS Pa
*11 .ent fa CA 'only .~1aI *onJv , technical
RlrJlMlfleld wort ftudlMltleld watfr
- - requited requited
Van.nc. S 100 N/A N/A
SIte Plan "
· or c:omparable S 150 S 1SOO Included In
condominium appL ProcassIng{PA Fee
I
! OPA S le50 S 1SOO Included In
I Proeassing{PA Fee
I UNLESS a staged
approvai Is required
ZBAlRZ S 150 S 1500 Included In
Pr~ng/PA Fee
UNLESS a$taged
approval Is required
ego GoIfCQUtse In
valley
Special By-law N/A S 1SOO Includod In
Appncadon PrOCMaing{PA F.e
Consent S 150 $750 Induded In I
Proc:ualn;fPA Fu I
SUbdlvlolon $2 so. If no tachnlc:al \
· or comparable $500 stJdlesIlIald work
condominium .ppl. required
S 2000 If preceeded $ 2000 It proceeded
by apprcvec:l MESP by approved MESP
or subwl1e($hed OI'subwalor5hed
study stJdy
S 2SOO If not S 2500 If not
pr.ceeded by preeaeded by
approved MESP or approved MESP or
subwaterahad study subwatarshad study
IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND REVIEW
The final fee schedule is proposed for implemenwion no later than July 1, 1997. A
monitorine mechanism involving municipalities, C.A. 's and the development industry will
be established with responsibility to formally repon on the system at re&U1ar intervals and
I recommend changes where appropriate, as well as esublish the necessary administrative
I protocols. This work should commence immediately with a view to being fully operational
by October 1, 1997.
1:\nIII\Mayl:l-97 .I!ac
0243 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97
May 16,1997
@) Urban Development Institute I Ontario
Durham Chapter
Al"l"J....j):Z :r - .acre 1 at 8
.'
.'
n ~~u~"
Apri125, 1991 . -
" APR 2 9 1991
C;;-,.. k \,.(=1- ~
CENTRAL KE 0 ARlO
Mr. Russ Powell. Chief Administrative 0f6cer CONSERVATlON AUTHORln
The Cemral Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
100 Wbitina Av~
Oshawa. Omario
Dear Sir,
Re: Comments 00 Proposed Fee Schedule (Revised)
For Development ReYiew Services
TbanIc you for your letter of March 25. 1997 in which you presemed a revised fee
schedule proposal for provision of plan review services. Based upon a number of
, . discussions that have been held between the Authority and UD! representatives, we would
like to ~1fer the following commentary on the revised SUUc:tUl'e;
, '
I! i) Fee eonectioD MecblUlism
~
, . - In principle, UDI could support the establishment of reasonable Authority fees provided
that such fees are consWesu with the level of service provided by the A11thority. We
maintain, however. that since the Authority is a commenting agency retained by the I
Regional or local municipality, then any such fees should be chaned tbroU2h that
mUDiciDaJirv under tbe DOwen of Section 69 of the Plannin2 Ad. The implementation
; of any new fees under Section 21 of the Conservation A11thorities At::s is strongly opposed
by UD! and has been a major item of discussion betWeen UDI Ontario and the Association
of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. In tact. reference to Section 69 of the Planning
Aa is made in Ministry of Natural Resources draft "Policies and Procedures for the
Charging of Conservation Authority Fees" and it is felt that this should be made clear in
your Sea!' report.
- tJDI is prepared to accept the concept ora 'flat fee' basis for the various types of
applicarions
_ UD! agrees that fees should be conected for all types of a.pplications (Le. that there
should not be special exemptions for some plans which therefore would drive up costs for
other types).
...n.
.
2025 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST. SUITE 2208 . WILLOWDALE . ONTARIO M2J we . (416) 498-9121 . FAX (416) 498-e356
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97
0244
@ Urban Development Institute I Ontario
Durham Chapter APlIBlllDD: I - pa_ 2 at 8
-2-
- , n PrellmiDa" ADatnls Fee
_ UDI is prepared to accept the implementation of a DOIIIiDal '"Prdiminary Analysis Fee"
: in wbieb the Authority would dctcrminc whether a particular application merits further
;:.~ ~ review, or alternatively, to determine and report to the approval authority that there are
no fUrther concerns and the plan is acceptable. The sugpsted amountS for the various
application categories appear to be generally acceptable and it is understoOd that the
I proposed $ 500.00 fee for a plan of subdivision rd1ecu approximately 1 day of staff time
1-. for the average application. We understand that this fee includes the services involved in
I screeaing the application, conducting a site visit as necessary, and provision ora reporting
leaer to the approval agency on the application.
i
I Variance applications, as bad been dUo,..uod at our meetings. would be handled strictly at
J
the municipal level, and thereby avoid any involvemezn of Authority staff.
We understand that you wiD be preparing a screemng program in consultation with the
municipalities for the purpose of reducing the number of applications forwarded to you for
review. We would apprec:i.a1e the oppottuIlity to review and coannent upon this screening
criteria once established. In the meantime, we believe that you will be including a number
of principles in the staif report regarding screeoing.
_ UDI acknowledges that a plan of subdivision typically involves more staff time than the
other types of applications and, accordingly, requires a greater fee. However, in respect of
smaI1 subdivisions (20 lots or less), the flat fee does become more onerous and so it is
suggested that the "Consent" strUcture be used in these applications.
iii) Pnlcessin2/Pl'ellminarv ADDrovals Fees
_ UDI is prepared to accept the implementation of a "ProcessinglPreIiminarY Approvals
Fee" which would be implemented only if such services are deemed necessary after the
"Preliminary Analysis" stage. furthermore, the amounts suiiested for this service
category for the various applications, appears to be generally acceptable. The Stated fees
in this section for subdivision applications are betWeen S 2,000.00 and S 2,500.00 and this
represents 4-S days of staff time to review an average application.
With provision of this fee, it would be expected that response time by the Authority would
be timely and that if conditions are imposed, that these would be clear and complete.
It is understood that that the Planning AI;t imposes timelines on the approval authority and
that the Conservation Authority must conform with them.
.../3
~
2025 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST. SUITE 2208 WILLOWDALe . ONTARIO. M2J W6 . (416) 498.9121 . FAX (416) 498-6356
0245 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
cgv Urban Development Institute I Ontario
Durham Chapter
-3- APPmlDU :I - here 1 at 8
-.
Accordingly, it is fUrther suggested thaI the Autbority publish a set of"applicanoQ review
WBeu'" that would provide municipalities and the iDdusay with an iDdicati011 of the
reasonable timing expected for application review aDd approval by the Authority.
; . -
I : iU1 Fiaal Clearaace Fee.
I
i - AJ we had asreed. it may be possible in certain c:irr-II"'~"~ to r~ce the need for the
"Fmal Clearance Fee" c:a1egory by indicating in the conditiODS of approval, that these
conditions be entrenched in the subdivision agreemem. III this way, once the developer
provides a copy of the executed subdivision agreement to the Authority demonstrating the
obligation to these conditions. a clearance letter becomes a straightforward administrative
fimction. III this way. Authority time can be reduced and the fees for this final service can
be reduced to say S 200.00.
w) MultiDle ADDlicarions
- As you had clarified in our discussions. for "multiple applications" such as where a high
density bloclc in a plan of subdivision requires a plan of condominium, site plan, and re-
zoning application., the requisite fee would only be that charaed for the highest of the
applicable categories. It is suggested that this should be clearly stated in the final report.
; y} PI... Revision.
,
,
- UDI suggests that for "revision" fees such as where red-line changes are made to an
already draft-approved plan. that these fees would only be charged if applicant-generated.
If such changes are inih"r~ by the municipality, there would be no fees applicable.
Reduction in the number of applications forwarded to the Authority through an effective
screening protocol should also assist in this area.
Y11 Pb25ed Plans
- For subdivisions with phased registrations, UDI maintains that the fee schedule for
"ProcessinglPre1iminary Approvals" would only be charged with the first phase. The
: nominal clearance fee of S 200.00 may be charged for each phased clearance provided. but
wherever possible.. the Authority would provide a "b1anlcet" clearance for the entire plan
with the first phase.
.../4
.
2025 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST. SUITE 2208 . WILLOWDALE . ONTARIO. M2J 1V6 . (416) 498-9121 . FAX (416) 498-6356
i May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97
0246
C!W Urban Development Institute I Ontario
. Durham Chapter
.4- b~mIIuIX l: - paqe 4 o~ 8
~
r
\'.01 Historical Eumut10llS
.
. . UDI recognizes that the Authority wishes to establish the DeW fees as soon as possible
.' with July 1, 1997 being the target date. In Wrness to applications which have already
..
been draft approved and have proceeded forward under the earlier system, it had been
agreed that such applications would be exempt from the Dl!W 5t1'UCtUre, except for the S
200.00 clearance fee. UDl maimains that any plans draft approved prior to July 1, 1997
- would be exempt from the new policies.
viii) Rebates tor Fees CoUected to Date
. M had been confirmed on a number of earlier occasions. for any fees collected by
CLOCA since July 1996 under the interim strueture (i.e. $SOIlDt for conditions and S
50/1ot for clearances) there will be full rebates to the affected parties.
ixl Promam Monitorin2
. UDI endorses the concept of participating in a <<monitoring" group with the Authority
; that would meet periodically to review the progress of the new suucture once
implemented.
We appreciate having the opportunity to meet with Authority Staff and to offer these
comments in the hopes of establishing a fee system that is fair and ~nable to all parties.
, I Finally, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the revised repon once available for our
I
I final review and comment, and to be made aware of the date at which this repan is
I
I imended to be brought forward to the Board.
I
Should you require further discussion of these maners. please do not hesitate to contact
\
I the undersigned.
Yours very trUly,
Kelvin Whalen. Chait
UDl. Durham
cc: UDI Ontario. Ann: Mr M. Jepp
.
2025 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST. SUITE 2208 . WILLOWDALE ONTARIO . M2J W6 (416) 498-9121 . FAX (416) 498.6356
0247 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
~~ OIIM-.
a-MM1
~tti + Hano._' ._~ % - "if ·
:I 1: ~tIa1 ~'U~ ~
~ ICIng SlnIet ~ oUll~ \i)~~
P.o. Bcl2f5Ol4 ~ '(lf1
~7eaM ===~;H'CO ~\l 3~'C1
TeL (905) 579-8080 /l~ I '-f~ ~ i\O
FIll (105) 57HOSO ~Ur.\. U~E QK1~OI\n
. . CE os" ~i\Q1t ~U't\\
COllS[I\'"
April 24, 1997
Central L.aka Ontario Conservation Authority
100 'M1itlng Avenue,
Oahawa. Ontario,
L1H 31'3.
Attention: Mr. R. Powell, Chief Administrative O1flcer
Dear Sir:
Re: Durtwn Region Co...ervatfon Authoritf.. PropoMd Fee Schedul..
EnvIronmental Planning and EnglnHring Input Review
We are in receipt of the above noted Proposed Fee Schedule as outlined in your report
dated Mard'1 2~, 1997 and thank you for allowing the Oshawa-Ourham Homebuilders'
Association to l'8Yiew and ccmment on this proposal. ~ you are aware, any costs
associated with the review and processing of development applications will ultimately be
reflected in the cost of development This is a cost that is passed onto the builder and
ultimately the homeowner, and therefore, is a concern to the Association.
It is our ~erstandlng from this document, and from your meeting with the Development
and Homebuilding industry on April 3. 1997, that this fee proposal is intended to replace
the review fees, in the Region of Durham, which are currently In place in GRCA, KRCA,
LSRCA, and MTRCA. In addition, we understand that this proposal is intended to replace
the interim CLOCA polley of charging for Issuing Draft Plan Conditions and Clearance
letters. We are In agreement with the concept of a Region wide policy on plan review.
When the concept of Plan review fees was nrtt introduced by CLOCA. In response to
Provincial funding cutbacks, the Association lndlcated that they understood, and were
prepared to accept, the need to introduce a user fee fer works direc:tty related to specific
applications. We qualified this understanding by Indicating that any such fees should be
nrftectIv. of the time and effort rwquired to p.rfonn the review and that, if a review was
to be paid fer, .then a timely rMpone. was expKted. The Association maintains the
above position on this fee proposal.
........ccntinued
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0248
aPPBDDI: r - paCle 6 ~ lJ
-2-
Given the above ~lallC8 on- the concept of a 1M ptOPOaaI far d8Y8lopment review
I8f\tic:ea, we provide the fDlIowing comments and obServations on this proposal based on
the recommendations c:antained in the summary:
1. The proposal recommends that a fee schedule be established by resolutions of the
Boards d [)iredors of the vsious Durham Region ConservatIon Authorities under Section
21 (m.1) of the Conservation Authorities Ad. It wcuId be the AIaOdaijon'l prvf8r8nCG to
have the authority for the intz'Odudion of theM fees vested in the Municipalities under
Section 69 at the Planning ~ This wculd allow the applicant access to an appeal
process in the event of a dispute. whereaS, it il \61C8rtain if an appeal proc:ess is available
under the Conservation Authorities Act.
Having indicat!,d our preference above, we understand the dItfICl.IIty in having each
Municipality pass a by-law and administer such a system. We are alsO encouraged by the
proposal to establish a fonJm to implement, moniter, and review the fee schedules. with
the participation of the development industry. as set out in Recommendation No.7. We
would suggest that such a forum also have authority to review any appeals to alleviate our
concerns noted above.
2. We concur with the recommendation tc be consistent with the MNR .Oraft Policies and
Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, January 28, 1997..
3. ~ we have agreed to the basic concept of charging fees. we concur with the concept
of "flat rate" fees being implemented as opposed to "hourly rate" fees.
4. It appears raasonable, based on explanations provided at the meeting of April 3,1997 I
that a target for rectJv9l'f on planning matters tle allocated at 50% municipally financed
and SOGAI developer financed. We understand that this allocation is a beSt guess at this
time and will be monitored to ensure that this target continues to be reasonable during
these times of evolving and changing plan review functions.
5. We again advise of our preference in having the fees administered under Section 69
of the Planning Ad, however, we note above the apparent difficultieS in administering such
a system. We leave the issue of joint participation in developing a common system of
administration and collectlon to the Authority, the Region. and the Municipalities.
.... .....continued
0249 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May16,1997
-3- ~::a:y-p_7~8
The area r:I joint ~peratiot:' ~etween the Authority, the Region. and the Municipalities,
which is of paramount importance to the Industry, i. the introduction of a saeening
proc:aaa to determine which applications need to be referred to the Authority far review.
The amount of plan review by the Authcrity could be greatly reduced if the Region and
MuniCipality cauld reduce the request for comments an planning applications which the
Authcrity has llUfe or no interest. We see no need to circuID to the Authority, applications
such as ~ requests fer minor zoning reductIans; consent applications for the
separation of land under certain circ:umstances; or zoning applications for removal of
Holding Zones or Part Lot Contrel.
6. We have no abjections to the flat fee schedule taking effect on July 1, 1997, however,
we offer the follcwing comments an the proposed ~edule:
a) We are in agreement with the proposal to only pay fer those groups of tasks that apply
tc their specific application. We understand that if no worK Is required beyond the initial
Preliminary Analysis, no further feel are applicable.
b) Please refer to our above comments on ccardlnatlan with the Region and Municipalities
an screening applications that are sent to the Authority for reviWi. The introduction of such
a system should reduce the requirement for applications for variance, minor zoning, and
ccnunt applications.
c) We have concern with the amount of fees proposed far small Subdivision Applications.
While we understand that Subdivision Applications generally require the greatest amount
d staff time to review. the payment of $4,500.00 to $5,500.00 for a subdivision with, say
up to 25 lots is onerous In ccmparison with a 300 let subdivision.
Today's subdivision appllcatlons are generally submitted on larger tradS of land, leaving
smaller inflll subdivisions in areas where the major drainage and environmental Issues
have been rasalved. On this basis, we would request that a revision to the fee schedule
be introduced to limit the fees for Subdivision Applications for subdivisions less tnan 25
loti to a fee similar to that of a consent.
d) Clariftcation is need as to when and to who these application fees are paid. Note 6 on
the fee schedule is in ccnflld with text on page 12.
.........continued
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board 114/97 0250
-4- .._no I - ~ 8 of 8
-
e) The fees I.I'lder subdivision applications for F"tnaJ Clearance of $2.000.00 to $2.500.00
appears to be acessMt. If there is little to be done, after Old Plan approval, other than
ensure standard conditions are induded in the Municipal Subdivision AgrMment, a
l'8CClt1Sid8r8ton of this fee tD a more reesanable awnount should be c:ansidered under these
circumatanC81.
7. The Aaacdatlon concurs with the proposal to establish a forum to implement, monitor,
and review the fee sched1Jles. Participation on this forum of the Conservation Authorities.
the Municipalities. the Region, and the development industry is appropriate.
In condusion, prior to the implementation of the proposed fee schedule. the issues of
"grand fathering" for existing applications in the system and the rebate of fees collected
by CLOCA during it's Interim fee structure must be concluded to the satisfaction of the
industry.
Thank-you again for requesting our participation in this matter and should you have any
questions on the above, please contact the Asaociation at your convenience.
Yours tnJly,
OSHAWA-OURHAM HOMEBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
4-.<<-1,
~. Susanne Hillebrand
President
Ihrlrcalbma
0.0 Mr. J. 8IDUa.. Ell8c:utIYe 0tDcer
Mr. J. MacInnis. Fnt ~relSident
odhba\cloc:afM.wpd
0251 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
APPIlIIDDl: t:I - h_ 1 cd 6
Jl")1llrI" n.lTbaNT OIP frNnnW.umNG
n.tJ~~~
202S SIIcppvd Av" BaR
SUa 2201
Wll1owdlla. Omrio
W2J IV6
AaIOdmoll ot CoDMrV1CIoD Aumorit1a of Onwia
~ Us. GT A-Band COJIMrVaDoll Ayd)orici.)
120 layYltw 'riwa,
lox 11
NtwalUk_, Omarto
L3Y 4W3
n. UrtIu OMopftl.CZU 1:Is1iIll.UeI0mario (UOn.lhl OTA41ued ConscrvatioA AutbotWa and th~ omcc
ot ma ~.. of CoaservuiOn AIIdlorltles of On:ario \ACAO) have be!4 & seri. of meeliop dwiDa
1ba Pall ot J996 co 4iac:gu tbA rot. ot C~n AuCbuddcs izl Oawio'. new 1_ use plamWl'
~ IMscrvicII d\a may provId.an4 chI ~I"I for Ill. dellYC')' ofds.... services. Wo lIavl
Wiiwtd vIriclu.s lIIUIllc1pal pbalWIc implemaaw.io:\ mafter1 with 1 stated &~ ot ~I dupllcadoft.
lIreIIftliGiq procIINI _ tlDbllshiAa a fait Uld OliUitabl. &lIdU1a llI.eclwIlsm for me dcliYCrJ of
pllDlllDa....nc... Wb1JIIt II ackDowloc1&ld t!w the loWs of OIrec:Drs Uw ch. riJbt co Ice tInICIic
diRcdoa toI' ttHir iDlIivldlaal COAICZ'VatiDa Awboritia, lh. !ol1owUq rlpracna tilt CiOftSCMlIS dlat h&s
baD acbirIed bl1Jle .aI ct:
. dI, ~ Autboricy's role;
. pillS bIpat aad pillS review MrYica:
. ...,Jc. lUdiq md t.. Implcmaaw1oa;
. 1lYrad" S)1a teview 1DDdIIs; IIId.,
. 12le proo..isiosJ or balllM bs(onnadoa.
c-.,,- .~ Au&blrUJ'I ...
. Aa pIl'l ot lb Oo\<a"J'GIWZt'S ~ t\KI1 lACS sttIUI&ic objCCTivu, Ill, provin~ IuI sa QUI to
ndaca III COlllll1~ rol. In !.aDd ~ plannlq. Pro..,icci.al Nadinl suppo~ for CcDsetv1doo
AlId1Drity lCtMQa ba ~so bee:l l'WTOWld, =ouib AC:etlI le&i$!2tive md poU'y dtan.lS. to
reflect I unowed pl'OYiacw roI.. ~ hu WI, bow...,u, impaclCd dlt maasd:u.c: of COtlS......U1On
AadIorid. .. saaed i.o S'~OA 20 of the Cotllwv.IoA Allmond. A~ -nw obj.al of 4ft
tIJlIMt1r1 an to Ut4blWt aNi 1I/IIJu'rJ::M. ill rhl ar" owr lJIich It It4s jll,ts4laiOff, a .P~,ratfI
dal,_ t4 }InIIu ... colClC1'V<<totc, rurorartofl, tkvdaptMlll and IfI4IllII'trICIIl a/1UZlII1'Gl
mowea a1N' tIt4/I 'U. QI1, axJJ aIId mJM'als. (,llS.O. 1980, C.&5, $.20).
May 16,1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97
0252
~IXU-P._:z.~4
. Jl II ........ .. I bal1h7 ac:ulIIXDY II viWlIO QIurio's JGq W1Il ~..iEy. WlMay-
1!II8IIed JIDwdI c:IIl r-.1l ia oo-""..;n.. ...tlidl.. ec=onuc.auy l1li1 CIlvlrolSlll".."l\y IClUDd
IIId wtU;Il .. me ~ nqc of ueriI ~ mar a:mDl aDd tuIlar. rePSCIlItI. n. CoaI<<Y8doa
~"'" ill ~ ~ cviroIIDIIIl ud pa):Ilic: bcalds pwsu&IIC to me ProYiIIcial polky
SuI J l7.... IIIlIIC tie babDCed by ~. /IIICd to promatI efficiSII. cost1ftlc;Uv. a.cIoplllUllDd 1_
11M ,_ wbida sUN'. ~~ ~. ACI:Ord1D&lY. GlI roll IUd iIaraQ of the
CcIlIIrt-- ~ shoId4 be 1JlcqnalS wldl die rol,aDd iIlCMtIU ~I oa. apDCica iA'volV4d
ill.. laM ... pi'" syaaL
. Ia CII&iDc ~ dedstOft QIl1aDd \11& pbmIiDI mI&lCa. ell. appnMl awbot)tJ sbI11 have teptd tbr
~ poIlciee c:aMainelI ia die proviDc:ial Poll" Seal.- IDd 1oc;aIJy :SIv1lopCd - IIlprov<<1
~ poIlcia. wtll. As part o!ma d~ pcoc.... In IIl'ProvU ~
wW coaaidC 111 ral~ ~a provided ~y the CoDstl'VaDoA AuIboray and odl8t'
~ -m.. apaaa ~ it 11 ~ lhU Ctir i!ccislcD is lppIalabl. to lbt Oarano
MaAisipalIIoIrd.
rtu kpaI ..... aewWw Srdca
. PtoYtnctaI plaIl mpur will ~ :0 be providld OD bfOld. policy ori~ documentS but will
be cwcricud to ~ OPs, ~ OPAl. loWer'ller 0l'1 mc1lower.uer OPAl (iAdwlln,
Secondary ?laDs) wtUdl. . ...in die opil'.ioll or dI. a-aion 11'11 %lOt lDiDct aDd ad4. 4cIac or r...1se
polley that bas IltftcrallllqJac= Oil pcoviaclal flOliq UuetI5&l... - CQ1SlCt'l~io" Aulboriw. ""ill
pcovidlJ iDpaZ OA cesa applic:;alo:1l d1toc%17 to t:1e approval ~rity ~. it wiU be raaionaliz.od
wldl m. \JJpIl from 111 oUItt colE'-"'laamcies. 'thl -oce-wiadoW- approids of the Mlft1sUy
of MwUc1pI1 AftlIin and Houaiq wm be GS.e4 to ~rcl1l1lAtc ~ of 211 Mlnismll bctore
. ptOViDdI1 posirioll" o$tc! U) Iba ap~ m~jty.
. trovtftdal pbD rcvitW r.poCl$ibwuca an beU2C tnmfe::ed tc DtUAicipa1itic:a K:OS$ Ontario IDd
..tlllU<llly dIftDed by ~ of U~ <MOCs) Of Umibr aaettm'llb. M_.
dse proviDciaI MLDJIui. wiD DO ~cr be ~lcwiq dq ~,cl~t local O'AS. s@C1ivlsloas,
CODdoG\JniuIDI. zcaiq by-t&ws aDd ~, CODSeNS. pan lot c:onuol by-!rN'. caiDoc
variaDca md ID pllfts. 1II nsmy c:ucs, lmU1iciplllties .c clIooslal to caPle Cooscrvat10l1
Awhoridel to pravt4e mny o!m.. pl2D ~l"" SltVica and, IrI $0 4oiJII. an cleYO\OPina formal
IIIlIlofocmal bu-nlIlfMll''' to sy:ci1lQi!y ck&e lbe aNr' aDd a.u= of melt ~Oll.
Carly, II 11 . .. cItI<<.uoD olltle lIlUZIicipalm. u to ~w :c proviAc~ Wlc111M polley
\zIlCraG are tD be ptOlca.d &Ild cocmSinaId wilh cmer aaenei..
. ~ ~ provide ~, au.lysa 1114 ceco--fN4'1fiMK to mwUQval
UciQma asakcn tellI1WIllACtcr1 of JUNnlIllwd mnapawtt 15 part of dle&t plan iIqN1 &Dl5
plaa review ...,Icet. nia iac1ud- COllllllwml Oft 800ci i'iaiA 1IIaDII~ macws and Ilfal
1Ubj-= CD floodial. etOIion. <Iy1WD1c ~ J10ftI tlt sbor~ of eM Oral LakM -St.
LawnDCllUver System. rivvine ecosiaIl. slept \nsQbility JIId soillllSCahiJity ~ 101 iA vas of
Iall!l ....... abla. otprrlc or peu soila IOd lids or scmitiv. marlDe day JOUs. lbey ""ill
~ 10 pctfvtDl dUs role. PlUther, lSl,y wm CO::UNe = proyl4c [CQ)~ons wtUdl
\AtIlt.. tq'lbtory requitealetlO reprdtq fUl. CoMU'~ctioG lAd AJtwaiOD 10 Wat_ay.
a.pIlUoJlI.
1
0253 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
a_TY n: - Paqe] at 6
. ~ ,... m-iew mp-.ihilitlea lUOdaed wida aa&t'II UrirIa. u4 v&llay 1Mcl
=-w IIIioo. lIIIJ be oadtoed !It all ~ ~ 1M CoaltV'llioG A&Idlari&y IIIli Its
CDCIIIbIr "'al~!t*' Our tilts 1& IlOl ~ ~ Audtoric1 r--~~DI will
.... replIIDry requUGDImS tqIrdiDc FlU, C~ iIld AJleadoA lD W.....~.
"""~
8" ttIlDIJliad, .ev., .. UDI hu CIDDCCalS over dl.1W\Ue ad IIta of III. CoIlMl'VIdoIl
AIIdIGrily'. pIaa iDput lad teYia. tola 011 DIIlk1IIwrizaca mmcrs wbidl .. DOf spcciftcaDy
~ lD die Coa:Mrvatioa AWIariIy by ma Mmisuy of Nwral RMaurc:. or ill iIldividual
....~. t!I..cou.P .........
. c.....a.,..~ Auzaarw. may provide C:OlZllMall to =11I"';~1 cMdaJon IIIaUn -bidi Ir' .DOC
aadJud ill tnIII .,recmeatl. ba IlocIa p1m iDpUt aDd plm tlYltw procaaa.. -tUc!I refttcl
-WIZIabed rIllI8d prosnms IDlf pcWc:* diu bav. 1lflIft lpproved !y chll Couwvldon A~
IDd .... 1JI It .. iaro the Ifevttlopmem at ~ Ucla. n..
',,"," will be dady l~ u mo.. of a rev 1_ apacy lAe~
Acl.
. 1'he e~ AInborJl)"S plaa milw commasq ~ advice will bt provldai ill the come=
of dIt poUcila ADd IIIIC1 as. d-ip-iQIU o(thc approved CtneW ?lIA, Rowever, Ie caaQ whete
lilac pollcia..at varilDce w!ds tk Provlacial Po1icy Stataasam ~ my odl"229Dy approvtd
poUq of a CouervaUoll Audlotily. lbe!! rh laft.r sball be reft-=-d ia ch. CoAUrY~
AI.IIJtft~'. ""'......1!MlI 1IO the IODt'OYII awftoriry. W'bU.llIe Comcrvll:ioll A~ Ia Ob~
tID idwm lbo lIppZVYll aucnomy of ell.. potential 4Jscrep&Ol:1ea, It also KkAowledies dlIr Us
ro-"fllCl CO\IId siani&aml)' impKt private imercsrs IZIC! should dl&Mot. be ofrcrlll w1d& duo
...
. B..s OIl s.csJoo 21 of ell. CoDscnatlca Aurhotily A~ it it wnScmooclltac I eoas.v~
~ e.. bI power lD scad} IDd la'Iaati&~1l ~ W31er$bed md fO ckrtnIWIIl PCOIfIm
whereby die D&&raI ra.oun:a of dle wuaahtd may be COIlMntd. n.aored, dt~lapcd ud
1IIIIIqI.. How..,.. It Is also xbowledpi thac thaa PCOIf&/llS and .......;,.."Cf polidll COUI4
bave btoad IIId IIpJflcaac impaca oe privaac iorcrau and, accorctiaalY, dlcy sbould b. approved
bylha ~a Audlorky wlUl rcICVml consWQtioa wilhlll dfecu:d and ~ pania.
I'\aa4bIa .... u.r r.
. T1at DIIIIIr of cIut&Ull ftes lad the .pecitl~ ~adIna U'nnlcmezIU will be cIelumined by
~ !IIt.eeD die caDSt&'Vltlall mthortty utd i&a II1tnlber azwUc1paUtica.
. 11Mn 11 a dIU ~D bttwMa plc input &04 plan tcvi.w Sll'\Oic. as. xconfiDa = die
MOU., .. 1M! ot'proYiucial ~ 11) tIdl. .u J rcsu1t. me eztem of lPPfOVIlauchority
ttrctc &ad. by way of m=:or2Dda ot laneme~. lfIc etrcm of the CollSCrVldoa Auchotily will
dif'lW II wtIl. Azzy ..octlled r. tnmaworlc for I COlISCtVadOn AGtlloriry must tlfttcl Ibis
dOul'lCT101 fO --.re ~ cow art flirty iZld ~11 dbttiblWld &n!ODISt &hOM wbe bcnctlc.
. hovladal plan iapul wilt CQ~ fO be provided OD brae, policy orieawd docwatl'll$ ..bleb
hD<<lc 111 0IIW'e D1W1ieipaJl&7 OC' a .izeable pardoe lb~cof. Th. t\&ndlo, ~oemcnr supportin.
Coa.scrvaboca A~rity iaput OD ~ doaz:neau mould rctlCII:: t.Il!$ tltcad bcDct1l.
1
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0254
~D u - 1III'fe 4 f)t
. For .. spoci& IpplIcaioas. JI -1 N appropdma for lIlc QOSU of CoJIMrVidoIl AlIIboricy
laYiew to be Ootu b)' ~ l-'ow--. wbo 4!nc&1y bcndit. III CIMI wben . IIICr r. s)'Caln
fbt pilla rlVin II propoud, lba !DlIOWUsI ~ PMciPlll shoI&ld 1M *l*fecl:
L - will be 1'IIIOaItlI., tuily ~Ie .s dcsiJISICI :0 recover lIul QOt ~ dst
~"'9I- CDIII 01 dtUvaiq me pic RYiftr service;
1 11Uarcb1 of eM .uJ 1M uc ~ Oil ds.c eompleziry of Use appJicadoa aDd tAt lev"
of dlft MCaII:Irl to mIew ic;
3. ....... Mipbourblf Coucr.-atiaa AlldIoIW. sJtouI4 ~ "O~IIfe"t = lba,raatell
a*l pcuJbk k II reco~. how.v_. CIul appl'O'lal au*r1Ou IU)' !Live
~y ~ ~ whicb will ilnpxr aD the t.. tU& me)' dliflO;
4. ,.. will ADa cIaplic3ze proviAdal fbndlD&, IlNUicj;W lavla lA4Jor fea or allY odlcr
COIIIrUIudou dtnc:zld at lbc ,llim rcvt_ ~~. !very tffl)R will be made 10
priftfHlliz,e the CDZlserva!oa Audlonty's fees ""ilb tII. applicuioD aACt rlYilw t.. of die
upper aDd ~ tiC' mualcipalillOl;
5. t. ..cabIistIlDCIIt ...111 COlIQiQ a lZ7nslllatloa process With all relcvw scalceholcUn:
l .... limy N coJlccced aDdtr JUIboricy orlba ~JlUliD& Act or tn. CoNerv~loa AwBoriUca
Act. 'DIe uleedon ot tile pretured machWsm !or ctluciq feu win be 11ec!c1ed by tb.
=.am: aIll1lOQi Consertltion Authoritv and will be based on local adrniniJ~'
J
. \1D11MIm. Ihc tt. sbould be coJ1Ktod WI4It lb. awhorley of Sec:tiozl69 of lbe PlW11nr Aa
fa order to provWe the IICCCUII)' tedvaiaA. walvu and zppea1 ri&lus. CoD&ervItion Aumatitia
wiD ClUte m. muDldplUties arc IW1A of thi1 posltkll1 dutiol their 4iscussioZll ~ me Io~ lIVe.
If Secr:IotI 21(..1) of I:b8 ~A Authcthi. A.c1 is \Itn~cd, tbm dl.e M"tDlsay of Nwral
Jt~. ~. ad p~ tor the Cbarzina ot Coll:SUVaion AIIdloriti. r.- wW
awl,.
. ".. pdadpll tit .wbQ sIIould pa'l. Cor pJlD iDpur wj plan rtview scrv~ proyjdcc1 by me
~ AuzIIoN7. abGlIlt M Jliidad by tile CoIlowiq:
A. JllIIl IIlpId 00 lIIWddpalJ'I/aenerauy btc.fittiq dOC\lJU1U should tef1ect thia bcneth aDd
atlocd4 be ft.DaI\ced We".,. 1IIW11cipa1levy, JrW or eqgiVJICIU IIld will cover:
. oMdaI ,...
. offt~endm~ I)lans. pclicy.lt'Owtb Uld SlC!ema1t
. ~~ . by-Iaws . ZIllGUll and use). specW pIlrpose i... topsoil temoval. raviDa
c=:rol, ... rtIaOVal
. IOIUq \r)'-Iaw UBCDdClcD . permiuod IWII. cSc..cIoplDClll SUAdatdl
. ..wdpll SN4l. . land Qt., IWUnl a)lUGN. Wbwu~ HtVici~ ~... I1'Owdl
maDlllIDCSU 3CIdics, ezzvirotuncota1 m.aaar plana. Oood plain lNP'lIZ\1. lIWter
4niDl&tlMC'Yidna plana, IR.
.
Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16,1997
0255
a_,." yy - h_ 5 ~
.. . . l1IIl rwvtr. UId ~1Iia1 c:Jc:an.:.1I(sAtpedftc: ~~II or ~ JIf'OPONIs
~ M &ac.d dt""-P .... t.... will C1D\Itr.
. Iliaar ...i lJ ;.
. ..... ot "01!fo-l--iwD
. ... ....
. ........ loa. -'"...... ~
. pIIt.~..
. . pIMa of
. IriYW MCtIDf Ut.lptClftc IOtIiDI byoflWl .. IIIIeIIlImars
. .nY.aa ~ sbelptdftc cftiQai ,laD _....~.a.
. It. lIGlIlnCOOd = rib dI, 1aIposiI1011 of I&IW -. COIDeI 1110 tespomibWI)' to eQSW'a dur .
C'''''W1I'Y1tIo1l AadIotiCY'UWyjcw is timel,. ct_ UId campI..
. ~ AadaodU. mcI m.v lDImbc MwIidpaJiaia sbcNld Ii~ priodcy to d8vclopbl, J
.1CnIDiq. ..........,,'" to avoJd me lIIII*:euary NYiew of site sp.citlc IppJialioM IN tta.
~Itba of ID ..-ocill. r..
. Plaa ttView ,.. wbidl ~. bOle p.u.t b1a ~ sinca dlc procJamaiaA at BUI 26. IN!
iIDcIoIcd · ID lDcerlm masur. by . COASertatlOll 4"rhority, sbollld tt. bel4 iA lr\&It ..... if
~. pady ~ed baled OQ die amawa ::o~ iD ~ JStW F. ScAed14la imposed
putSIIIDC 10 Uda 10* ttw~t 01 U~IISWldiDI.
"".....,. PlaIa ....... JIoMI.
. III .. .....IIOU, QJar, tho IJlPIOVIllUthodtia and !!Ie Proviu" havo joWiy ~mlll zo
Gp!oriA. *1nIIrivo pia review IIltdl41li11llS which have a &heir objccclvt. I IIIOrc ~.
tffctYe, ~aald IIlCl cmdem IppnMla proeea. 1be ColJowm, al1InIadve plu r.vlew
modlb aisr IIl4 JD&y be coaaiUnd by .. approYIIllldlorily to 6atm dtiJ objtaivc:
A. ... Imew - 11M apptlMl mtbority COald rc:taUl . coCNltaDllpecr 10 provide & Jpec:i&
pUll revitw acnke. iDdudiq cIur whidlls cutremly beinl Providod by &b. Conservcion
Audaorily.
J. Approval Audlorfly Ttad~ - 1'U ~ al&Aorlly coufd raja I consultmt wbo
1IIdc:nabI dl. wori OD dltit behalf. bur Wf10 II ulcimaccJy PlieS ftlt by dle cSevtJopmeac
l'J'OpClIl8at. UDder dUs =ocUI. ,.. DIaD tIYiew lINiCll11 Illaritlald.
C. Acc:tdlt" f'o....dtJm . It. "W7 11micIId pic rwitw Itrlica II FOvidcd ~IUM lb.
JlC'.~'s CO-b..., haa obcaiud III "ICCfeditazioA. -!lich CIIS\&ttl d1at the wcult to be
1IIIdenatIIl1s accqnabl. CD dIa IpprovaI JUdMWy.
. SuftJciem Mu.."iog bcweall tTDI lad ACAO r8ludlna altlllllllve plm revi.w IDOC1aIJ ~ lJDl
,. occurred DOl' . ic A8Cauril)' WI ~ lIOpic of ~ McwMD di. '-0
0l.M11....n.... It" tacolQiztd. haw~G". b cb lpprOvallUCioriUa wW tt. ClWDininl die
~ of die CcAauvadOll AYChorizy its pt'Ovidiq the plu review ~'" a put ot tllci&
GlallloraDda of 'IJ..c:.lk1lt aDd. 10 JO 4olzll. may cocs1dcr altenwlvllDOdds.
I
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0256
&r.._.~ n - h08 6 'lIr" .
. a it NCOplud 111& ACAO bdi.v.. _ .. ~ve pIaA lCYitw IDOdIIs 4evdoptd by &
-'Jtlrllt1 CIDIIaC Ift'Gv4I, IIIpOaIt CD dle 6aU I8Dp oJ wacaIIcd lssua aDd NrVICCS wlJdt
an ,.nr aDd delJverc:d by CCAlCZ'YIdoa Aadlori&ia.
..... s.m-
. At pnMIIC. m. .,. asaJor!t>o oIlD!ormario11 \IItd to CDftI9111D11U IpptOYIl -.adIorisy decWoaa as
II rebca CD proviodal aDd oft.a 10cal lIl\'irolllDallll policies. ha =- from Conscrvcioa
Audlorid.a IDd ocb<< pubUc to=t bodies. l!umpJcs iJldude IIood liDo ~I.
tlIVltoPl"'~'7 IIDIidve II"a ttpORS IIId flab twsiW saadla. no dtdsio.D . to how baa to
KqUin $. ~ DKaAry tD ~ the p1Jft IdpuclGYica OD die broIlS. policy orimlll1
~MWl whic:Is are puraUy ~e (u refarrld 10 011 Pal' .). win naaaia wid! ch4 p~ic
MCIIDI' .
. Ja6:lnwion IaIOlIIO support su.1P~ittc: appJlC2tio.as Ot <1cve!opmem p~ (II referred to on
Pace 4). ~ be ptOYlded by Ul. propcl!Wl(. nis &I1o~ the propoll_ co obuia illlSepcackm
Illvice * W'O'GId IYOid pocearlall)' ~D1lkWlC situltions when 1M Cocuervacioft AulJ10rlty is th.
provider and revi....,.. ot~. s=o WbrmIrioA. ~Z1SUY'tioD Auttlotlncs will, !IoWtvlt'. mue
~ effon co provide wb3cev~ dw. it !w to uWt th: propoMlll illlh. prcpoul 4.velcpmam.
"nI. WldcnJaD8d lNreby a&rM 10 stwe IIICi dis~ this Joint SWItIlIllt of UndctSlaDdiAg with lbGt rwL
IIIc:mba1blp IIId to drcu.lue it wldtiy 10 'Pprcvll audloriti. a.'U1 amnicipal!tiOl ac:rcu Ollwio to fOrm
tmponul irIpat iMo local ddlberatla!z&. 'nI. W)dersiped abo Irree 10 InOlIilCr aDd mlew the
leascnuaoa of dl1S $talcmezu and to rDMC 00 a SICU-anzmal bUls to diseuu its suc::ea lD ItheivlZl
COJIIII\Qa ~ .0 1tI1:J-v'''lD .
1HZ t1RI.\N DEYILOl'M.INT lNS'1TttfrEJONT AIIO
St.- ~
Pt....
t'H2 ASSOClAnON 0' CONSERYA'nON AVTHORJ11.ES OF m.'TAIlIO
Jacue S. ADda10n
GCDGl Niall-
....:s.
,
.
0257 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 May 16, 1997
RES. #053/97 - CALEDON CANADA DAY CELEBRATION - ALBION HILLS
Permit to Ignite Fireworks
The Town of Caledon will hold its Canada Day Celebration at Albion
Hills this year. The event includes a fireworks display necessitating a
permit from the Authority under Ontario Regulation 119.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT a permit to ignite fireworks under
Ontario Regulation 119 be granted for the Town of Caledon Canada Day Celebration at
Albion Hills Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
For the past several years, the Town of Caledon has sponsored a Canada Day Celebration
at the fairgrounds in Bolton. One of the initiatives undertaken by the Caledon
Conservation Areas Partnership, which was discussed at the last meeting of the Board, is
to move this event to Albion Hills Conservation Area.
A fireworks display is one of the significant features of this event. Under Ontario
Regulation 119 which governs the Authority's Conservation Areas, a permit from the
Authority is required to ignite fireworks on Authority lands. The fireworks display at the
Canada Day Event will be professionally managed by Flashpoint Fireworks and will be done
with the approval and assistance of the local fire department and the Town of Caledon.
RA TIONALE
It is anticipated that the Caledon Canada Day Celebration will bring in the neighbourhood
of 3000 local residents to Albion Hills. One of the major objectives of the Caledon
Conservation Areas Partnership is to forge stronger links between Authority Conservation
Areas and the local community. It is expected that moving the Caledon Canada Day
Celebration at Albion Hills will raise local awareness of the Conservation Area, promoting
future visits and events.
For information contact:
Andy Wickens, Ext. 252
May 16, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #4/97 0258
TERMINA TION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:45 a.m., May 16, 1997
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Vice Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/pl
~
, the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #5/97
June 20, 1997 Page D259
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, June 20, 1997. The Chair, Lois
Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 15 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Jim McMaster ............................................... Member
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Joan King .................................................. Member
Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES. #D54/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/97, held May 16, 1997, be received. . . . . . .. CARRIED
BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
The Chair, Richard O'Brien was shown as attending Watershed Management Advisory
Board Meeting #4/97, held May 16, 1997. The minutes will be amended to show him as
absent.
0260 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
PRESENTATION
(a) Ms. Leslie L. Scott of McCormick Rankin and Mr. John Kirstof of Ecoplans regarding
the report on Bayview Avenue - Region of York Environmental Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan and Archaeological Survery. Please see the following staff
recommendation and report.
RES. #D55/97 - PRESENT A TION
THA T the above noted presentation (a) be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
RES. #D56/97 - SA YVIEW A VENUE - REGION OF YORK
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Response and recommendations to the Region of York concerning the
proposed Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and
Archaeological Survey for Bayview Avenue from Stouffville Road to
Bloomington Road.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Environmental Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan and Archaeological Survey proposed by the Region of York with respect
to the upgrading and completion of Bayview Avenue, from Stouffville Road to Bloomington
Road, be endorsed in principle;
THA T the costs of all works are to be borne by the Region of York as a part of the
Bayview Avenue project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to work with the Region of York to
achieve the Authority's objectives in the final Plan and through detailed design.
AMENDMENT #1
RES. #D57/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THA T staff be directed to ensure the work outlined in the Environmental Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan be a condition of any approval of the Bayview Avenue Environmental
Assessment.
AMENDMENT #1 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0261
AMENDMENT #2
RES. #D58/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THA T all mitigation measures be initiated and completed wherever possible, prior to the
start of the construction of the new Bayview Avenue.
AMENDMENT #2 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
AMENDMENT #3
RES. #D59/97
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THAT the Authority request that the Town of Richmond Hill advise the Authority as soon
as possible on the extent of the removal of the portion of the existing Bayview Avenue
and other improvements to the shoreline of Lake Wilcox, which will be made possible by
the relocation of Bayview Avenue.
AMENDMENT #3 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRI ED
AMENDMENT #4
RES. #D60/97
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THA T the Region of York confirm that street lighting in the vicinity of lake St. George will
be directional lighting to prevent any spillover of light into the natural areas adjacent to the
roadway.
AMENDMENT #4 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0262 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RECORDED VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
lIa Bossons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nay
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Jim McMaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yea
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Since the early 1980's, the Authority provided information and comment to the Region of
York and their consultants, McCormick Rankin, with respect to the above project. Our
objective has been to minimize the potential negative impacts of this project on the
Authority's Lake St. George property, the operation of the Lake St. George Conservation
Field Centre, and on the environmental features, functions and landforms within and
adjacent to proposed Bayview Avenue.
Initially, the project was to complete Bayview Avenue and to upgrade the existing sections
to accommodate anticipated traffic flow. In June 1990, the project was revised to include
a service road for the section north of North Lake Road to ensure homes on the west side
could access the improved Bayview Avenue, but not be directly affected by the increased
traffic. While this resolved the residents' concerns, it shifted the project east, affecting a
significantly larger area of the Authority's Lake St. George property.
The Authority at its Meeting #5/93, held June 25, 1993, considered a report and
recommendations with respect to this proposed project and adopted the following
resolutions.
Res. #108/93
"THA T the staff report regarding the proposal by The Region of York to
upgrade Bayview A venue from Stouffville Road to Bloomington Road be
received;
THA T the Region of York be advised of the requirement for restricting
access to and providing adequate natural buffering of the Lake St. George
property and that relocation, replacement and, where necessary, additions to
existing plant materials should commence prior to and be protected from
construction;
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0263
THA T the Region be advised of the Authority's concerns for the loss of/or
impact on significant archaeological resources, the natural features and
functions associated with the Forester Marsh Environmentally Significant
Area, the Snively Street Wetland, Lake Wilcox and Lake St. George, as well
as the valley and stream corridors which require permits from the Authority
under its regulation;
THA T this report and recommendations be forwarded to the Region of York
as an identification of the Authority's major concerns with respect to the
Bayview A venue project;
AND FURTHER THA T due to its concerns, The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority will object to this project unless it is subject
to a full Environmental Assessment. "
AMENDMENT
Res. # 109/93
"THA T the Authority respectfully request the Region of York to consider
abandoning the project to upgrade Bayview A venue from Stouffville Road to
Bloomington Road. "
The project was "bumped up" to a full Environmental Assessment.
The issues noted by the Authority in its consideration of this proposal are as follows:
1. LOSS OF AUTHORITY LANDS AT LAKE ST. GEORGE. The proposed
alignment cuts through the southwest portion of the property and removes a
strip along the western boundary to accommodate the service road and the
widening of Bayview. Part of the property in the southwest will be
separated from the remainder.
.
0264 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
2. IMPACT ON OPERATION. The lake St. George Conservation Field Centre
provides residential programs in conservation and outdoor education, under
agreement, with the Board of Education for the Region of York, the
Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the Metropolitan Separate School
Board. The location of the Centre and its natural setting, including the
kettle lakes, contribute significantly to the day and night outdoor and
conservation education programs offered and to the experience and the
education of the participants. The impact of increasing traffic capacity,
lighting, the addition of a service road and the linking of Bayview will be
significant, including noise and air pollution, loss of existing buffering
vegetation, and limiting access from lake St. George to lake Wilcox.
3. REMOV Al OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Archaeological resources
have been identified on property that will be affected by the project. Full
salvage excavation will be required before construction.
4. AFFECT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. lake St. George and lake
Wilcox are connected by a stream corridor. This provides a link between
these areas which is, currently, affected by existing Bayview Avenue. The
new road alignment north of North lake Road will significantly increase
these impacts and includes a proposal to reroute the watercourse under the
new roadway.
The Forester Marsh and the Snively Street Wetland are affected by the
proposal to retain existing Bayview as a service road and to develop a new
road as Bayview Avenue north of North lake Road. These features are part
of a larger wetland complex. The loss, or impairment, of these resources,
in the Oak Ridges Moraine is of concern to the Authority.
The Jefferson Forest, in the south portion of the proposed extension, will
be affected by the construction of the new roadway, specifically with
respect to the impact of light and noise on its habitat characteristics. The
protection of the features and functions of the Forest are of concern to the
Authority.
5. IMPACT ON THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE: The new section of Bayview,
between Stouffville Road and Bethesda Road is in the headwaters of the
Rouge and Humber river systems and will cross through lands designated
within the Natural Heritage System of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The
proposal crosses a section of the Moraine with typical undulating
topography and will involve cut and fill. The conservation of the Oak Ridges
Moraine landform, features and functions is of concern to the Authority.
6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE UNDERTAKING: The Region has rejected other
alternatives to the undertaking because they would not complete the
network nor achieve network flexibility.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0265
The Region has completed a full Environmental Assessment and has requested Authority
staff participation and comment throughout the process. Staff of the Region has
indicated that many of the Authority's concerns are usually addressed in the next stage of
planning, after the approval of the EA. Authority staff has stated that the concerns of the
Authority are critical to whether or not they will support the project. As such staff could
not recommend approval of the EA unless there was a commitment to deal with the
Authority's issues. Recognizing them as issues in the EA to be dealt with at detailed
design is not sufficient. There needs to be a plan in place to ensure the necessary
protection andlor enhancement is part the project.
The Region of York has prepared a "DRAFT" Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement
Plan and requested an opportunity to present this to the Board. The Plan was considered
by the Region's Transportation and Works Committee on June 4 and will go forward to
Regional Council on June 12. The recommendation being forwarded to Council is that:
1. the proposed Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the
lands owned by the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority(MTRCA) related to the construction of Bayview A venue
(Y.R. 34) from Stouffville Road (Y.R. 14) to Bloomington Road (Y.R.
40) outlined in Attachment 2 of this report be endorsed;
2 the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be authorized to
make a presentation outlining the proposed Environmental Mitigation
and Enhancement Plan to the MTRCA Board; and,
3. subject to the MTRCA concurrence with the Individual Assessment
and the Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, the
Commissioner of Transportation and Works be authorized to engage
the services of an archaeologist at an estimated cost of $30,000 to
carry out a preliminary archaeological survey within MTRCA lands in
preparation for the construction of Bayview A venue (Y.R. 34) in
1999.
The Authority was sent a copy of the Plan and the report to Transportation and Works
Committee on June 5, 1997. Copies are provided for the information of the Board.
The report summarizes and sets forth the measures to address the Authority's concerns
with respect to the alignment of Bayview Avenue in Section A.3, pages 3 through 5. Part
B of the Plan, then, details the draft Environmental Enhancement Concept Plan proposed
to address the interests of the Authority for the management of the Lake St. George
property and to ensure its continued viability as a centre for outdoor and conservation
education.
There are specific details that need to be clarified and refined, however, the Plan reflects
principles and objectives agreed to by staff of the Region and the Authority. Having
reviewed this material, staff is of the opinion that the Plan can be endorsed, in principle.
0266 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
The Authority received the final copy of the Bayview Avenue Extension Environmental
Assessment, from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, on June 11, 1997.
Comments are required by August 11, 1997.
RATIONALE
Assuming the need for Bayview Avenue, it is the opinion of staff that:
. the final recommended alignment for Bayview Avenue between Stouffville
Road and Bloomington Road has recognized the concerns and interests of
the Authority and has proposed both changes to the 1994 alignment and
extensive environmental mitigation and enhancement measures. Authority
staff support, in principle, the proposals in Section A3 of the draft Plan.
Authority staff will work with the Region to ensure these measures are
achieved in the final Plan and through detailed design.
. the Region is proposing significant works on the lake St. George property
to compensate for the intrusion of the new road along the western part of
the property and to ensure the environmental functions can be maintained.
Where environmental features are being affected, these impacts will be
balanced with the creation or expansion of other features. Where
environmental loss and disturbance will occur, staff supports this
requirement to provide for creation and enhancement.
. the Region and Authority staff agree that there can be ancillary benefits
associated with this project. The students at lake St. George will be able
to participate in "hands-on" outdoor learning activities associated with
components of the project, including the archaeological excavation and the
wetland creation. There will be an opportunity to study and learn from the
creation and enhancement of wetlands on the site and to develop
recommendations for future projects. Other benefits include creation of
upland habitat, a linked habitat system between Forester Marsh and lake
St. George, and provision of an interpretive trail linkage within the Lake St.
George trail system.
FINANCIAL DETAilS
All of the costs of the proposed Environmental Management and Enhancement Measures
are to be borne by the Region of York as a part of the Bayview Avenue project.
DET AilS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The "DRAFT" Plan has been reviewed by technical staff and by the staff at the lake St.
George Conservation Field Centre. Staff has agreed that the revised alignment and the
concept proposed in the Plan for Lake St. George reflects discussions with staff of the
Region. Authority staff notes, however, that there are specific details that require
clarification in finalizing the Plan and in the detailed design stage. Authority staff will
continue to work with the Region to ensure that the interests of the Authority are
achieved.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0267
Staff will proceed to review and comment on the Region of York - Bayview Avenue
Extension Environmental Assessment. The need for and commitment to the final
Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Plan will be reflected in our comments.
For information contact:
Alyson Deans, ext. 269
0268 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment 1 - Bayview Avenue
T.BE REGIONAL MONIClPALITY OFYOBX
TJlANSPOR'l'ATION AND WOlUtS COMMlT'1'EE
Be~ ai the
'COMMISSIONER OF 'l'RANSPORl'ATION AND WORKS
ENVIRO~ J4lTIGATION AND ENRANCEME.V! Ai."lD
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SlJItVEY
BAx v U1iW AVENUE
nOM STOlJFFVII.LE ltOAD TO BLOOllillNGTON ROAD
PROJECT 8025
1- DCOMMENDATIONS
It is recommaucied wt:
1. the proposad ~viramnemal Mitiptilm and Enhanc~ent P"..m !or tho 1ancis
awned. by the ~t:o Torouto a:d. llegioA Cozz.suvatilm Authority (M'l'RCAl
nlatad co the ream.scrw:ticn of Ba~ AVUlue (Y.P. S4) from StouffriJle
Read (Y.A. a) to BlaomingtDn 1UIad. <Y.!t 40) ou:lined in Attachment 2 to
this repcrt be end.cned;
2. the C"........;....."uer ot 'I'rauspcrtacian and Warks be authorized to mw a.
presentation oucli::.Ul.c the JIZ'OPased EzxviroEUIl-~a I Mitigation and
F.n J""cPm ~"t Plan to the M'I"RCA. Board; and,
3. aubject to the MTRCA conc:urrence with the Individ.ual ~mnaDtal
Asseument and. ':he ~tal Miticatian and Eahancaman1: Pla.c.. the
Com....;............'" of T~artation and Warb be authorized to enpe"l the
scvil:as of m arc:haeclogi,n at an estimatad. caat of $30,000 to cany out a
pnlimi:1ary areh.aeologicU survey within M'l'RCA lands in preparation !or
the construction oiBa~ Av-enue (YJt 34) ia 1999.
JI.t+-.as-l997 14:11 1 519 741 SSe4 99%
P.17
.- --........ -
..... -
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0269
" Attachment 2 - Bayview Avenue
OSJ'C..N'a! ''37' 02: 111.FM""C~-- n kCCDIa IAmN - EalPLI.lIS P.1S;za/OOS
. . 1IlI..,_.,., __._ _~_ ~ .Is
~
. ,
~.aci.oD and. WadEs CammittH
Page Z
:. BACXGltOmID
The stImdard. ~ :or ha~ projects ap~ and. CClD:Itnu:tecl starts wUh an
approved EzrrixoDmencal.;U.e'l."!3~t (J:AJ mJlgwed by tba ~ of a l:Iy.la.w authorizi.n:
tha purchase alland and. th8 ~tioA of the propased p%O]ed:. 'the project is then
tGdereci and eventwalJy ccnst:uctsd.
Obtaining tha proper ap~ to proceed with :he ccnsC'UCtion of this projc:c:: ~
been more time ccn.sumiDli than anticipated. In the insta.l:lC8 of this proiec: t:ba
conetr.:.c:riou of Bayview Avenue from Stou:ifville :Read :a .B1comin:ton Read.. a C!ass
Euviranmmtal Assessment (Ca.ss ~ Wa3 ca:ried. out to satisfy the EA process. The
ClasIi EA W85 bumped up to an Icdividual Euvircnmental Asse3sment (lEA). An lEA
requires a more de~d approach to :den~ the environmental issues. As well. all
c:mcec.9 ::tis.d by those %equ~ the bump-up had to b. ~ewed. This additioual work
can:ributed. ':0 a delay ';0 the original construction sched:.Ue.
This project is partil:".1larly Q~ a5 it impacts l2nds awEled by the Mecro
Taronl:O and Rqi.cm Conservation Authority CM'I'RCA). These lands are identified. qn
.Attachment 1. ~ugh the Class EA. precess, a number of environmental =n~ were
ra:i.sed. These concen18 h.a.ci to be dealt with in gnat detail tbroulh ::he IEA p%Qc:ess which.
resulted. in staff d.avelopinpn Environmental Mitigation aDd Schancement Plan ~~)
tc deal with the concerns. One upeC't of the EMEP iavclves engaging Ul arehaeolo~t to
cmuiuct a sarvey.
To avaid. further d.elaY. scaif seek apJlrcval to proceed with. an:acinli an
arch.aeolocist and enliorseJ:ent of the E.\i:EP prior to rEA approv:J.l. Once che ~ is
approved, a future report will b. submittad to commence the process to obtai::!. a by-law
allowiq the 9%O]ect to pro=ed. to c:cn.strw:ti.ou.
The remainder oftbis :>ec:ti.on,ravidu a detailed history on the IEA. a descriptiou of
the scope of the p%O]ec::. and a mef cWcussion of the EMEP illr the reader's reference.
2.1 Individual Environmental Assessment (lEA) lor Bayvie..... Avenue
On November 2.8, 1996, Re;ional Council autharized tbe Commissic.ner of
Tra:1Spor:aticn and Works to submit the B&yview Avenue lEA to the Mi:1isb:y at
Environment aud Energy CMOEE) tor apPr:lval. The IE.~ identified. tha %ecom:neuded
ali..conment as ahowt:. on Attac:hmeut 1 to this report.
A ~afl: of :he lEA \lias ~ulated. to i.E1terested :cvunment age~cies and the Town
of Richmond Eill in December 1996, fer review. Stat! reviewed all cammeuta received. and.
have ~orated them into the final dra1l: of the lEA thra~ thE: project ccnsultants,
JU+.0S-1SS? 14: 12 1 519 741 ilSS4
.~-..... P.1S
0270 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
'.. Attachment 3 - Bayview Avenue
'r.rampazt&l:icm and Works Committee
Pace 3
McCazmick B.aDkin .5; ~.saciate. I.td. The IEA has been mbmitted to MOEE fOr review
and approval.
MOEE will circulate :he repa~ tG interested ~t acencia mci a&r the
public the appartu~ to ~ the report. espaci.ally those perSOD.S or ~ W'bo
mquested. a "'bump-up" frlml a. Cla3s EnviraDmantal.A.su.sameat (Cau EA) CO an ~
'1'bmuchout the lEA process. staff warked da5aly with tha variaua cro~s aDd.
acenc:iu to ci8wlop an ~ent ~t W'U mutually sati;fac:ta1'7. Meetings 'lNre heLi with
the cr;aupll and individuals who lIub::Utted "'bump.~- requests to the Mini.li'ter of
Envizaamant and Energy, to diseuse the alignment, the mitipl:icn1 meaoun.s and any other
ccnc:ems. The diacu.saions were genuaIly pOsitive.
Based on the discussions, the :ecommend.ed alignme:1t and the enviro~euw
mit;i.."'aticn md e.nh.ancemenl: Ineasure.s associated with it shauld be approved by MOEE.
The deci.sicn on the appraval will take between eight and twelve C1onw, incluciing ~e
necessary public :eview periods. -
2.2 Proposed. Schedule far the COASUUc:tion ot~yview Avenue
from Stouffville Road. 1:4 Bloomington Road
The approved Tr.m.sponatiOD 3I1d WoW Department lS97 Roads Construction
P:agram includes the ccn.sttuctioD of the sa<:tion r4 Bayview Avenue from StDu5rilla Read
to Bloomington Road tQ two lane standards S:zr the year:s 1999 and 2000. In view of th~
evironmental amsid.eraci.ons, the pding will be dona to allo"l mr the eventual wideni.o~
to fOur lanes \l7iCout further earth warn.
2.3 Environmental Mitiptian and Enhancement Plom (EMEP)
. for the Ml'BCA Lands
The lan.da awned. by MTRCA aa identified an At"'..achment 1 are known as the Lake
St. George Fiald Centre. Amang othar u.ses, these 1and3.an used as an education facility
. tcr school children. Staff and the :onsultants bave been WOT~ with M'l'B.CA staff: to
develop an EMEP fer these lands. This work is es5entially complete and ~ undertaken
in puallel with the !EA npart. The EMEP p.roviW sp~ detail o!the seepe and sc:.L!.e of
envirom::ental works proposed fer the MnCA lands in c:ompen.saoou fer the inevitable
effects of constrUction Bayvi.ew Avenue alOl\i the "lest side of that property.
l=. essence, th8 EMEP p:ap0.3es extensive land.cap~ and. berms at cpleCific:
lac:acions to lraii:r the prope~ froC1 :he road Cas is the e:d.stinl: situation) a..D.d. the cnatioD
of wetlands to enhance the ecologial ?2lue of the proper:y in. reCD~tian of the loss of
'Wetland due to the prop05ed:-oad :onsttud:i.an..
Details of the OW :are explair.ad in At"..:u:hment. 2 appended to this report.
.1l..lN-eS-1997 14: 12 1 519 741 eE84 P.19
-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0271
-, Attachment 4 - Bayview Avenue
UJtN"as '~. l2"lpM~~. _u --n ~a 1AllIr.f - ECO~ p.20/iZ/OOI
- . '~.'6".' ..._. - ..2 ~_.
,-..
.
.
Tzmsportai::im1 aDd W=k.s Committee
Pap"
All of these propoaala have been ~d to by the st:af! of the M'mCA and will be
prasentad to the MTItCABoard in June 1997, for cheir ~n and. 3'P~
3. DISCUSS10N
3.1 Project 0u1:Iine
In arder to meet ~. scl:1edule far t:ha eonstruc:i.an of 3ayview Avenue, a. series of
activities have to be campleted:
. approval of ths rEA
. lmd acquisiC.o.n
. implementation of ':he EMEP
. desi.~ and phaaed redevelopment of parts ai;he :BJ.cyl...;.,gtcm Dawus Golf
Course
. uch.aeological s~ acd. salvage
. desip and t2"ri..",.,~ of the prajes:t
Many at th~ acclvitia5 c:mn.al. be done withau: lEA approval and Regil:mal Co=cl
approval of the prajec:t. However. it is appropriate to mmace the uchaealcO=tl work far
the MTaCA lands as the archaealogical s~ is c:iti.cal to the EMEP. With the 3tart of
mad ~ tar(eted in 1999, it is necessary to commeuce the arcllaealag:y work. :tJW
as the archaeoloeical study mun be Iicn.e pr..ar to implemen~ the E'ME? The EMEP
must be implemented. pr..or to removtnr the vqatatic:1 and wetlands on the proposed
aJiinmc:n:.
The Re~n's pzcposal to c:arr.f out ~ prt"lim;"'"'Y archa.eological suxvey is ba.sad on
MTRCA. stafr SUilport !or the projeC': and iu aaaociatad mitipt:i.on measures.. No,.,ork will
be canied. out Oil MrRCA and" if:hll Authority dou not support the project.
Cur1in: out this work will uwt in m",;",h;"';"~ the ~c:ti.on sched.ule 5:lr this
. projlC and. will im'Clrove the short term fimc-..ionaliey and. quality of the enviroDmeno;al
mitiption and eDhancement wor~ proposed by the Re;ion fer M'T'RCA landa.
An outline of the proposed archaeolo~ s~ey is providediD. Sectioo 3.2-
Jt.N-eS-1997 14:12 1 519 74:' ee84
-..-.-.-. ..-. P.2a
. "
0272 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
.. Attachment 5 - Bayview Avenue
~ and Wcrlcs ("-"ftt...~~
P&~5
3.% Pl""J;,...i"",l"Y Arc:haeoloJ:ical Survey
Tha landS uou12d I.Ue Wilcaz are lmown from ~1U work l:D have been used or
izzhabitad. by cme or mare cultural eroups far atl!ud.ed period. af time. ~,prior to
~ out any DIrW laudscapinc, ber.m 0: ....tland cna_ the Rqian will have to c:&ny
out are},a_~....1 surveys :0 IU2aUn chat any artefacts or sites oChistox:ical habitation an
dealt with in accardance with Provim:W. pa&y.
The initial phase of archaeoIocical survey in the fiald c:cnsi.sts of plauehiug (or
dic:in&' tat pit3, clependini on :he tarrain) and visually inzp~ far arteiacu or other
sips of oc:cupuicn. II this proceu were ta reveal siimficaDt Sncis, !urt:her teen detailed
cccavatioos ..auld be required to salvage and doc-.unent the si:a before construction works
could be permittaci.
It is app:ropria~ ~ cartj" cut the initial ph.se arcbaeolcgicU survey (p.loug..~ and
iDspec:t:io%1) ~r two prim:ipal a:rea.s marked A and B on .-\::aclu::en: 1.
Area A is ~J'e5eD.t1y an ape.n 5.eld md. the "fork c:an be underta.keEl d~ the
S\UDmar ot 1997 be:5:Jre the lEA is expected. to be approved and be1i:noe a by-law approvin~
the project will b. acid.rasaed by Committee and Council
Area B is presently &.l1 open fiald in which M:'RCA b.as ,lantad .l11.:.merous &m41ll
tree.s. These will have to be remO'V'ed. to .o\na A and to ather area.s where tree.s a.re requi.~cl
ta sentEn and buffu the property beiare the ~ arcb.aeolo;ical survey em b.
CCUl,platad. The t::e 10cariml work is best: r.mder-.aJcen in Fall 1997 or S~ 1998.
The estimated c:cn of the U'Ch.aealacical ...odt i:1cl1.ldin: tho! tree :'1!lDcation. which
will b. W1der..akan largely by volunteer fazt:es wuier th. cUrectUln of Raponal and MTRCA
I~ is ,aO,OOo. TbU will inc.lW1e pz.."....'"..7 work at ath.u nnallar sites whi;b will be
a&cted by the propOHd road.
OlU:e reswts of the p~T;....i.""ry aurvey an: k:1owu. suE will prepare a report
advi.sin;r of the scope of &%lei anticipa.ted c:csts of the recommended. work raquired :0 salvaie
the art:u of special iDtare.st.
3.3 Bloomington Downs Golf Course
The reamst:'UCt'ion af B&1Viaw Avenue ~m Stouffville Road. to Blocminrtcn Road
also impact3lands afthe Bloa~n DOWDS GclICaurse. Re-de5i:n and reconstruction af
Puts at:he :olf' COur:Je will. be requi.red..
BaU the re.de~ and the rec:l~ctiou of pa::s at che :alf course are relatively
L'tpensive aDd it is propc.sed ta dsiu both Qntil the lEA is a.pproved.
Jt.N-es-1997 14: 13 1 519 741 see4
P.21
.----. "-.._. -0 , "
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0273
-, Attachment 6 - Bayview Avenue
-
T~ and. Works Co"'''';~..e
Pace 6
St:aiFhave iDiI:iated di.scassicms with the CJWDe%3 at tbe eal! CDUn8 and are P~osiDi'
to 8DpCe a amsulta:1~ to re-desicn thon puts at the pdf aaursa a&craci by the proposed
cans1:l'UC:t:iaA al :aa~ Avenue., and to carry out th8 physical x-=ulZw:ti&m of the golf
coune in such a way aa tD avoid. wherever posllih1e or Mift;...;_ dilruption tD pla,y during
the susan. . .
TypicaI]y, this sucpsts wi the p:bysical waz:k shaWd be c:uried au; in early Spring-
and ~ Fall. The:!.e;i= wiahes ta c:an'7 aut -= au cha ~ caurse as far in advaD.CII of
the :cad. construc:t:ian as pra..n....hl.. tEl ensure that the -new'" caursa is in ~cd playiuc
cand.il:icm when the land is takan S:lr the rca.ci.
3.4 F"mancial Impact
The cost of the archaeological study i.i estimated at $30,000 Slld. c:1J1 be
accommodated withic. the approved 1997 Trazuportatian and. Works Depar.:ment rea.c!s
capital budpt.
'- CONCLUSION
It is t8comm.eucied that the p%""1;"';"JI"'Y arc:haeolagial suxvey be undMtaken ou
MTRCA lands in 1997, in advance a! the MOEE ~ on the approval of the IEA and a
Regional by-law authcri2::inr; the project. "\t,;,.
B. Ranisou. P ..Eng.,
Dinctor,
Tt:lDsportaticn Design aud. Ccmatrt1ction
Lea Sc:hi;lper, P .En:.,
CQ........;....;"E1er oCTnnspartation and WoW
May 23, 1991
Attacl:mec.ts. 2
GpF/:l
C:'Mtal~'~McID6IUS-PfU
22-'22 . d 1111 SNtndroJ lold2't: 2lil
- $ I sa i-i1.!'
0274 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #061/97 - ROUGE PARK NORTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Development of the Rouge Park North Management Plan.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the
development of the Rouge Park North Management Plan be received for information.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The development of a preliminary plan for the management of the Rouge Park North has
been underway over the last eight months. It began with preparation of an inventory
which gave an overview of the aquatic resources, hydrology, stream morphology,
terrestrial resources, land use, transportation, and culture and heritage resources. In
addition to the technical inventory, there was a community consultation program which
will be ongoing until the final plan is completed.
The vision that was forwarded in the Management Plan for the Rouge Park (1994) is the
basis for the development of the plan for the Rouge Park North. In addition, the following
objectives have been addressed within this plan.
0 Balance - The Management Plan achieves an effective and responsible
balance and synergy between human needs and ecosystem sustainability,
and this balance must be appropriate to ecological and social context,
0 Integration - The Management Plan strives to integrate the park as the spine
of the community, integrating it with surrounding built form, transportation
and services infrastructure, as well as recreation programming and patterns
of future growth. The plan is directed at integrating ecosystem objectives
within plans for growth and development within the watershed.
0 Consensus - The plan is the product of community consultation,
collaboration and support. It is designed to reflect the needs and aspirations
of the citizens of the watershed, in both urban and rural areas.
0 Implementation - The plan is realistic and justifiable, developed with a
recognition of the appropriateness and limitations of existing background
information and with a respect for the implications of private land
ownership, the regulatory and legislative framework, and the aspirations and
objectives of the project partners, the municipalities a.nd the Rouge Park
Alliance.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0275
. Inspiration - The Management Plan strives to inspire all residents of the
community to become stewards of the Rouge Park North and to adopt and
apply the spirit and direction set out in the Management Plan to decisions
which will affect the integrity of the park in perpetuity.
To facilitate the achievement of these objectives a seven step work program was
established to provide the .framework to adequately address issues, generate ideas,
establish criteria and test the recommendation of the plan, Currently the plan is at step 4
of the process.
1) Determination - In this step, the study team, in conjunction with the steering
committee, stakeholders and the community, confirmed the intent of the
Rouge Park North Management Plan, as well as refining issues and
approaches to the development of the plan,
2) Consultation - In order to be implementable, this document must have broad
community support and there must be strong stakeholder commitment to
the plan. Accordingly, an extensive public consultant program has been
undertaken, based on a three part approach: (a) to increase community
awareness and understanding of the park and its vision; (b) to effectively
interact and work with members of the public in a variety of interactive
formats; and () to garner support and foster partnerships with all parties
involved in, or affected by, the Rouge Park North.
3) Evaluation - In this step, an evaluation of all of the natural and cultural
features within the study area was taken. The Background Technical
Appendix, titled "Status of the Watershed and its Constituents', was in part
comprised of an inventory of all existing data related to natural and cultural
resources, land use, transportation, municipal infrastructure, and open space
and recreation resources within the watershed,
4) Integration - This Preliminary Management Plan document reflects the
analysis and integration of the above noted inventoried data and establishes
the preliminary direction for the Management Plan. The focus of this
document is the identification of opportunities which achieve parallel social,
ecological and recreational objectives while addressing the needs, concerns
and aspirations of the public.
5) Justification - Future steps in the planning process will involve refining and
justifying the Preliminary Management Plan. Park boundary, zoning and land
use issues will be confirmed and justified. Land ownership, protection of
headwater resources, acquisition and compensation measures are issues
which will all be addressed in subsequent stages of the project.
0276 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
6) Confirmation - This step will focus on reviewing and testing the plan and its
recommendations from the perspectives of the steering committee,
stakeholders and the general public. This exercise will confirm the
acceptability of the plan from the point of view of the community.
7) Implementation - Finally, the Rouge Park North Management Plan must be a
document which is implementable, This will require that the plan be
justifiable, practical and implementable within the existing legislative
framework, In order for the plan to reach its ultimate goal, it must also have
broach community support, as well as having municipal and individual
stakeholders supporting the creation of the park,
The Rouge Park Management Plan (1994) identified the limits of the planning area for the
Rouge Park north of Steeles Avenue as the "valley systems of the Rouge River, Little
Rouge Creek, Berczy Creek, Bruce Creek and Morningside Creek. As a product of this
process, three tributaries - Robinson Creek, Exhibition Creek and East Beaver Creek- were
identified as possessing characteristics which would benefit both the Rouge Park North
and the communities of which they are a part.
Due to the linear nature of the Rouge Park North study area, primarily in river valleys
where there is a significant proportion in private ownership, cooperation, commitment and
endorsement will be required from landowners to help protect and restore the river valley
and achieve public access objectives, In reviewing the resources of the Rouge, it was
apparent that the Little Rouge Creek will likely become the most important component of
the Rouge Park North given its quality, connectivity and ownership patterns.
It was felt that the delineation of a standard boundary based upon minimum setback from
the top of bank is not preferred since any minimum standard is likely to establish a
precedent as the recognized standard for this park boundary.
The Rouge Park North designation is proposed to be applied to lands in public ownership
within the corridors of the Rouge River and its tributaries within the study area. In lands
outside those areas which are developed or approved for development the Rouge Park
Planning Area designation would apply. The Rouge Park Planning Area designation
identifies an area which investigations will be undertaken to identify areas which should be
encompassed within the Rouge Park.
The extent of the Rouge Park Planning Areas and the criteria for studies to be undertaken
to support the determination of the Rouge Park are specific to three areas. The
Headwaters, the Middle Reaches and Little Rouge Creek.
,
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0277
The delineation of the Rouge Park Planning Area is being proposed as follows;
. Headwaters - All lands tributary to the Rouge River Watershed
situated above 275m ASL elevation.
. Middle Reaches - All lands within 130m of the top of bank.
. Little Rouge Creek - All lands within 400 m of the centreline of the river or
130m of the top of bank, which ever is greater.
It is proposed that where there are vegetation units and significant resources that extend
beyond these limits the Planning Area will be extended to include such features and 100m
beyond.
Authority staff participated in a three day park planning workshop in November 1996
designed to confirm the technical inventory information, and to resolve generic issue case
studies that had been identified in earlier phases of the public participation process.
The Draft Preliminary Rouge Park North Management Plan has been released for comment
by the Rouge Park North Management Plan Steering Committee. A map of the initial
concept plan will be available for the Board meeting. Authority staff has reviewed this
draft document and have met with the consultants, Todhunter, Schollen and Associates,
to provide comments. The main concern raised by staff is that the Rouge Park North
Management Plan must be clearer on what lands are needed for park purposes.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
It is planned that a draft plan for the Rouge Park North will be completed by July 21. 1997
and presented to the Rouge Park Alliance on August 20, 1997 with a recommendation to
release it to the Rouge Park Alliance Partners for review and comment. It is also planned
that the Rouge Park Alliance approve the Rouge Park North Management Plan in the fall of
1997.
For information contact:
Dave Dyce, Ext. 250
Dena Lewis, Ext. 225
0278 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #062/97 - ETOBICOKE CREEK TOXIC SPILL
Toxic substance spill resulting in a significant fish kill in Etobicoke
Creek.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the toxic substance
spill on Etobicoke Creek be received for information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 1997, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) first contacted
Authority staff about a fish kill in Etobicoke Creek. At this time, the MOEE had people on-
site and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) had been contacted. A second call was
placed to Authority staff on May 21 . MOEE routinely inform staff on the occurrence and
significance of spills within our watersheds. Commonly, staff provide unique information
on the characteristics and significance of affected streams and rivers. This often is helpful
for the investigating agencies. In this instance. Authority staff advised the MOEE of the
quality of the local fish community, the presence or absence of the significant features,
and that staff had air photos from 1983 showing a spill of a white substance in Etobicoke
Creek. The 1983 spill was a latex paint spill and did not originate from the same origin as
the recent spill.
The spill on May 20, 1997, was traced to Majestic Plating, a metal plating company
located on Akron Road. The substance discharged from the recently closed factory
entered the creek north of Lakeshore Boulevard and was carried downstream to the river
mouth (Figure 1). The substance was determined to be cyanide. a chemical used in the
plating process.
Water and sediment testing by the MOEE revealed some contaminants at levels exceeding
Provincial Water Quality Objectives and are listed in Table 1, In addition, the pH of
Etobicoke Creek was recorded during the spill at 12, with normal readings considered to be
6.5 to 8.5. The combination of extremely basic water, and contaminant concentrations
produced conditions that were acutely toxic. Approximately 1,000 fish including white
suckers, various minnow species and some sportfish (rainbow trout and rock bass) were
killed as a result of the spill.
Clean up of the site began on May 23 and was completed over the course of 4 days. This
effort focused on removing the solid materials associated with the spill. The spill
dissipated quickly and no impacts were observed at the nearby water treatment plants. It
may be some months before the MOEE decided whether or not they will lay charges.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0279
FUTURE PROBLEMS
Since 1989, the MTRCA has conducted regular fish sampling at the mouth of Etobicoke
Creek as part of our Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program. This section of
Etobicoke Creek has over 15 species of fish present. Authority staff believe that the
numbers of fish killed would have been much higher in the summer, fall or earlier in the
spring when large numbers of fish from Lake Ontario utilize the lower reaches of the river.
The spill induced conditions that eliminated most biota within the lower portions of
Etobicoke Creek. The impact of this will be short term, and may last up to three weeks,
With the removal of the contaminated sediments, the creek should quickly colonize with
fish and invertebrates and other forms of biota,
Report prepared by: Jon Clayton (ext.353)
For information contact: Gord MacPherson (ext.246)
0280 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
, '..., ~ ,". , \' \ ,-' .
. , . . ..~ \. ~.,. ,
.... ....~ '; ..";, ....".. .J"- ". on. ':, \
, , . .' ',' M' . if~' . /
... ".. \ ,.. '" '" . \
'".., ' ..,... ( ,....., 'C aJestic ,.., ,,- \ .....
.. . . ';;00:' . , . \
/ ...' .'"./ .\...- --- \ ~ Plating Inc. ': \, '. \
,\\_':\--'~::: \ .' \.\/
, ...-', ~ .." , CIty of '. .
\ \ \ . ..:',: . ~
Ewbicoke Cr. \. .,\.,...-::/....\\ Etobicoke \ \.
, , '+, , ~... ........ .........." ...' . \ ':":/ '\\ ,.' <---). .-~,.
. (.-$1-'- 0: ". ..---- '. ' --a\."':I~' '.
~ .' .'J . , ',.>/\:;- ....~Q....\...
f',?i!~Slc"".;;11/''''~ \ ,.',' ". \. 1.:.<..-., ..',
:'~'~~Q' d" : :. \ . \..~ ~/~:;\ .:ry<;" \/\::.\,.\
.. " /:--.\\'\\\\,,:\','\\ \w
Approximate ..' \, " .... \. :~ '. ..: ,/
...... , \' . ...... . ..",-
Area of ., " /.\ '-; _ /'. ...../
N. '. .
*' ontammant ", /"
S ill
W E P..
"
, !
,
s L. Ontario
250 0 250 500 Meters
,
Figure 1 : Approximate location of toxic spill on Etobicoke Creek.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0281
Table 1: Water and sediment samplinQ results for Etobicoke Creek (source: MOEE, 1997).
ETOBICOKE CREEK WATER
SAMPLES SEDIMENT SAMPLE
Parameter Provincial Provincial
Station Station Station Water Station Sediment Quality
C43001- C43001- C43001 Quelity C43001- Guidelines
0011 0012 .0013 Objectives 0014 Severe Effect limit
Aluminum (AI) 2.95 1000 470 75 16700
Barium (Ba) .22 .02 Na 120
Cadmium (Cd) .05 0.2
Chromium (Cr) 5.8 83 100 43 110
Cobalt (0) .01 .14 .05 0.6 5.3 50
Copper (Cu) 350 1800 5,0 5 120 110
Iron (Fe) .50 55 28 26700 4000
Lead (Pb) 1,9 2.9 100 250
Manganese .58 .10 .75 1240 1100
(Mn)
Molybdenum 2.85 .04 10
(Mo)
Nickel (Nil .15 .08 25 2.6 75
Silver (Ag) .07 .05 0.1 1.7 0,5
Vanadium (V) .05 7 37
Zinc (Zn) 13.7 8300 80 20 540 820
Shaded values indicate a violation of Provincial
Guidelines or objectives
0282 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #063/97 - BOLTON ARTERIAL ROADS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Town Of Caledon, Region Of Peel
Receipt, for information, of Authority staff comments on the final
Environmental Assessment Report regarding the Bolton Arterial Roads
(attached).
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff comments on the final
Environmental Assessment Report regarding the Bolton Arterial Roads, as submitted to the
Minister of the Environment and Energy on June 10, 1997, be received for information.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting # 13/96, held February 21,1997, the following resolution associated
with the draft Environmental Assessment Report for the Bolton Arterial Roads was
adopted:
"Res. #A310/96
THA T the staff report, dated February 7, 1997, concerning the review
of the Bolton Arterial Roads Environmental Assessment, Town of
Caledon be received;
THA T, unless there are further modifications to the final Environmental
Assessment document, the Town of Caledon and the Minister of the
Environment and Energy (MOEEJ be advised that the north east and
north west components of the Recommended Transportation Network
will have:
. significant impacts on the landform features and functions of the
Humber River Watershed;
. significant impacts on the management and operation of the
Authority's Bolton Resource Management Tract;
AND FURTHER THA T, therefore, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority cannot support these components of the project
. . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . CARRIED"
(For further information, please refer to staff report to the Executive Committee, Meeting
#13/96, held February 14,1996.)
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0283
RA TIONALE
As set out in the staff response to the Minister, the Authority's issues with the Stage One
construction of the Bolton Arterial Roads were addressed in the final EA report; however,
the issues associated with the Stage Two protection of rights-of-way were not.
Accordingly, staff has advised the Minister that while we have no objections to the
recommended works proposed in Stage One, we cannot support the Stage Two rights-of
ways.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Minister is receiving comments from many agencies and interested public. It is our
understanding that a decision is expected in the fall of this year. The Minister has several
options, including:
- to accept the report subject to amendments and conditions or defer its decision
on acceptance of the report to an Environmental Assessment Board Hearing;
- once the report is accepted, the Minister can grant approval to proceed; refuse
approval or give approval to proceed with conditions,
Staff will report on any changes andlor actions required as further information is available.
For information contact:
Alyson C. Deans, Ext.269/Renee Jarrett, Ext. 315
Gemma Connolly, Ext,202
0284 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment 1 - Bolton Roads
~ r t d' . thrity - -
, 'the metropo itan toron 0 an region conservation au 0
I
I
I 5shontham driYe. dawnsview. ontario. m3n 1504 (416) 681~O FAXll81-6898 http://WWW.mtrca.on.ca
,
I
! June 10, 1997 CFN 17930 IAI
I
Mr, Nigel Wood
Review Coordil1llUlr
Environmental ASsessment Branch
Ministry of Environment and Energy
250 Oavisville Av--...
Toromo, ON M4S 1 H2
De., Mr. Wood:
RE: Ontario Government Review
Town of ~edon - Bolton Arterial Roads
Envirorvnamal Assesament
Your File No.; MU 0714-02
Thank you for sending us the final report on the Bolton Arterial RoadslBAR) Environmental
Assessment. We have completed our revIew and advise that, subject to appropriatll conditions of
design. we have no objection with the upgrading and completion of the existing roads component of
Stage One of the Recommended Tral\SQortation NetworK (RTNI. We do however, have substantive
concems with the reservation of rights-of-way associated with Stage Two of the RlN. Our rationale
is as follows.
! R.Il.r!(~Rn! INn
The Authority started to provide information and commenu to this project in the late 1980's. At
that time, the proposal was to upgrade Townline Road including tha completion of that road, south
of King Street. in the unopened road allowance. The Authority conveyed a parcel of land to the
Town of Caledon to accommodate this proposal. As you are aware, concerns raised by the
Township of King and others resulted in a '"bump-up. of this project to a full Environmental
Assessment lEA).
, In 1989, the Authority was advised by a local citizen's group that the full EA would include
consideration of a much broader range of altematives, including lands both east and west of
Highway 50. north and south of King Street. This had the potential to affect the Authority's large
Bolton Resource Management Tract IBRMTI land holding located north of King Street, west of
Highway 50. The Chair of the Authority responded to this local citizen's group advising that the
Authority would not support the routing of a new transportation corridor through these lands. This
correspondence was provided as an attachment to our letter of June 7, 1991 to the BAR consultants
whan they initiated the full EA study process. We have attached this letter and advise that it has -
< . .aat been included in Appendix 'J', Volume 2 of the final report, Correspondence and Minutes of
Meetings with External Agencies, Municipalities and the Bolton Camp. We are concemed with this
oversight.
.-
:~ ~b During the remainder of the st1idy process, Authority staff met with the consultant on a number of
- - occasions to discuss the project including the design of the new Humber River bridge crossing that
would be required if a northwest alternative was recommended involving the 6th Line IDuffy's Lane),
" Minutes of these discussions are included in the final report. Several other networK altematives
were also under consideration, most of which did not" rely on the northwest altemative. this avoiding
the Bolton Resource Management Tract.
- In July 1996, we were given the opport1Jnity to review a draft of the final EA report which identified
'j....,
.- .
::.... Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
~'-.
...f-~.- . <:j
,-
',c
-. ~;~
.~ -
.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0285
-. Attachment 2 - Bolton Roads
------- -----
ttw uanspon:don MlWOrK being considered for ttw fInaI._._ldaUon. UmiI this time. we had
not ~ th8t 1he project was to include bo1h traI_r.lion soluUon (Stage Onel to the year
2011 _ 1he ~ of r~'" far parenriM ~fu1ute needs (Stage Twol. FurUw. i
i , 1he RlN included the ~ of righa-of-w.., both east and west of Highw.., !50, north of the
I Bolton Camp emrance and ICing Road respectively, essentiIIv deferring ttw decision about which. it
I
I
I 8I'lY or both. may be required and/or preferred. subject to funher. future SDldy under a Class EA.
! This draft report; led us to raise significant questions and cancems as it appeared that none of the
other SIUdIed aitBmatives could provide for this broad range of recPrements. Our letter of response
dated August 16. 1996. setS out in detail thase concerns and is attIched. miter than restated here.
We point out our design conditions associated with Stage One and our substantive routing concerns
~ with Stage Two.
\.
I In November of 1996. the Town's Consultant responded and advised that design modifications
i
would be made to address our lII1Vironmental concerns associated with Stage One regarding
aItera1Ions to Cold Cleek and upstream flooding impacts at the bridge strUcture on Old King Road.
However, our concerns with respect to the routing of the proposed rights-of-way associated with
Stage Two of the RlN were not" resolved.
Recognizing that staff could not support the decisions and recommendations of the draft EA study
concerning Stage Two of the RTN, staff reported to the Authonty, and at its meeting February 21.
1997 the following resolution was adopted:
R..... iI.o.~'n/qFi
rrHA T the #2ff report. dated February 7, 1997, concerning the r"view of the Solton Arterial
Road$ Environmental A=eS$n7etlt, Town of C4ledon be rllCeived;
THA T. unless there are further modifications to thll final Environmental A=I!S$n7ent
document, the Town of Cilledon and the Minister of the Environment and Energy (MOEEl 11.
advised that the northeast and northwest components of me Recommended Transportation
Network win h.ve:
.
- significant impacts on the landform features and functions of the Humber River
watershed;
- significant impacts on the management and operation of me Authority's Solran
Resource Management Tract.
AND FURTHER THA T. therefore The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
" Authority cannot support these components of the project
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED.
Again. we have attached a copy of the staff report for your information rather than restate the
analysis contained therein and ask that it be reviewed with this correspond"nce.
~t2ftI. rtf MTRr-.a I~I..
RTN STAGE ONE
Stage One of the RTN includes upgrades to existing roadways and the completion of an unopened
road allowance between Nunnville Road and Old King Road. This section of the alignment will cross
wiley and stream corridors which are subject to the Authority's Fill. ConstrUction and Alterations to
Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 1581.
2
-
0286 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-, Attachment 3 - Bolton Roads
- -
In our rwvi_ of the draft report. the Authority identified concerns with the imPKtS the alignment
would Iwve on Cold CtnIc. upaream flooding at the Humber ~ bridge and the impac:t.s on a
I PRlPGAd trail alignment locatIId within the unopened Iaed allowance. In the final report. the
I e1iQnment has been revised to avoid affecting Cold Cleek and the road profile modified north of Old
lOng Ro.d to reduce flooding impacts. The design plata also idamify the reIocmion of the proposed
i trail alignment.
I It i. our opinion that the environmental and property impacs associated with the Stage One works
i can be effectively mitigated through the proposed construction tllChniques contained within the
~ and through the Authority's detailed design requirements under Ontario ~on 158. W.
therefore have no objections to the works identified in Stage 0". of the RTN.
..'
-- RTN STAGE TWQ
There are many environmerttal impacts identified with the routing of the alignment through the valley
corridors of the Humber River and Cold ereek Valley systems and the Authority's Bolton Resource
MllI1IIgement Tract. These impacts include loss of terrestrial and aquatic habitatt and corridors and
constraintS on the operation and management of Authority lands as set out in our attachmentS. We
provide the following additional commertS:
. We believe that the environmental resources have been correctly inventOried and that the
assessment which identifies significant environmental impact. particularly east of Highway
50. is correct.
. The report errs when it states that the Authority has "h"ntin".,n its plans to construct a dam
and reservoir in the BRMT. Although we have no immediate plans to construct this flood
control facility, the Authority continues to protect this area in the event that future flood
control works for Bolton are required. We note that, if/when these worits are constructed,
.V the new bridge associated with the RTN may be susceptible to approximately 10m of
- flooding.
-,
. The report identifies the efforts made to avoid impacting the management and operations of
~
privately owned lands. It is our opinion that a similar effort was not made regarding the
Authority's lands as there has been no assessment of the value of these lands. both present
and future. to the greenspace and open space system of the Humber watershed and the
- . Bolton community.
'L
.CONCLUSION &. RECOMMENDATIONS
~ .
". We understand the Town is interested in protecting an additional right-of-way now in the event that
. . a northem by-pass may be needed in the future; such protection may reduca the risk of having to
.acquire the necessary lands after changas in land use have occurred. We have discussed with Town
~ ~. . staff possible resolutions to this problem. Through OPA 114, tha Town of Caledon is proposing to
{i'-< limit growth around Bolton to an araa bounded on the west primarily by ICing Road and on the north
-_-:. ~
"":.1' by Columbia Way. This Amendment is currently before the Ontario Municipal Board. With respect
~
,;:-"; to the right-of-way proposed west of Highway 50. staff has agreed to its protection immediataly
if;1l. south and north of ICing Street. to link with existing Duffy's Lane. Since there are no proposals for
~.
development north of ICing Street on the west of Highway 50 which are directly affected or impacted
~. by a proposed northem by-pass. we believe the decision on the right-of-way can be deferred until a
..;;;{. dearer need and further alternatives are established. We have not been abla to similarly resolve this
~..::; issue east of Highway 50 where development is being proposed. In this area, we feel that the
~~:~.~- environmental impacts that would result if and when a road is constructed outweigh the potantial
benefits of protecting a right-of-way now to reduce future risks associated with pending and future
-~ land use changas.
~~r
- ....::. 3
~~
"'"',. -.
",'\..
.1.:':. \..1
""
1;--
",-;"
;-~~:.-
.......
~""
=-~J_
~.;
"
.-";.:. ~
:. -:,:-
'~':.:
~.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0287
-, Attachment 4 - Bolton Roads
The irnBntion at our comments is 1D idemify 1D 1he ....... that the AuU10rity has no objection 1D
Stage One at the RTN .. it r'IIIata 1D the ~ ... CDmIll.aon at TownIine Ro.d from the Bolton
Camp south and west 1D Highway 50. and ttw upgrwing and raIignment at CoIeraine 1D King Street.
The AuU10rity cannot. ~. SUppoIt the .~ay IRP08d in 1he nantI ~ bcnh east
... west at Highway 50 assac:iat8d with Stage Two. In the interim, AU1hority StIIft' will continue 1D
won: with the Town.
. .
If you. havlr any ~esbons regarding tf1:I above. or I'ICJJire furth.. clarification, p/eue do not huitata
~ c:omact the undersigned.
.:~~
rJ.~-
Chief~. Officer
AD/P.I:jb
cc: Town at Caledan
Region of Pael
Attachments:
1. MTRCA corrsspondence dated August 16, 1996
2- Board Report dated February 7, 1997 and Authority Resolution dated February 21, 1997
3. MTRCA correspondence dned April 7, 1989,
-
4
0
0288 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #D64/97 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY
AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Colonel Danforth Trail, Highland Creek, City of Scarborough
Remediation of slope failure at Colonel Danforth Trail, City of
Scarborough,
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT financial assistance be available
to the City of Scarborough under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" to 50% of the total cost to undertake the
necessary slope stabilization works at Colonel Danforth Trail, City of Scarborough;
AND FURTHER THAT the proposed remedial works be reviewed and approved by Authority
staff.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D65/97
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THA T paragraph one of the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following:
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT financial assistance be available,
subject to the availability of funding in 1998, to the City of Scarborough under the
"Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-
2001" to 50% of the total cost to undertake the necessary slope stabilization works at
Colonel Danforth Trail, City of Scarborough.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The erosion of a section of ravine slope along Highland Creek is threatening the
municipally-owned Colonel Danforth Trail at a location approximately opposite House No.
74. Authority staff have been monitoring the erosion over the past several years and
have ranked this site as a high priority for remedial works. However, work has not been
scheduled until 1998. In 1993, the City of Scarborough completed a geotechnical
investigation which summarized the cause of slope failure and recommended specific
remedial measures. In the interim, a slope inclinometer was installed and periodic
measurements WERE taken by Scarborough to monitor any potential slope movement.
The indication from the inclinometer reading is that the slope failure is surficial rather than
"deep seated" in nature,
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0289
Recent failures have pushed the crest of the erosion scar to within 2.5 metres of the
services and 4.5 metres of the roadway. Residents in the area have petitioned the local
politicians requesting immediate action to protect the roadway. The City of Scarborough
Works and Environment Department has requested financial assistance from the Authority
to undertake slope stabilization measures. Authority staff have re-evaluated the severity of
the erosion at the site and concluded that remedial work should be undertaken in 1997
rather than 1998.
The Authority completed shoreline stabilization of the east bank of the Highland Creek in
the vicinity of the slope failure in 1 992. Although this work was successful in protecting
the toe of slope from erosion, it did not arrest the recession of the over steepened crest.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Scarborough Works and Environment Department will undertake the contract
administration and supervise the construction of remedial measures. Authority staff are
assisting in the review and recommendations of the Consultant's final report on measures
to be undertaken.
It is anticipated that the remedial work will commence in the Fall of 1997.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total preliminary cost estimate for remedial work is $300,000. Funding up to
$150,000 will be available under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001".
Funding for the project will be structured so that the Authority's share is not required until
1998.
The City of Scarborough will be requested to contribute 50% funding of the total cost of
the engineering studies and remedial works.
Account No. 157-01 has been set up for the project.
Report prepared by:
Nigel Cowey, ext. 244
0290 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #D66/97 - HIGHWAY 407/TRANSITWAY, MARKHAM ROAD EASTERLY
TO HIGHWAY 7 EAST OF BROCK ROAD
Authority review of the extension of Highway 407/Transitway East
of Highway 48.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Authority
comments on the Environmental Assessment for the Highway 407/transitway extension from
Markham Road easterly to Highway 7 east of Brock Road be received for information;
AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to participate in the proposed Stakeholders
Consultation Process.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D67/97
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to.seek financial assistance from the Ontario Transit
Capital Commission to participate in the proposed Stakeholders Consultation Process.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of Transportation in response to traffic issues related to terminating Highway
407 at Markham Road has submitted an Environmental Assessment Report on an partial
extension to the Highway. The partial extension is proposed to extend the
HighwaylTransitway from Markham Road easterly to connect with Highway 7 east of Brock
Road. This extension of the Highway/Transitway will involve the crossings of the Rouge
River, Little Rouge River and the West Duffin Creek along with several smaller tributaries of
the Rouge, Petticoat and Duffin Watersheds.
Staff of the Authority have been active in providing technical and environmental input into the
design and construction of western sections of the Highway and have dealt with the Ontario
Transit Capital Commission(O.T.C.C,) and the Canadian Highways International Constructors
extensively related to achieving our watershed management goals within the design of the
highway.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0291
The extension of the Highway to the east of Markham Road requires an approval under the
Environmental Assessment Act unlike the west which was exempted. The Ministry of
Transportation has been undertaking studies related to alignment and assessing environmental
issues for several years and the Authority has had involvement in both provision of
information and in pre-review. The proposed alignment of the highway has been reviewed and
acknowledged by the Authority as the most appropriate in terms of minimizing environmental
impact. The Ministry of Transportation through this Environmental Assessment Report is
formalizing the alignment of the Highway/transitway and establishing the criteria and a
process which will be followed in undertaking the design of the highway extension. The
process being put forward by the E,A. is known as the Stakeholders Consultation
Process{SCP) is designed to provide a mechanism for all stakeholders within the Rouge,
Petticoat and Duffin watersheds to have input into design and construction issues. The
Authority has been identified as a principle member of the SCP which will allows us to ensure
that our watershed management objectives are taken into account within the design and
construction phases of the highway/transitway project. Other members of the SCP will be
the Ministry of Natural Resources, O.T.T,C" The Rouge Alliance, The Ministry of Environment,
and the Municipalities. It is proposed within the E.A. that all aspects of the Highway design
and construction will be reviewed and approved through the Stakeholders Consultation
Process (SCP), including flooding, public use, terrestrial habitat, storm water management and
fisheries issues.
In compiling our comments on the Ministry of Transportation's Environmental Assessment
Report, staff of the Authority have co-ordinated our review with staff of the Rouge Alliance.
As such, the formal written response to the Ministry of Environment contains comments of
both our agencies, Within the document, staff's main concerns that have been identified in
the review of the Environmental Assessment report relate to the transitway component of the
proposal, the lack of recognition and potential implications of ongoing planning initiatives and
in specifics related to the SCPo For example, within the document, little information has been
provided as to the nature of the transit way (ie; rail or busway) and what impacts might be
anticipated with it for valley and stream crossings, storm water management, and ancillary
facilities such as parking or stations. A copy of staff comments is attached to this report for
information.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Staff feel that the SCP is an effective process in order to ensure that the Authority's
watershed management objectives are considered during the design and construction of the
Highway. Since the Ministry of Transportation does not require permits from this Authority,
the SCP is the only mechanism staff have to review and comment on design and construction
details.
Staff experience with the process used for the western portions of Highway 407 was that
review and comments were often made in a working group meeting forum with all concerned
parties at the table, This was very effective in resolving issues but did require a large staff
time commitment to review documents and attend meetings usually within very short time
frames, .
0292 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
FINANCIAL DETAILS
It is anticipated that the SCP proposed for the eastern extension of 407 will likewise require
a significant staff time commitment given the compressed time frame for implementation of
this extension. Staff will endeavour to negotiate some form of financial arrangement from the
Ministry of Transportation similar to that in place with the Ministry of Natural Resources in
order to help offset the staff time impacts of the compressed review time frame,
For information contact:
Don Haley, ext.226
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0293
'. Attachment #1 - 407
)the metropolitan toronto and region cOnservation authority
5shorehamdrM,downsview, ordBrio. m3n 1M (418) 8IS1~O FAXaln-689ll http://Www.mtrca.on.ca
June 5, 1997
Mr. Nigel Wood
Senior Review Coordinator
Ministry of Environment and Energy
Environmental Assessment Branch
250 Cavisville Avenue, 5 th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4S 1H4
Cear SIr.
Re: Environmental Assessment Report - Hrghway 407 I Transitway, Markham Road
Easterly to Highway 7 !-t. of Brock Road, EA File No. TC-CE-02 -
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has completed its review of the
Environmental Assessment Report for the Highway 407ITransitway extension from Markham
Road to Highway II 7 east at Brocl< Road. The Authority has met with, and is incorporating
comments from, the Rouge Park Alliance as well. ". .-
The Authority arid Rouge Park.AlRance comments have been arranged into two categories.
Firstly, general comments related to the EA document contents as defined within the review
guidelines. and secondly, specific comments related to sectlons of the document
General Comments . . - -
:
"" '. '
In general, the document seems relatively complete in relation to the Highway facility in terms at
altemative alignments identified and investigated. The Authority and Rouge Park Alliance have
no objectlons to the alignment being put forward as preferred. We feel, however, that the
document falls somewhat short in terms of analysis related to the transitway. The transitway is
simply discussed in terms at it being within the t60 m right of way, likely along the southern
boundary. The ~takeholders Consultation Process should be expanded to include issues
. related to both design and environmental mitigation measures related to both the roadway and
transitway components.
Two ongoing planning initiatives should also be recognized within the document and some
commitment undertaken to take them into consideration during the design stage. The first is the
Rouge Park North Plan which may have speciflc implications related to the design of all
crossings within the Rouge Watershed. The second planning issue relates to the proposed land
use study of the Provincial Agricultural Preserve Lands. Should the study by the Town of
Pickering result in a land use change, there may be implications to the highway/transitway
design.
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
0294 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #2 - 407
Mr. Nigel Wood -2"- June 5. 1997
In addition to the Planning initiatives underway, the document does not appear to adequately
define ancillary works related to the Hlghway/Transitway such as modifications to Highway 11 7
or any North/South Connectors. Once constructed, the environmental impacts related to these
works wiD have route selection and mitigation options constrained by the highway.
The technique identltled to dea! with defining and mitigating environmental impacts within the
document win be also through the Stakeholders Consultation Process(SCP). The Authority and
the Rouge Park Alliance have had input into this process through previous meetings with the
Ministry at Transportation and again through the pre-submission of the EA. As such, we support
the process and, for the most part, the details outlined within the document Small issues related
tD some points at darl1lcation will be identified in our speciftc comments.
The SCP is also designed to allow input into the design, construction and monitoring
components of the Hlghway/Transitway project There is no current timetrame defined for
construction of the Transitway. The proposals and commitments within the process for
monitoring are acceptable; however, the SCP could be amended to include a commitment for
full time site monitoring at specific sites as defined through the SCPo In addition, some form of
commitmentto an action plan based on monitoring should also be investigated and included.
While the Authority and the Rouge Park Alliance have been identified within the EA as members
of the SCP, this being a provincia! project will not require permits under our legislation similar to
what occurred on the 407 West component We feel that the SCP will provide the mechanism to
fulftll the requirements ,and address any concerns of the Authority and the Rouge Park Alliance.
Soeciflc Comments
The following represents specific comments related to the text of the document
In section 1.3,1 of the document, it is stated that the "Design and Construction" reports will be
forwarded to the appropriate agencies for information and monitoring purposes. In section
8.3.4, the report states that the construction plans will be made available for review and
comment The aspect of being able to make comment on both the design and construction
components of the project is important to both the Authority and the Rouge Park Alliance. This
discrepancy within the document needs to be resolved.
In section 2.2.1.2, the report quotes the .Provinciai Rouge Park Management Plan Pollcy.'related
to no new crossings south of Steefes Avenue being constructed. In section 2.4, the report
states that it the Rossland RoadlFinch connection is not constructed in the Mure, there will be
additional demands placed on Highway 407, The apparent conllict of these two statements
needs to be addressed and any implications defined.
In section 42.2, the sensitivity of groundwater recharge to the baseflow of receiving streams
within The study area is Ilagged; however, no reference is made to potential mitigation of losses
due to the roadway/tTansitway. The SCP should clearly identify that the stormwater treatment for
the Highway/Transitway key on infiltration techniques to mitigate these issues,
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0295
'. Attachment #3 - 407
..~
Mr. Nigel Wood -3- June 5, 1997
WIthin section 4.5.1, the tiUe for the Rouge Park should have the word "Valley. removed.
In section 5.5.3, under the .Natural Environment" component, the statement that staging at
construction has no environmental impact is misleading. The timing of construction may have
significant impacts related to fisheries and wildlife. Timing issues related to migration and
spawning at 1\sherfes will be a constraint to construction.
In section 6.2,7, the last bullet point defines construction of the transitway in a separate corridor
adjacent to Highway 407. This statement is somewhat contusing given that the document is set
up to define a single undertaking indudlng the transitway. As noted earlier, the Authority
believes that the design at this facility should be undertaken in combination with the highway
design to address both technical, environmental and economic issues.
In section 6.4.1, under .Watercourse Crossings., the paragraph should reflect that bridges will
be considered for other crossings aside from those flagged within the document based upon all
environmental. social and eco!,omic aspects, not only the aquatic and terrestrial impacts.
Within the same section, the reference to avoiding the placement of piers within the watercourse
channel under bankfull conditions is confusing in terms of the interpretation of bankfull.
Reference should be made to the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management
guidelines, section 4,3 which relate to this issue.
Within the same section, the reference to where feasible, dosed bottom culverts will not be used
In up welllng areas should be addressed. A similar statement occurs within table 6.6.1 related to
up welling areas. Given the sensitivity at ground water in relation to the fisheries issues within
these watercourses, open bottom culverts should be required at any crossing where
groundwater up welling is occurring. Given this, these references should be corrected within the
document.
Within the same section, under the "Wildlife and Corridors" heading, the use of the term
.Corridors" in relation to the negative impacts of the highway should be replaced with
"'ransportatlon CorridOrs. to avoid any confusion with wildlife passage, The Authority and, in
fact, the SCP should be reference and not just MNR in relation to sizing of crossings related to
wildlife corridor issues.
Under section 6.4.2, Social Environment, Recreation, the Rouge Park North access issues and
future trails should also be noted.
In table 6.6.1, the Whitevale Corridor E.SA has not been mentioned. This E.SA has recently
been updated and adopted by the Authority. This should be included as an environmental
constraint to be dealt with through the SCP. A copy of the updated information is attached.
Also in Table 6.6.1, there is mention at SWM and sediment control plans for the major valley
crossings only. Similar plans will be necessary for all valley and stream crossings.
0296 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #4 - 407
..., . -
Mr. Nigel Wood -4- June 5, 1997
In table 6.8.1, it Ls the Authority and the Rouge Park A1Uance's positfon that the well defined
V8IIey crossings such as at the Rouge, UttJe Rouge and West Dutlln, with respect to the intent of
the design should be to span the valley feature, not just the watercourse. As such, the reference
to bridges being used to cross the watercourses under the proposed mitigation column may be
Intarpretecl as a given design conclusion. ThLs should be altered to recognize the overall valley
crossing wiD be detennined through the SCP. The use at the tenn "may be placed In a culve~
r.u.ted to the non identified bridge crossing locations also could be interpreted to rallect some
pre-dellned design commitment. This should also be altered to reftect the development of the
applicable acssing size and type through the SCPo
In conclusion, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and thll Rouge Park
Alliance support the alignment selected for the Highway. We feel that our concerns related to the
wording within the document can be resolved through refinements to the SCPo
Yours truly,
Donald R. Haley, P,Eng.
Project Engineer
Resource Science Section
Watershed Managem~nt Division
DHIL
End.
cc: Brian Denney
Dave Dyce
Dave Ross (MNR)
Dena Lewis
Bemie Mcintyre
Mary Asselstine
Gemma Connolly
Gord Weeden (Rouge Park)
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0297
RES. #068/97 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY
AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001
Crescent wood Parkette Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront
City of Scarborough, Remediation of Crescent wood Parkette gully
erosion, City of Scarborough
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to undertake the
Crescentwood Parkette Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total
estimated cost of $300,000;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Scarborough be notified that The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority will undertake the slope stabilization work at a total cost to
be shared equally by City of Scarborough and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Ongoing erosion of a 50 metre high section of the Scarborough Bluffs at Crescent wood
Parkette (Figure 1) is resulting in a loss of tableland of the municipally-owned park. Residents
in the area are concerned about public safety and ongoing loss of parkland and the ultimate
risk to Crescent wood Road and the municipal services if no remedial action is taken
immediately. The MTRCA completed shoreline protection works in this area in the mid
1980's.
City of Scarborough Council; at its meeting held on April 29, 1997, adopted the following
recommendation which was embodied in Report No. 9 of the Works and Environment
Committee:
"Recommendation 2. That staff of the Works and Environment
Department continue to have discussions with staff of The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with respect to cost sharing
and undertaking the construction of the remedial work, and to report back
to Committee on the results of these meetings."
DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
In discussions with Scarborough Works and Environment staff, the MTRCA have prepared
study terms of reference and proposals will be requested from consulting engineering firms
to undertake the investigation and design for remedial works. During the first phase of the
study, the consultants will provide an initial assessment of the erosion with respect to the
risk to public safety and municipal services.
The second phase of the study will investigate alternative remedial measures and develop the
final design drawings and specifications for slope stabilization.
0298 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
The MTRCA would undertake this project in accordance with the planning process outlined
in the Conservation Authorities' Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and
Erosion Control Projects.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The preliminary cost estimate for the remedial work is $300,000. Funding up to $30,000
to complete the engineering studies will be available in the 1997 Erosion Control Projects
budget. The remaining funds to complete the remedial work will be budgeted for in 1998.
This work is being carried out under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001.
The City of Scarborough will be requested to contribute 50% funding of the total cost of the
engineering studies and remedial works.
Account No. 156-01 has been set up for the project.
Report prepared by:
Nigel Cowey, ext. 244
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0299
.-, Attachment #1 - Crescentwood
Lake Onta/lO
~o~
~~ l
O~
#
S'
FIGURE 1
SLOPE FAILURE
CRESCENTWOOD ROAD
0300 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-, Attachment #2 - Crescentwood
CITY OF SCARBOROUGH
Clerk's Department
RECOMMENDATION EMBODIED IN REPORT NO. 9 OF THE WORKS AND
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING HELD ON
APRIL 29, 1997.
8 SLOPE FAU..URE - CRESCENTWOOD ROAD, WARD 1
COMM11TEE RECOMMENDATION (April 21,1997)
CornnritUl! Rl!collf11lDlds adoption of !hI! f'l!co1fU7lDrdation contllinl!d in !hI! following rl!port:
April 17, 1997
E.."CECtJTIVE SUMMA_~Y
A slope failure has occurred on the south side of Crcsc:mwood Road. approximately 70 metres (225
feet) west ofKildonan Drive, as indicated on the attached sketch. This slope, which is adjacent to
parldand, is part of the Scarborough Bluffs, and has a vertic:U drop of approximately 50 metres (150
. feet) at this location. A visual inspection of the site reveals ground wmr seeping out the fuce of the
fitiIure, approximately 30 metres (100 feet) down from the top of the bank. This seeping ground
water is more than likely the cause of the failure. If remedial repairs arc llOt taken to control the
ground water seepage and stabilize the slope at this location, then further failures can be anticipated.
AIJ.y additional failures may result in the loss of the roadway, together with the utilities such as
sewers, watermain, and gas main.
Discussions have been held with Mr. Nigel Cowcy of the Environmental Branch ofthc Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conversation Authority. Mr. Cowey has inspected tile site and has advised us
that the erosion at this location has bcc:n ongoing for a number of years. The recent slope failure was
the top portion, being tile crest of tile slope. He is of the opinion that there is no immediate danger
offurther slippage. A Soils Specialist should be retained at this time to confirm this opinion, and
to monitor the slope stability at regular inte:rVals for any signs of change. The cost of this work is
estimated to be approximately SI0,000. Funds are available to retain a Soils Specialist from
Environmental Services Division's 1997 CUIICIt Account, Consulting Services.
With respect to the cost of the slope stability rehabilitation, M. T .RCA will consider cost sharing
in the work to a limit of 500/lI, and consider unde:rtaking the construction. A very preliminary
estimate of the cost of the slope rehabilitation is approximately S300,000. M.T.RCA would fund
their share from the Metro Shoreline Erosion Capital Program. There arc no surplus funds in their
1997 Program, but possibly the worlc could be funded in 1998. Scarborough's share of the funding
could come from the 1998 Capital Program. M. T .RCA has extensive experience in slope failure
repairs along the waterfront. In order to expedite the approval process, it may be in our best interest
to have M. T.RCA undertake the construction. In slope failures of this nature, our experience is
that the slope repairs will involve tile interception, collection, and disposal of the ground water
se:page, the filling of the failure scar to a stable grade, and a planting program to prevent surface
erosion.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97
0301
" Attachment #3 - Crescentwood
-2-
RECOMMENDATION
1. That a Soils Specialist be retained to provide an opinion as to whether there is my ~..maM
danger of further slope failure at this location, and to monitor the slope stability at regular
interVals for any signs of cbaDge.
2. That staff' of the W ories and Environmc:m Department continue to have discussions with staff
of the Metropolitan T orontD and Region Convc:rsa1i011 Authority with respect to cost sharing
and undc1aking the c:onstrUdion of the rcnedial work. and to report back to Committee on
the results of these meetings. i
FUNDING
"
Funds in the amount of S 1 0,000.00 are available from Current Account No. 20000-70700-77100- '- .-
535.
: ..I .-
Respectfully submitted Concurred in by -
W. G. Humphrey, P .Eng., M.B.A. M. A. Price, P .Eng., FlCE
Director Commissioner
Engineering Support Services Division Works &: Enviromnent Department
0302 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #069/97 - lAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT
1995 - 1999
Continuation of the site development at Humber Bay West Waterfront
Park, City of Etobicoke, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1995-1999: at a total cost of $325,000.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the
1997 development program at Humber Bay West Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under
the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at a total cost of $325,000.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority completed the majority of the Master Plan components for Humber Bay West
Park between 1980 and 1984. Since that time, lack of funding has prohibited the completion
of final shoreline treatment and landscaping at a promontory located at the mouth of Mimico
Creek.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
During 1997, it is proposed that final shoreline protection will commence along the
promontory at the mouth of Mimico Creek. A consultant will be retained to undertake a
coastal engineering analysis and final design for these works.
Completion of landscaping within the uncompleted area of the park will include, tree and
shrub planting, topsoiling and seeding.
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 for the 1997 site development is $325,000 under Account No. 205-03,
This work will be carried out under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-
1999" approved at Authority Meeting No. 1/94, March 4, 1994.
For information contact:
Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0303
RES. #070/97 - KERROWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Howland Mills Road, City of Vaughan
Representation of Authority interests at an upcoming Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB) Hearing related to the Kerrowood Development lands in
the City of Vaughan.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the firm of Gardiner, Roberts be
retained to provide legal representation for the Authority at the Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing related to the planning applications made on behalf of Kerrowood Developments
Limited;
THAT Gardiner, Roberts be directed to pursue party status for the Authority at said Hearing;
AND FURTHER THAT Gardiner, Roberts be directed to retain an expert witness to provide
evidence in support of the Authority's position related to planning matters in front of the
Ontario Municipal Board, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #2/95, held March 31, 1995, the Authority considered a report
addressing an application to rezone the Kerrowood Developments Limited property situated
in Lots 24 and 25. Concession 8, on the north side of Howland Mills Road in the City of
Vaughan. The purpose of the application was to rezone the property from A Agricultural Zone
and OS 1 Open Space Conservation Zone to RR Rural Residential Zone and OS 1 Open Space
Conservation Zone to facilitate a severance of one residential lot from draft plan of subdivision
19T-84076.
In consideration of this application the City of Vaughan had requested the Authority reconfirm
the position taken by staff on this application. The Authority adopted the following
resolution:
RES #A61/95
"'THA T the staff report, dated February 27, 1995, be received.
AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to advise the City of Vaughan that the
Authority does not support the proposed application to rezone the Kerrowood
Developments Lands (FileZ.68.88J ........................ CARRIED"
0304 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
A copy of the previous staff report setting out the history of this application as well as the
planning context and program and policy interests of the Authority is attached,
Pursuant to the direction of the Authority, staff advised Council of the City of Vaughan at its
Public Hearing of March 25, 1996 that the Authority does not support the proposed
application to rezone the Kerrowood Development property. At a subsequent meeting of
Council held on July 8, 1996, Council adopted By-law Number 196-96 repealing By-law 172-
94 which would have rezoned the subject lands to facilitate the severance of the lot.
Reconsideration of zoning amendment file Z,68.88 has not been dealt with by Council.
Both matters have been appealed by Kerrowood Developments Limited to the OMB. A
Hearing date has not been scheduled, although it is anticipated that this matter could be heard
sometime this Summer or early Fall.
There are a number of options available to the Authority related to this matter and the
upcoming OMB Hearing, as follows.
~ Do Nothing Approach: the Authority would not be represented at the OMB Hearing,
and no evidence would be put forward on the Authority's behalf unless staff were
subpoenaed to attend and provide evidence on the application.
~ Party Status: the Authority would be represented at the OMS Hearing and would
participate throughout by presenting evidence, questioning witnesses and making
final arguments,
~ Participant Status: the Authority would be allowed to communicate its views to the
OMB on the subject matter of the appeals; however, we would not be allowed to
present evidence, question witnesses or make final arguments.
Given that the position taken by the Authority was not in support of the report and
recommendations set out by Authority staff, it would be necessary to retain an expert witness
to provide evidence in support of the Authority's position if an active role were taken at the
OMB Hearing.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
With the exception of the 'do nothing approach', the Authority would incur legal costs in
retaining Gardiner, Roberts to represent their interests at the OMB Hearing. If party status is
pursued and the Authority takes an active involvement in the Hearing, then additional costs
would be incurred in retaining an expert witness to support the Authority's position.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0305
CONCLUSION
Based on the options noted above, it is recommended that Gardiner, Roberts be retained to
represent Authority interests as they relate to the Kerrowood Developments Limited planning
applications and seek party status before the OMB Hearing. Gardiner, Roberts should also be
instructed to retain the services of an expert witness to provide evidence on the Authority's
behalf at said Hearing.
For information contact:
Luch Ognibene, ext. 284
\
\
\
,
ement Adviso Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
0306
Attachment #1 - Kerrowood ~
- Copy.
TO: Chair and Members of The Water and Related Lind Management Advisory Board.
Meenng #1/95, March J, 1995
FROM: Bnan E. Denney, Director, Watershed Management Division
RE: KERROWOOD DevELOPMENTS UMITED
-Howland Mills Road. City of Vaughan
KEY ISSUE
An applicanon to rezone the subject lands from A Agriculture Zone and OS1 Open Space
Conservation Zone to RR Rural Residennal Zone and OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone to
facilitate a severance of one residenual lot from draft plan of subdivision 19T-a4076.
RECOMMENDA nON
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to comment favourably
on the application to rezone the Kerrowood Development Lands (File Z.BS.sa) City of Vaughan.
-
BACKGROUND
At a public heanng on December 12. 1994, Council of the City of Vaughan considered an
applicanon to rezone the subject lands from A Agriculture Zone and OS1 Open Space Conservation
Zone to RR Rural Residential Zone and OS1 Open Space Conservanon Zone to facilitate a severance
of one residential lot from draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076.
At this meenng Council adopted a motion to receive and refer the zonIng application to a future
meeting of the Commlnee of the Whole to permit further consultanon With The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation AuthontY (MTRCAI. Pursuant to Council direction they require
the MTRCA to reconfirm their position on thIS applicauon.
The sub,ect property is located northwest of Highway 27 and Nashville Road in Lots 24 and 25.
Concession 8 in the City of Vaughan. The property fronts onto the north side of Howland Mills
Road, a munrClpal road located within the valley corridor of the main Humber River. The entire
property is fill regulated pursuant to Ontario Regulanon 158 (see attachment 1).
The proposed rezoning of the lands is to facilitate the severance of a 0.78 hectare parcel of land
from draft plan of subdivision 19T.84076 (see attachment 21. The total area of lands owned by the
applicant as part of draft plan of subdiVIsion 19T-84076 is 9.14 hectares. The consideration of this
draft plan is pending resolution of servicing issues associated with the KJeinburg Community.
Authonty staff originally reviewed and commented on draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076 in 1990.
At that time, the specific. treatment of this proposed lot was addressed; basically, Authority staff
WOuld suPPOrt the severance provided the lot not affect either the adjacent slope or flood plain.
In May of 1994. Council approved this zoning application subject to the following conditions:
,. That rile lands be zoned RR Rural Residential and OS T Open Space Conservation
Zone and the by-law include rhe necessary exceptions ro rhe RR Zone ro facilirate
the severance and a bUilding envelope,
,
'\
,
June 20, 1997 W~(Shed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0307
'~
Attachment #2 - Kerrowood
2. That prior to the eIIllcunenr of tfle zoning by-law:
aJ the finlll building envelope slulll be to the SIltisfacrion of the MTRCA:
bJ the draft plan of subdivision be formally revised tflrough the Region of York
to delete the subject lands.
A neighbouring resident wittlin 1 20 metres of ttle site forwarded a lener to the Clerk at ttle City of
Vaughan dated October 6, 1994, advisang ttlat ttley had not received notification of ttle May 2,
1994 public hearing. It was determaned ttlat a computer error resulted in ttle resident's name not
appearing on the mailing list for ttlis meeting. As such. proper notice was not provided in
accordance Wlttl public notification requirements set out In the Planning Act. therefore invalidating
By-law 172-94 and requinng a new public heanng.
In the interim, on September 29, 1994, ttle Commlnee of Adjustment approved consent application
B69/94 to permit the severance of the subject lands from the remainder of the draft plan of
subdivision and to permit two (21 rights-of-way. The first nght.of-way was for a dnveway across
the east side of the severed lot to Howland Mills Road to service the eXisting dwelling on the
retained lands. The second rrght-of-way on the west Side of the severed lot may eventually be used
to access a storm water management pond for the subdiVISion plan or for storm drainage purposes.
The severance was sublect to a senes of conditIons; however the rezoning was not a condition
since ItS anginal approval by Council had preceded the severance.
At the same meeting, the Commlnee of Adiustment approved a vanance IA 151/94) for ttle retained
lands to permit the maintenance of 7 bUIldings as only 4 buildings (three single detached dwellings
and one barn) are permlned under the current by-law (By.law 1-881. The retained lot has ttlree (31
existing detached dwellings. two (21 wooden storage buildings. one (1) barn and one (1 I metal
shed. Under the same variance application, Schedule E-553 of By-law 1-88 was amended to show
ttle new boundaries of the lands. wittl ttle severed lot deleted.
On October 28. 1994. the neighbouring reSident appealed the vanance application (A 1 51/941 to the
Ontano MUniCipal Board. The severance application was not appealed (B69/94).
We understand that one of the area resident's concern is the size of building that may be
constructed. Pursuant to By-law 1-88, a single family dwelling is allowed wittlin a Rural Residential
Zone with a maxImum buildIng heIght of 9.5 metres and maximum lot coverage of 10% (excluding
lands zoned 0 S 11. There is an opportunity for ttlis area resident to further address any urban
design issues wittl the City through the site specific zoning by-law to restrict the size and height of
structures.
PLANNING CONTEXT
The severed lands are deSignated 'Valley Lands' and 'Suburban Residential" by OPA #160, ttle
KJelnburg.Nashville Community Plan and zoned A Agricultural Zone and OSl Open Space
Conservation Zone pursuant to By.law 1-88. The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the
severed lot from A AgriCultural Zone to RR Rural ReSidential Zone. The portion of the lot zoned OS1
Open Space Conservation Zone which reflectS the regional storm flood plain limit will maintain its
current zOning. In establishing the ZOning by-law for thiS sIte. the use of a building envelope was
proposed whiCh will ensure the proviSion of adequate setbacks from the OSl Zone and from the
toe-of-slope located along the eastern boundary of the Site (see attachment 31.
The subject lands are also subject to OPA #94. the City of Vaughan's Land Severance Policy which
serves as a guide for zoning amendment applications that will permit a severance. In the Planning
0308 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-, Attachment #3 - Kerrowood
Regort prepared by the City of Vaughan, staff concluded that the proposed zoning to facilitate the
severance had planning merit in the context of me Official Plan, as follows:
.ComD/lribilirv
OPA 1194 statu that considerlltion of a severance should be blIsed on ctJmP6tibl7ity of the
/XOpo:st/d size. shape and use of the lot to be crellted wftII pr8StIIIt and PDttllltill1 usa in the
MJjllCtIIIt area. The applicant is proposing to crtJlIt/I one single f."ily lot hllVing a lot ...
af O. 78 hll f1.93 acres). The proposed lot is compatible wftII other lots 10C8ted on HOW/MId
MI71s ROild.
~
OPA 1194 reQuires thar a consent to sever a lot should be permitted only when both the lot
MId the remaimng parcel front on either an existing assumed public highwilY or on a
dedicated road allowance. The pllrcel to be creilted has dir/lCt access to Howlllnd Mill ROlld
and the retained pornon has a drivewllY onto HighwilY :/27.
OPA 1194 also discourages the crellrion of lots fronring on major traffic corridors in order to
6Void conflicts between driveway entrances and traffic flow. The proposed lot will "live
access to Howland Mill Road. which is a local streer.
-
Future Develoomenr
The infilling pOliCIes of OPA ;194 srare (in pam;
Severances may be granted for the purpose of infilling in an existing urban
area. but should not SIgnificantly extend the existing urbanized areas.
Infilling which economizes the use of urban space without disturbing the i
,
exisring partern of development or perpetuaring the undeSIrable pllrtem of .
I
development or prejudicing the layout of future development may be i
ilcceprable. j
The lor to be creilted will front on a small cul-de-sac rOild (Howland Mill Road/ which
currently hilS three dwellings on it. The lot to be creilted would not extend the urban arell
but would represenr mfill developmenr on this road. .
MTRCA PROGRAM ISSUES
As noted. the subject propeny is approximately 0.78 hectares in size with frontage of 53.0 metres
.on Howland Mills Road. The Planning Report prepared by City of Vaughan staff notes mat thete are
currently three dwellings which have access to Howland Mills Road.
The severed lot is located entirely within the valley corridor of the main Humber River. Nashville
Road crosses the Humber Valley at this location, and Howland Mills Road is an existing cul-de-sac
aft Nashville Road to the north.
In dealing with the overall draft plan of subdivision in 1990. Authonty staff undertook a top-af-bank
and determined that the southerly portion of trle propeny was less defined and could be treated
separately in light of avaIlable access off Howland Mills Road. To this end, staff provided
conditional approvals to the creation of thIS lot subject to the establishment of a building envelope
which respected the valley slope and flood plain.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0309
-, Attachment #4 - Kerrowood
In commenting on the severance. variance and rezoning applic3liona for tltis propertY. Authority
staff had regard to these previous commentS. A site meeting took pI8ca to establish an appropriatll
building &nvelope, and the flood plain portion at the property was rwcagnized as Open Space. The
established building envelope respectS both tlte slope and flood plain limits. and is void at any
veglltation.
Although staff commentS and recommendations auociatad wi1h the severed lot were provided prior
to the Authority's Valley &. Stream Corridor Management ProQmn. staff has had regard to the
policy provisions of the Program and provide the following comments.
Section 4.2.2. Policy G addresses infilling both for existing lots and the creation at new lots
affecting Valley and Stream Corridors. This policy excerpt is attachment 4 to this report.
As described above. the development of this lot will comply wi1h the valleyland management criteria
established under the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Although the existing land
ownerShip pattern is such that the severed lot would not be betWeen two axisting lots, the
proposed development does not extend the urban area and there is existing development on
Howland Mills Road. It would also appear that the application is consistent with municipal policies
and standards inCluding setbacks and grading. OpportunitllS for the creation of further lots on
Howland Mills Road are limited based on the CitY's Land Severance Policy lie. area requirements.
frontagel and the fact that me balance of lands in thiS area are owned by the MTRCA.
-
For information comact: Luch Ognibene (ext. 284)
Date: 1995.02.27.
0310 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-, Attachment #5 - Kerrowood
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0311
.. Attachment #6 - Kerrowood
- --
..
.
-
. -
NOT TO SCAl.E ATTAC~IE~T TNO
.
0312 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #7 - Kerrowood
r/'- .
I ":.-.~.
. ""011-
... .
i /'-~~
. J ..~
. ..~
1 .~
. . ~
~- .
J' 1aC-QF"1LD" /'
.
_ I SUll.OINlJ INVlI.QPC ,
~I ~
~ I
rl /
Ii /.,:-
, ,
! 0 S I : ,1~
1 ·
,. ..~
I.. . l,
..~. l. 7f
..,. -- . J....... ,~
. Oa ~ '"
~.. .,.
.. '"'"""./ I'iI .
"0...(.....,." . ~~..~
. 11'1.1.: ..... '"
. ~.
"0 .
.
"'"
ATTACSl-1IDrr THR..~
. .
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0313
". Attachment #8 - Kerrowood
ATTACHMENT 4
POUClES . CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PlANNING . DEVB.OPMENT PROJECTS 4.0
4.2 EXISTlNG OEV8..0PMENT
4.2.2 OtrVelopment & RedtrVelapmlll1tllntllnSiflc.uon Wrthin Nan-Established
CammunitillSlHighIy Uttlanized Area
EI Propenv Im.....-mems & AnczIIrf s~ ICont'dl
Fl O~ tar Reg_
GI Infilling
iiI) will not create or aggravste erosion or slope instability on adjacent upstream
or downstream properties;
iv) will minimize property damage associsted with erosion/slope instability to
the extent technically possible and the liability must be assumed by the
owner.
3) Minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a Significant
Area and does not result in the loss of its Significant featUres.
4) MInimize potential impacts to the function or structure of the riparian habitat.
5) Property improvements and ancillary structures that introduce grester potential for
valleyland impacts such as swimming pools. retaining walls. garden sheds. gazebos.
grade cutting and filling shall be prohibited except:
i} swimming poolS and small ancillary structures may be permitted to be
located Within the Regulatory Flood Plain and/or adjacent to stable valley
slopes subject to the criteria outlined above.
FI Oooortunities for Rl!IQsneranon
_ 1) Minor additions. replacement structures and other property improvements may
provide opportunities to regenerate the ecological integnty of the valley or stream
corridor and to provide public access. The regeneration policies. criteria and
implementation procedures within this Program shall be applicable on a site by site
basis.
G) Jnfi!!!!lg
1) Where an existing lot of record small lot only. ago single family residential is vacant
and is between existing developed (urbani lots. a new structure or building may be
permitted provided the new development. its construction, and any associsted
privste servicing requirements:
il are consistent with the existing primary building setbacks within the corridor
reach;
-
iil are not located within the Regulatory Rood Plain;
iii) are not located on a valley wall;
MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
October 28. 1994 44
0314 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-- Attachment #9 - Kerrowood
POUClES . CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PlANNING. DEVB.OPMENT PROJECTS 4.0
4.2 EXISTING OEVELOPMENT
4.2.2 Oevefopment & Red1IveIOIlITl.m/Iransiflc:.aon Within Non-&tabliaMd
CommunitiesJHighly U~ Atu8
Gl InMnQ (Cont'dl
HI e--anv R~ u_
ivl .e not located within the active erosion zone of an unstable velley slope.
either adjacent to the top or toe of slope;
vi will not crellte or aggravate erosion or slope instability on adjacant.
upstream and downstream properties;
vi) .., not located within the active erosion zone of a watercourse detennined
to be:
. within 10m of a stable river bank (measured from the top of the river
bankl;
. within 20m of an unstable river bank. An unstable river bank may
be pennined to be stabilized provided the proposed stabilization
works are consistent with Section 3 - Watercourses;
vii) minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a
Significant Area and does not result In the Joss of its significant featUres;
viii) minimize potennal impacts on the functions or structUre of the riparian
habitat:
ixl include sediment control during constrUction and subsequent phases until
such time as erodible arees have been vegatated/stabilized;
I
I xl .., consistent with municipal policies and standards including setbacks and
i grading, while achieving all of the above.
2) A new lot may be created between existing developed (urban) lots provided the
new development. its constnJction and any associated private servicing
requirements preposed on the new lot can comply with the policy and criteria as
outlined within 11 above.
H) Existfno Resourca-based Uses
Existing resource-based uses of valley and stream corridors may have signiflcant non-
Itruc:tural features. such as greens and tees in the case of a golf course.
11 Changes to these types of non-structUral features. including minor "additions. or
redesign shall be consistent with the policies. criteria and implementation
procedures presented in Sections 4, 1.2 and the prinCIples for
redevelopmentlintensification found in Section 4.2.2 (AI to (F) inclusive; however.
the level of required flood. erosion and slope stability protection shall be detennined
based on site specific evaluation.
21 StrUctUral improvements shall comply with Section 4.2.2 (A) to (F).
MTRCA VAllEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
October 28. 1994 45
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 D315
RES. #071/97 - FEES AND PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT FOR AUTHORITY PLAN
REVIEW SERVICES IN PEEL REGION
Receipt and recommended approval of a report establishing a
Partnership Agreement for Conservation Authority plan review services
(resulting from the transfer of Provincial municipal plan review functions
to municipalities) and fees for Conservation Authority plan review and
technical clearance services, as submitted by Credit Valley
Conservation, on behalf of the three Peel Region CA's,
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report submitted by Ms. Vicki
Barron, General Manager of Credit Valley Conservation, dated June 1997 and entitled: Fees
for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Technical Clearance Services in the Region of
Peel, including the appended Partnership Agreement, be received;
THAT pursuant to the Summary and Recommendations set out on page one of this report, The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for the area of its jurisdiction lying
within the Regional Municipality of Peel, adopt the following:
1(a). The Fee Schedule for Plan Review and Technical Clearance Services, dated June
1997, under Section 21 (m.1) of the Conservation Authorities Act;
1 (b). Notwithstanding 1 (a) above, the Fee Schedule for Plan Review and Technical
Clearance Services, dated June 1997, be implemented through a municipal by-law
pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, at the request of a Peel municipality;
2. The allocation of planning matters between municipal financed and developer
financed be endorsed as presented;
3(a). The Region of Peel, the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton, and the Town of
Caledon be requested to assist the Conservation Authorities in collecting the
preliminary analysis fee at the time of development application receipt;
3(b). Notwithstanding 3(a) above, an agreement will be negotiated on the process of the
collection of fees for any Peel municipality choosing to implement the plan review
and technical clearance service under Section 69 of the Planning Act;
0316 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
4. The Region of Peel, the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton, and the Town of
Caledon, the participating Conservation Authorities and the development industry
establish a forum to implement, monitor and review fee schedules established under
Section 21 Im.1) of the Conservation Authorities Act, and the administrative
arrangements relating to same; and
5. The target date for implementation of the fee schedule be July 1, 1997 and the
target date for operation of the implementation forum be early Fall 1997.
AND FURTHER THAT the Partnership Agreement attached as Appendix I of the report be
approved and executed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Meeting #1/97, held March 7, 1997, the Executive Committee received for information a
status report on the development and implementation of fees for MTRCA planning services,
including a draft, GT A conservation "Flat Fee" Schedule for Planning Services. Staff was also
directed to continue to consult with watershed municipalities and the development industry
before reporting final recommendations for Authority approval. This direction was consistent
with earlier staff reports related to Provincial initiatives to streamline the Land Use Planning
and Development Process in Ontario and the financial details of the MTRCA 1997-1999
Business Plan.
In November of 1996, the Executive Committee, through earlier approval of the Authority,
authorized staff to finalize a Partnership Memorandum for Conservation Authority Plan Review
Services in the Region of Durham, (Please refer to staff report dated October 28, 1996,
approved by the Executive Committee at Meeting #10/96, held November 8, 1996 for details.)
Further, at Meeting #4/97, held May 30, 1997, the Authority approved the adoption of fees
for Conservation Authority Plan Review Services in Durham Region. The Partnership
Agreement and Fee Schedule proposed for Peel Region is consistent with the approach
adopted in Durham Region.
RATIONALE
The proposed Partnership Agreement between the Peel Region CA's, the Region and area
municipalities was developed in response to the Provincial land use planning and development
streamlining initiative to transfer its plan review responsibilities to municipalities. A transfer
agreement between the Province and municipalities is not required and, to date, has not been
developed within Peel Region; however, the Province has not been providing input and review
to development applications within the Region since April of 1996, The Authority was
authorized by the Ministry of Natural Resources to carry out its plan review functions for
development applications predating April 1996 and has likewise, by verbal agreement with
the Region and area municipalities, been providing comments on new applications, The
Partnership Agreement formalizes this arrangement and advances the recommendations of the
ACAO Blueprint for Success proposal made to the Province in 1993, Members will note that
the Partnership Agreement focuses the former provincial services to be provided by the
Conservation Authorities to watershed matters related to natural hazards, natural heritage
features and water management, but does not preclude comments associated with other
Conservation Authority interests eg. Property,
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0317
The proposed Fee Schedule was prepared by the three Conservation Authorities having
jurisdiction within Peel Region and builds on the work previously completed in Durham Region.
Its preparation follows consultation with the other GT A conservation authorities, the Region
of Peel, area municipalities and the Peel Chapter of the Urban Development Industry. The
report summarizes the background leading to our discussions, summarizes the input received
and sets out our final recommendations and rationale for same.
MTRCA staff support and recommend Authority approval of the Partnership Agreement and
the recommendations regarding the Fee Schedule.
DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Peel Region Conservation Authorities proposed Fee Schedule and Partnership Agreement
have been submitted to each Authority Board for adoption. In addition, Councils for each of
the Peel Region municipalities will be receiving correspondence formally requesting their
execution of the Partnership Agreement and their assistance in the collection of the
preliminary analysis fee at the time an application for development is received. These
recommendations are being submitted to Peel Regional Council in June. It is hoped that all
approvals will be in place to begin implementation by July 1, 1997 or as soon as possible
thereafter.
Staff will report on any additional issues or changes that arise as the fee report and
Partnership Agreement are processed for approval through the other Conservation Authorities
and municipalities within the Region of Peel.
Staff will forward reports for the Regions of York and Metropolitan Toronto when similar
recommendations regarding Authority Planning Fees and partnership arrangements for the
delivery of plan review services are finalized in each of these regions,
For information contact:
Renee Jarrett, ext. 315
0318 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
" Attachment #1 - Fees
4A
eve
':~EOIT V~I..I..~Y
roO:"llltnV,,'l'IQ!C
lune 10. 1997
Metropolltm TorontO ami Region
Conservation Au1bority
S Sboreham Drive
Nonn Yorlc. Omario
M3N 1S4
/t rtPftritlJr Mr. CI2ig M2mer
Chief' Adminim-:::!.tiTe Officer
Dear Mr. ~~
He: Peel Region Couservation Amborities Fees -
for Plan Review aDd T............" I Clc:u2m:e Services ami
P2rtnenhiu A2reement with the Re2ion of Peel MnniMDalities
On behalf of the staff of the Credit Valley, Mcuopolitm Torcmo m1 Region and Halton Region
Conservation A1.tthcritics. I am pleased. to submit the aaached I'CpOrt aDd agreemem for yaar
consideration. Please advise me when your Board has approved me agn:emem and then I will ammge
for signamres.
Yours very trUly,
UJ~
Vicki Barren
General Mamgcr
VBlLAJcp
And.
cc: Region ot Peel
Mr. Peter Allen. Plamling Commissiooer
Mr. Doug Billett. DiIector at DevelopmcnI Review
cc: City of Mississauga
Mr. Thomas Mokvzylci, Commissioner of Planning and Developmcm
Mr. John Zipay. Director. Deve10pmcm and Design
Ms. MariaIm ~ P1.amler
Ms. HC3tbcr Reynolds-Pew, Director. Administration and Technology
.. ..2
C:re~1l "-"Hey C:(')"$~"'~11011 I ~~ Derry HOclU \V~l. ~h::l:!do\\"\:Clle. UnlilrlO l-S=-- GK4
PI'on~ '90~1 Gi'O-l G 13 Fax 10051 (f7002210
-COl1servClliol1 Throll~h COOl)emnOl1' "
...
JUl-:'2-1SS7 14:22 SElS 6'7111 22 HI 96% P.01
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0319
--- Attachment #2 - Fees
JUN lZ 'S7 13:Z1 FROM CREDIT UALLEY CONS TO MTRCA pr:lGE.aIi5Z
Page -2-
Re: Peel Rqion COIZSa'\'UioD Amboritics Fees
tar Plan lb:Yn mil T~I Ccumce Serrices aDlI
P:Irm~D AJ!!r~mt with the Rel!ioD of Peel MUllicinafitfes
a:: CUr at Bamprou
Mr. IoJm MarshaJJ. Commissiom=r al Plmniug ami Devefopmcm
Mr. Jobn Corbett.. Direacr. P1azming 3Dl1 Developmr:m
a:: Town of Caledon
Mr. Brim MamUng. Dircc:or of PWmmg
Mr. Frank Bon. Senior PlamlC1"
0320 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #3 - Fees
FEES FOR CONSERVATION AUl'HORrrY
PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL CLEARANCE SERVICES
IN THE REGION OF PEEL
Prepared by -
Credit Valley Conservation
Halton Region Cooscrvation AuIhority
McttopoliIan Toromo and Region Consc:rva1ion AuIhority
June. 1997
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0321
.. Attachment #4 - Fees
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
i
i 2. INTRODUCTION 2
I 3. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION 2
I
I
4. LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR FEES 3
5. MINISTRY OF NATIlRAL RESOURCES
-~POUCYD~cnON 4
6. ACAO - 001 FORUM:
JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDER.STAJ.'IDING 5
7. FEE STRUCTURES OPTION FOR FINANCING
ENVIRONMENTAL PlANNING SERVICES 6 -
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT APPROACHES -
ESTABUSHED AND EVOLVING
8. AllOCATION OF COSTS
- PUBUC SECTOR VS PRIVATE SECTOR 7
9. THE MUNICIPAL ROLE - UPPER TIER VS LOWER TIER 8
10. FlAT FEE SCHEDULE 8
11. IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW 10
12. FEE SCHEDULE 11
APPENDIX I: PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT FOR PlAN REVIEW AND
TECHNICAL CLEARANCE 12
APPENDIX II: UDI. PEEL CHAPTER LETI'ER DATED MAY 28,1997 20
APPENDIX ill: ACAO - UDI JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING 25
APPENDIX IV: STREAMING INlTIA TIVES IN PEEL REGION 32
0322 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
.. Attachment #5 - Fees
1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Regional Municipality of Peel. the area municipalities and the tbrce CouservaIion Authorities with
jurisdiction in the Region of Peel will cmer into a Parmership Agreemcm regarding Provincial Transfer
of Planning Review Functions. A provision of the parmership is tbat the Conservation Authorities will
recover the costs from development proponcms. In addition, fiscal constraints affecting the public
sectOr as a whole have resulted in the need to explore alternatives to levy based funding for
Conservation Authority planning services. Therefore. it is ~,.mM that the Credit Valley
Conservation. the Metropolitan Toromo and Region Conservation Authority, and the Halton Region
Conservation Authority, for the area of their jurisdiction lying within Peel Region, adopt the following:
1. The Fee Schedule for Plan Review and Technical Clearances Services. dared June 1997, under
Section 21 (m.l) of the Conservation Authorities Act.
2. That the allocation of planning matters between municipal fiDam:ed and developer fiDanced be
endorsed as presented.
5. That the Region of Peel and the three area municipalities be requested to assist the participating
Conservation Authorities in collecting the prel.iminary analysis fee at the time of development
application rec:ipt.
6. That the Region of Peel. the three area municipalities. participating Conservation Authorities and the
development indUStry establish a forum to implement. monitor and review fee schedules established
under Section 21 (m.l) of the Conservation Authorities Act, and the administrative arrangements
relating to same.
7. That the target date for implementation of the fee scl1cdule be July 1, 1997 and the target date for
operation of the implementation forum be early Fall 1997.
-1-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0323
-.. Attachment #6 - Fees
2. INTRODUCTION -. ---
The Regional Municipality of Peel bas assumed ccnain additional powers and responsibilities under. the
Planning Act as delegated by the Province of Omario. Provincial aansfer of planning review fum:tions
is a process occurring both within the Greater Toroma Area (GTA) ami beyond UDder a variety of
timetables. As. a result. during 1996 and conrimt;ng to the presem. there bas been extensive discussion
and consultation among the following agencies:
Conservation Ontario
U.D.I. Ontario
CemraJ. I..akc Ontario Conservation Authority
Credit Valley Conservation
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Grand River Conservation Authority
Halton Region Conservation Authority
Hamilton Region Conservation Authority
Kawartba Region Conservation Authority
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
Maitland Valley Conservation Authority
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Nocrawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
Saugecn Valley Conservation Authority
Additionally, the various Conservation Authorities have had ongoing parallel discussions with their area
and upper tier municipalities and local represenratives of the developmem industry.
As. part of this process. the Region of Peel. the Town of Caledon ami the Cities of Brampton and
Mississauga have indic:ucd their inI.ention to have the three Peel Region Conservation Authorities
provide the environmental plan review and technic:U clearance services required for development
applications. These arrangements have been set out in the form of a parmership agreement. arTlOC"hM as
Appendix 1.
Fiscal constraints affecting the public sector as a whole have also rcsu.lted in the need to explore. both
corporately and within these new partnership arrangements. alternatives to taX-based funding of
Conservation Authority planning services. The Conservation Authorities will recover the costs for this
service from development proponents.
3. ~YOFCON~TATION
On April 24, 1997, the Peel Region Conservation Authorities ciIt:ulated a draft repon entitled Fees for
Conservation Authoritv Plan Review and Technical Clearance Services in the Re!!ion of Peel to the
following:
Region of Peel
City of Mississauga
City of Br:unpton
Town of Caledon
Peel Chapter of U,D.1.
On April 30, 1997. a meeting was held with the Peel Region Conservation Authorities. Peel Region. the
City of Mississauga. the City of Brampton and representatives of U.D.!. Peel Chapter. A foll.owup
meeting was held on May 14. 1997, with the Town of Caledon also attending, to revIew certain ISsues
in more detail.
-2-
0324 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
.. Attachment #7 - Fees
Appendix n includes responses to chc draft rcpon received from U,D.I. Peel Chapter. With the
exception of which legislative vehicle is most appropriate, and subject to working out various
administrative protocols such as redline changes to plans and historical exemptions, chc developmcm
industry appe:lrS to be generally in agreement with the approach proposed.
4. LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR FEES
:rwo alternatives have been advanced as a basis for establishing the fees in question: these are discussed
m turn.
The Plannin2 Act: Section 69 makes the following provisions.
-69.-
(1) The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a p1anning board, by resolution. may establish a
tariff of fees for the processmg of applications made in respect of plamung matters. which tariff
shall be designed to IDCCt only chc anticipated cost [0 chc municipality or to a commia.ee of
adjustment or land division committee consntuted by the council of the municipality or to the
p1anning board in respect of the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff.
Reduction or waiver of fees
(2) Despite a tariff of fees established under subsection (1). the council of a municipality, a
planning board. a committee of adjusoncm or a land division committee in processing an
application may reduce chc amount of or waive chc requirement for the paymem of a fee in
respect of chc application where the council. planning board or committee is satisfied that it wouid
be UI1I'C:1Sonable to require payment in accordance with the tariff.
Paymcm under protest: appeal to a.M.B.
(3) Any person who is required to pay a fee under subsection (l) for the processing of an
application in respect of a planning matter may pay the amount of the fce undcr protest and
thereafter appea.l to the MuniCIpal Board against chc levying of the fee or the amount of the fee by
givmg written notice of appeal to the Municipal Board withm thirty days of paymcm of the fee.
0
Hearing
(4) The Municipal Board shall hear an appeal made under subsection (3) and shall dismiss the
appeal or direct that a refund payment be made to the appellarn: in such amount as the Board
determines. R.S.a. 1990, c. P.l3. s. 69.
The Conservation Authorities Act
Section 20 sets out the mandate of a Conservation Authority.
"The objects of an authority are [0 establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction. a
program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural
resources other than gas. oil. coal and minerals. .
Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act. sets out the admintstr:ltive powers of an Authority.
-For the purposes of accomplishing its objects. an authority has power (m.l) [0 charge fees for services
approved by the Minister..
-3-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0325
.. Attachment #8 - Fees
Whose Fees Are These?
The above question c:m be answered in ODe of two ways.
1. Under the Plam1ing Act they are municrnal fees, established by individual by-laws of the Region ~
the participating area municipalities. appealable to the Ommo Municipal Board. Responsibility resrs
with the municipal councils.
2. Under the Conservation Authorities Act. they are authorirv fees. established collectively by common
resolution. Responsibility restS with the Conservation AUIbonty(s) Board(s) of Directors. Under this
fonnat, the fee scl1cdule could be imcgr:ucd with existing Section 28 fee scl1cdules aDd other services
chargeable under Section 21 such as legal aDd real estaIC inquiries.
Discussion
Section 69 of the Planning Act is the preferred option of the development industry. In particular.
U.D,l. Peel strongly supports the independent appeal process afforded under Section 69 of the Planning
Act through the Ontario Municipal Board.
Through discussions with staff of the municipalities. four main difficulties with Section 69 of the
Plannmg Act have been indicated as follows:
1. The Region of Peel and the three area municipalities could pass uniform implementing bylaws
adopting the proposed fee schedules collectively as their own on behalf of the three participating
Conservation Authorities.
2. Subsequent changes. however minor. could require COIlCUITCnt subsequent amendment of the four
municipal implementing bylaws.
3. There was conflicting legal opinion as to whether or not Section 69 of the Planning Act could be
used as the vehicle to collect "third party" fces.
4. An appeal would by definition involve the Region of Peel. three area municipalities. three
Conservacon Authorities. and the development industry appearing before the Ontario MumClpal Board.
Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act provides a workable process as noted below:
1. Fee schedules. administrative arrangcmcms aDd subsequent amendments can be effected by common
resolution of the Boards of Directors of the three Conservation Authorities.
2. Municipal administrative involvement can be limited to collecting and forwarding the preliminary
analysis fee to the Conservation Authority along with the application.
3. Appeals or proposed amendmentS could be hc:1rd by the Boards of Oircctors of the three
Conservation Authorities or, alternatively. by an indcpe:-.dem mediator. These details will be worked
out by the Implemcmation Committee.
S. l\UNISTRY OF ~A TIJRAL RESOURCES - ClJRREIIT POLICY DIRECTION
The Ministry of Natural Resources has recently provided some direction in this area through a documem
entitled "Dr:1ft Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees. January 28.
1997". excerpts from which are reproduced below.
-4-
0326 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
.. Attachment #9 - Fees
.-
5.1 Pursuant to Section 21 (m.l) of the Conservation Authorities Act, Conservation Authorities may
charge fees for the following services:
- Section 28 permit fees
- Plan review
- Response to legal. real estate and public enquiries
- Extension services (e.g.. t~hni~l advice or implementation of erosion control measures. forest
management/tree plaming. wildlife/fisheries habitat managemcm.. managemcm of
forestslrecrearionalland owned by others)
- CommunIty relations/information/education services (e.g.. tours. presentations. workshops,
demonstrations. special eventS)
- Sale of products (e.g. reports. maps, photogr:ll)hs)
- Any services under other legislation (e.g., EPA. LRIA. PU) authorized under agrcemem with
the lead ministry
This is provided the service is not supported through provincial grant funding,
5.2 Each Conservation Authority must develop written policy or add to its Administr:ltive Resolutions. a
fees administration guideline which includes:
- A fees schedule
- A process for public notification about the establisbmem of or any proposed changes to any fees'
schedule
- A clearly defined review and revision process
- A process for appeals for fee strUCtUreS proposed or in place
5.3 For p1anning, and compliance-oriented activities such as regulatory or permitting services. the
Conservation Authority fee structures should be designed to recover but not exceed the costs associated .
with administering and delivering the services on a program basis. Fees for planning services should be
designed and administered in conjunction with the appropriate planning authorities. in accordance with
Section 69 of the Planning Act.
5.4 Conservation Authority fees should not be determined in such a maDIlCr as to deter applic:mts
from receiving due process.
5.5 When developing fee schedules. Conservation Authorities should consider:
- the fees of neighbouring Conservation Authorities to promote consistency
- the namrc and level of fees charged by local municipalities. and other agencies and ministries
for related services to prevem duplic:uive fee StrUCtures and to promote consistency in fee
schedules
- setting fees dependent on the complexity of applications and the level of effon required to
administer the application
6. ACAO. UDI FORUM: JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDERSTA.i.~ING
Commencing in aummn of 1996 and continuing to the present. the Association of Conservation
Authorities of Onwio. in conjunction with staff of Conservation Authorities in or abutting the GTA,
have conducted a series of discussions with the Urban Oevelopmem InstinIte/Ontario on provincial
p1anning transfer generally. and fees in particular. The currem "statement of understanding" is attached
as Appendi."t m.
-5-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0327
-. Attachment #10 - Fees
7. FEE STRUCTURES OPTIONS FOR
FINANCING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT APPROACHES - ESI'AB1lSHED AND EVOLVING
Three differem methods of financing planning and engineering input and review are currently evolving
among the various regional govemmems in or adjacent to the GTA.
1. Fee - Nil
2. Fee - Hourly
3. Fee - Rat Rate
These three approaches are discussed using the regional government most closely associated with each.
Re2ional Municiualirv of Hamilton- W emworth
Halton Region Conservation
Hamilton Region Conservation
Niagara Pemnsula Conservanon
Conservation Authorities provide environmemal p1amting services in accordance with J. Memorandum of
Agreeme::t with the Region that took effect July I, 1996. There is no fee for services provided by the
ConservatIon Authorities under the Memorandum of Agreement; costS are recovered. as a componem of
the ammal funding allocation by the Region to the Conservation Authorities.
Relrional Municiualirv of Halton
Credit Valley Conservation
Grand River Conservation
Halton Region Conservation
A memorandum of agreemem has been put in place effective January I, 1997. Fees are set by the
RegIon under Section 69 of the Planning Act. The Region refers plan review and rcchnical clearance
matters to the Conservation Authorities with the developers being charged an hourly rare of $60. Flat
fees are used for minor variances, site plans and rezonings. Conservation Authorities may establish
"pre-consultation" fees. Applications generated by govermncms will not be charged fees; costS will be
recovered from the Region by levy. The test will be that if you can't assign a "developer face" to the
planning documem, it is to be treated as a levy cost to the Region.
Relrional Municinalirv of Ourham
Cemral Lake Ontario Conservation
Ganaraska Region Conservation
Kawartha Region Conservation
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
MelI'Opolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
A variety of systems of "flat fees" based on the type of developmem application and the stages of the
plan review process had been in effect. The Ourham Region Conservation Authorities have recently
adopted one fee schedule consistem with the proposal for Peel Region.
Relrional Municinalirv of Metronolitan Toronto
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
-6-
0328 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #11 - Fees
Re2ional ~unicioalitv of York
La1ce Simcoe Region Conservation
Metropolitan Torome and Region Conservation
Discussions with rhc Regional Municipalities of MetrOpOlitan Toromo and York are at various stages of
advam:emem. Memoranda of agreement are DOt in place with tbcir participating Conservation
Authorities as yet. The general direction on fees seems to be towards "flat fees". MaI=s are also
affected by rhc fact thaI MctrOpoliIan Toronto was not delegmd cenain planning powers that flowed ro
the 905 Regions and by the fact that York bas further delegated to tbcir area amnicipalities many of the
approval powers that the other 905 Regions have mained.
8. AllOCATIONS OF COSTS - PUBLIC SECTOR VS PRIVATE SECTOR
1'hcn: appears to be general agreement on those planning maam that should be fin"n=rl by
anmicipalities and those thaI should be charged to the developmem industry.
Municioalitv Financed
Official Plans
Official Ptan Amendments -
- Policv
- GroWth and Settlement
Secondary Plans
Comprehensive By-laws
- land use (zoning)
- special purpose i.e. Topsoil. Ravine Comrol, Tree Removal, etc.
Zoning By-law Amendmems
- permitted uses
- development standards
Municipal/Conservation Authority Studies
- land use
- namral systems
- subwatershedl servicing smdies
- growth management studies
- environmental master plans
- floodplain mapping
- master drainage/servicing plans
Develooer Financed
Variance
Condominium
Site Plan Control
-7-
-- -- ----- ----
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0329
.. Attachment #12 - Fees
Consems
- new lots
- tl!r:hnit'~1 adjusanems
Subdivision
I
I Official Plan Aml!nrlm"'tlfS
Zoning By-law Amendmems
I
I Special By-law Amendmems
I
The challenge is not what should be funded by the public and private secmrs respectively. but rather
what proportion each connibuteS [0 the total worldoad of the Conservation Authority and thus at what
level levy and the planning fees should be set [0 recover the public and priVate secror proportions of the
rota! cost.
9. THE MUNICIPAL ROLE - UPPER TIER VS LOWER TIER
Conservation Authorities can only receive planning fee income from the full range of planning
appliC:1tions if both the regional and ~ municipalities agree [0 build collecnon of those fees into their
own imemal planning admimstration processes. Conservanon Authorities. on their own, have limited
opponunity to collect fees.
The staff at the Region Peel and the three ~ ll1Ul1icipalities have shown a willingJ'1~C; ro assist in the
collection of Conservation Authority planning fees. The municipalities will be requested to collect the
preliminary analysis. fee as a cheque payable by the development proponem to the appropriate
Conservation Authority at the time the development application is received. This cheque would then be
forwarded to the Conservation Authority with their copy of the developmem application. thus rem:tining
owside the internal financial and administrative processes of the municipality. The municipality would
1I0t be involved in subsequem preliminary approvals or fiDa1 clearance fees - these would be collected
directly by the Conservation Authority from the development proponem.
10. PEEL REGION "FLAT FEE- SCHEDULE
FOR PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL CLEARANCE SERVICES
The flat fee schedule was discussed and supponcd by staff at the Region of Peel. the three area
municipalities, and U.D.I Peel represematives.
RATIONALE
- average COSts based on groups of rasks that Conservation Authorities perform when delivering
plan review services
- collect fees as key services are delive:-:d i.e. At the front and tail end of the approvals process
- ensure that landowners only pay' for those groups of rasks that apply to their specific application
- ensure that fee rates ON A VERAGE reflect the time and effort actually spent to perform the
tasks
- ease of administration
-8-
D330 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
" Attachment #13 - Fees
STRUCTURE
The Flat Fee Schedule has been strUCtW'Cd around tIm:e Icey groups of tasks tbat Conservation
Amhorities perfonn when delivering plan reVIew services. A standard fee has been set for each type of
development application and for each group of rasks. An applicam would only pay for the group or
groups of services tbat are required to process the application. Conservations Authority tasks have been
grouped as follows:
<a) Screeuiog Fee - Preliminary Analysis
The iDitial :I'lCl"4l""'f!Ilt of the proposal in relation to the namra1 heritage system. !aDds affected by
uamral hazards and other Conservation Authority imcrests.
Tasks include:
- receipt of application and processing of mail
- creation of corporate record(s)
- determination of Conservation Authority imcrests that may be affected (mapping,
airphotos and/or site visit)
- analysis of furtt1c:r work. if any, required
- preparation and repornng of recommendaoons
- processing of outgoing mail
Administration:
- To be collected by the municipality circulating the application for comments at the
time of the application for planning approval (Region and Local Municipalities)
- RepresentS a BASE FEE to cover the Authority's costs to complete a backgrouDd
review of application with regard to Namral HeritagelHazard COI1l:erns
> Should the application not require any further plan review (Eg. NO OBJECI10N)
final comments would be issued I only the Base Fee collected
> If the initial review (screening) inni,",,~ additional staff effortS arc required in
order to provide comments on the plan (Eg. SITE VEGETATIONIHABITAT
INSPECTIONS. SLOPElTOP-OF-BAJ.'lK.. etc.) A PROCESSING FEE Wll.L BE
REQUESTED
(b) Processing Fee - Prelim.inaIy Approvals
Detmnina.tion of development limits and conditions. if any. of approval.
Tasks include:
- site visits
- review of technical reports
- field surveys and in-house verification
- final recommendations - with or without conditions of approval
- processing of mail
-9-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0331
-. Attachment #14 - Fees
AdmiDistrarion:
h _ _
- To be collected after screening commcms have been provided intH,.,.,;"g staff sire inspection
work is required
- Processing Fee may not be applicable to all typeS of Planning Applications (Eg. Variances)
> This stage would flag specific concerns / requestS for stUdies (Eg. EIS, SWM. etC.)
(c) Clearance Fee - Fmal Approvals
Review and tN':bni("~1 approval of smdies in suppon of final planning approvals
Tasks include:
- site visits
- in-house teChnical reviews of as reports, engineering smdies, etc.
. aacIJdancc at review meetings
- finalized recommCDdations/clc:1Ia.DCc of
conditions
Administration:
- To be collec:red prior to clearancc of the applic:uion
- To cover all related expenses in clearing all reports and conditions
11. IMPLEMENTATION. MONITORING AND REVIEW
The final fee schedule is proposed for implemcmation beginning July 1, 1997 and is shown on the
following page. A monitoring m~h:tni~, or implcmcmation committee, involving municipalities,
Conservation Authorities and the development industry needs to be established with responsibility to
formally repon on the system at regular intervals and recommend changes where appropriate. Through
consultation to date, the following details relating to the fee schedule and planning services have been
developed:
FEE SCHEDULE NOTES
1. S~mlining initiatives will be implemented to reduce circulations to Conservation Authorities and to
improve the delivery of other Conservation Authority planning services. Streltmlining initiatives in
place or under discussion in Peel Region are included as Appendix IV to this documcm.
2. A fee equal to the amount of the Preliminary Analysis Fee will apply to reassess revisions which are
relevam to Conservation Authority review, to a draft approved plan/application.
3. Only one set of applic:ltion fees will apply when processing and reviewing consolidated applications.
For example, subdivision fees will apply for a consolidated review of subdivisiooirezoning/OPA
applications.
4. If the eXteIlI of Conscrvation Authority interest is to notify of other permit requirementS only. then
Processing and Clearance Fees will not apply.
S. Separate fe-..s may apply for the processing of Conservation Authority permit approvals.
6. For phased plans of subdivisions, all efforts will be made to clear conditions at first phase
registration to avoid mulnple clC31"anCe fees.
-10-
0332 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-, Attachment #15 - Fees
PEE SCHEDt.I..&
,.... Regian CA'I; .u.1S187)
APPUCAnON TYPI! PRElJIlINARY' PROCESSING/ I RNAL 1"'1 -ARANa! I
ANALYSIS PeE PRalMlNARY PI!!
APPROVALS Fa!
-,.-It to CA *only' faf:IJftIt:eI -only' fJIchnIoaI
.tudJMIIIeId IIIld atlldlealtfMllIDffr
,..".,na re(fUIrad
v..-._ S 1ClD N/A NlA
.. 111m
· or ~,....... SUlD S 1sao Indl.II*i in
ClIlIIdamInIuIn ..... Pr~ ---'-q/PA. Fee
CPA. $150 S 1!5DD IndUded In
PrQ r gr' '9fPA. Fee
UNLESS .~
~ Ia requftd
2BAifIZ $ 150 S' 1!5DD Included In
~A.FM
tH.ESS aSlllged
~ wrequAcl -
eg. GaIcclne In
wIJ~ ,
8pecW~ Nil. S 1600 Included n
Appllccion " : PrI. ..dI~A. JIe8
ean..nt $ 150 S7SD Included n
Pr~ ~T'Ilg/PA~
SUbdIvWan $ 250 if no I.ctV\k:ai
· or _..p.Alll:lh $500 ~wadc
cGudcnlulum IIppL requirwd
. $20!J01f~ S 2OlX) If praceeded
:~ by~MESP
Cl'subwWBrShed
studv slUdy
$ 2500 if not $ 2SCQ if net
prWCMdect by prwcoeded by
II=lI)nMld MESP CI' ~ MESP or
subwa!enIhed study abNlIl8rS1ecI stJJdy
PreaIIIIJ rrJIer to Fee Schedule Netas for add1lJonaiinf~
-11-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0333
" Attachment #16 - Fees
APPENDIX I -
-12-
i
\
f'
,-
~'!-
0334 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
'. Attachment #17 - Fees
PAXI'NERSHIP AGREEMENT
FOR PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL CLEARANCE
BETWEEN
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPAllTY OF PEEL
(I7re &gion)
AND
THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
THE CITY OF BRAMPTON
THE TOWN OF CALEDON
(!"he Ana Municipalities)
AND
CREDIT V A1..l.Ef CONSERVATION
HALTON REGION CONSERVATION AUIHORITY
METROPOIIrAN TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUIHORITY
(!"he Cons~",ation Authorities)
Dale
-13-
-- ----
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0335
.. Attachment #18 - Fees
1. 'l'BE PURPOSE of dDs ~ is to:
a) respoDd to the transfer of Provincial Plan Review Rcsponsibililics to the Region of Peel;
I
b) provide for Conservation Authorities plan review aDd ~1m;~1 c1carancc expertise assist
the Region aDd the Area Municipalities to make decisions on planning applications in the
absence of review aDd comment from Provincial Ministries; aDd,
c) meamlinc the municipal plaIming sysrcm where: oppommities exist.
2. ROLES AND RESPONSIBlllTIES
The Region. the Area Municipalities, and the Conservation Authorities agree that:
a) the Region and the Area Municipalities are responsible for having regard for Provincial
interests with respect to any planning applications for which they have approval
authority or otherwise comment on;
b) any information or data ' ,J1lI'CCS provided by the ProviDce or generated through
municipal or watershed stUdies will be shared;
c) the Conservation Authorities will provide the Region aDd the Area Municipalities with
plan review and technical clearance services, as set Out on Schedule 1 attaehcd, in
accordance with the Provincial Policy Statements by fulfilling the functions described
below:
(i) define feamreslfunctions, and establish rcquiremems ami conditions, to
determine the need for and adcqu.acy of snulies (including enviromncntal impact
smdies) which assess impacts and propose mitigation measures related to:
significant wetlands
significant wildlife habitat
habitats of tbrcatcned and endangered species
fish habitat
significant areas of natural and scientific interest
significant woodlands
significant valley 1ands
flood and erosion dynamic beach hazards
flood and erosion watercourse and valley land hazards
-14-
0336 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
'. Attachment #19 - Fees
_nO
JIOundwater recharge areas
/ groundwater quam:ity and quality
surface water quam:ity and quality
(ii) idcmify the need for a groundwater and surface water raking pennit;
(ill) identify the need for an application to be processed IUJder the Fcdcra! Fisheries
I Act. the Lake and Rivers ImproVement Act or any other applicable Icgislarion:
(iv) assist in the tcclmical aspectS of applying alternative developmem standards as a
; best managemem practice for stormwater managemem purposes;
d) the lead agency for each of items described in 2(c) above is shown on Scbedu1e 2
attached;
~
e) notwithstanding the purpose of this agreemem it is recognized that:
i) the Conservation Authorities will review and provide comments and advice in
the comext of the policies and land use designations of approved official plans
and other guiding municipal documems;
~:;( il) effective watershed managemem and enviromnenra1 protection also requires the
r; :
~. appropriate consideration of regional and local oamraJ resources as identified
'l~
~~:.- through official and secondary plans, municipal stUdies, watershed and
~. subwatershed stUdies, or a site specific proposal;
;. ,
..... -"'
:t',l. iil) the Conservation Authorities will contim1e to provide comments and
.... .
t.~::. recommendations as outlined in 2(c)(i) , on planning matters circulated by the
~.... . Region and the Area Municipalities such as official plans and policy
~--... -...
...,' .~ amendments and municipal stUdies; and
~~~.
~-~...
~
.!,~:' iv) nothing precludes the Conservation Authorities from commenting to the Region
".:;"
~'. : or the Area Municipalities as they would normally exercise their rights under the
~~.
'f ...... ~ Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, or other applicable legislation.
'f~ -
.l.r'.......
/:.
~-- .
..~..:'C
_.....0;.
~('II
:-ore
t.
.~""f-.
'~';'..
~~ . -15-
~~
~
.. .
- .
~:-...
jJ:-:
.~'
I..
~;:...l~
-~;.
. -
.,.
'-.l."
..,
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0337
-. . Attachment #20 - Fees
I
I
I 3. IMPLEMENTATION
i
! The Region. the Area Municipalities. aDd the Couscrvation Authorities agree:
i
a) to review aDd amend this agreement on a' periodic basis to reflect changes in programs
of the parties or as a result of changes in proviDcial policies or as a result of subsequcm
discussions;
b) to explore further oppormnities to streaml.ine the plan review system as it relates to
Provincial and regional/local imcrests;
c) to make provisions for Conservation Authorities staff to attend Ontario Municipal Board
Hearings. upon the request of Regional or Area MuniCIpal staff. with respect to the plan
review aDd rechnic:tl clearance services provided pursuant to this agreement. at no extr:l
cost to the Region or Area Municipalities. Notwithstanding this clause. this in no way
limits the Conservation Authorities from iDdcpendcntly. appealing a decision to the
Ontario Municipal Board;
el) that fees for plan review aDd technical c1caram:e services will be set by the Conservation
Authorities. aDd the Region aDd Area Municipalities agree to collect Preliminary
ADalysis Fee and remit any fees collected in a timely manner to the Conservation
Authorities;
e) that the Conservation Authorities will be responsible for collecting any funhcr
Processing! Approvalsl andI or Final Clearance Fees as required.
f) that the Conservation Authorities provide the Region and Area Municipalities with an
approved Schedule of fees and any approved revised schedules as they occur.
-
.
-16-
0338 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #21 - Fees
--
.. -
I REGIONAL MUNICIPAllTY OF PEEL
I
I
I
I B. Zcran. RegIonal Clerk
I Dare
I
I
! CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
Dare
Mr. T. L Julian. City Clerk
CITY OF BRAMPTON
Dare
Mr. t.J. Mikulich
Director. of Administration & City Clerk
TOWN OF CALEDON
Dare
Mr. G.A. Boyce
Chief Administrative Officer
CREDIT VAllEY CONSERV AnON
Vicki Barron Dare
GeIlcral Manager
METRO TORONTO & REGION CONSERV AnON AUTHORITY
Cratg Mather Dare
Chief Administr:uive Officer
HALTON REGION CONSERV AnON AUI'HORITY
Murray Stephen Date
General ~anager
-17-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0339
" Attachment #22 - Fees
----
I
I SC'"RlIDULE - 1
1. "Plan Review- is defined as:
i) rmcwiDg developmcm applications in a timely mam:lCr recognizing the P1aJming
AI;t objectives:
I
! iI) identifying the need for t~hn;cal reports; md.
ill) specifying conditions of approval.
2. -Teclmical Cle:lr.UlCe" is defined as:
i) assessing technical reports submitted by the propOnent to determine if the reports
satisfy the conditions specified.; and
-
ii) clearing the conditions.
-18-
- .'
0340 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
" Attachment #23 - Fees
------- SCHEDULE - 2 ,
:
LEAD AGENCIES BY PROVINCIAL INTEREST
. Wetlands CA
. W1ldlife Habitat CA
. Emiangcrcd & 1breatencd Species CA
. FISh Habitat CA
. Areas of Namral and Scicmific
Imerest CA
. WoodlaDds CAJ~'d
. Vallcylands CA
. Flood. Erosion. Valley Land
Hazard CA
. Flood and Erosion Dynamic
Seal;h Hazard. CA
. Groundwater Recharge/Discharge CA
. Ground Water Quality aDd Quantity R (for water supply)
CA (for water resources)
. Permits to Take Water CA/MOEE
. Surface Water Quality and
Quantity AMlCA
R= Region of Peel
AM= Area Municipality
CA= Conservation Authorities
MOEE = Ministry of Environment aDd Energy
-19-
-
".
,-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management AdvisorY Board #5/97 0341
-
'. Attachment #24 - Fees
- - ---
APPENDIX IT
i'
I.
i
I
,
I
i
!
i
-20-
I
0342 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-- Attachment #25 - Fees
-----~- -
I @) REI.. CJlAP'1'ER ~
, Urban Development Institute/ONTARIO ;
1
I
I 1140 Bamhamtharpc v-d W-, Suite soo
I Miss:is:mu~ 0IlDIriD LSC.1:9 (905) 272-3730 Faz (905) %72-3781
I
I
I May 28, 1997
,
!
,
Credit Valley Conservation Autt1crrty
1255 Dmy Read
Mississauga. Ontario
l.ST 1 as
Attention: Ms. Vlckl 8aJTCn
Dear Ms. Barron:
Re: Comments on proposed Fee Schedule (Revised)
For Oevelocment Review Servicss
i
I In respa'lS8 to our previous di~ IS~ and Stair Report dated April 24,
-
1997 we wcuId like to offer the fCUCWlng CXlTllmentary on the Authaity's proposed fee
stnJdure:
!
i n Fee Collection Mechanism
I In principle, the Peel Chapter U.D.l is prepared to accept the
establishment of reasonable Authority fees provided that such fees arB c:cnsistent with
the level of service ~ded by the AuIhaity. We maintain, however. that since the
Authority is II c:ammenting agency retained by the Regional c:r \oca I1U1icipality, then
such fees an onlv be cllCU ...ed thmuah that rmmi~ftv under the Dowers of
Sectfon 61 of the Plannina Act. The implementation of any new fees under Section
-. 21 of the Conserwtion Authorities Ad. is strongly opposed by U.D.l and has been II
major item of disaJssicn between U.D.l Ontario and the Association of Conservation
Aulnorities of Ontario since last September. In fact. merenc:e to Section 69 at the
Planning Ac1. is made in Ministry of Naual Resou-ces draft .Pa6cies and Procedures fer
i the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees' and is felt that this should be made dear
.: In your Staff Report.
..:~
A -- U.D.J. is prep2'ed to accapt the ccncept of II "flat fee- basis fer the various
,...:
:, types of applications as detailed on the aUac:hed schedule.
U_D.1. is prepared to accept that fees should be ajleded for all types of
applications (La. that th91'9 should not be ~ exemptions fer some plans which,
therefore, would drive up costs fer ettIer types). provided that the application is for land
-
UOOECI.!NTONAVENUEEAST - OONMTLLS · ONTARIO. MJCIHa . (U6)449-4SS3 - FAX(<<16)449-4SI8
-21-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0343
'. Attachment #26 - Fees
May 28, 1997
,
Ms. VIdci Barron, Credit Valley Conservation Authcrity
within a defined area of t100d plain iiD cantrct zone, ANSI or ESA a'1 an inventDl'Y map in
the;na municipality's official pian.
i Pnlfiminarv Analvsis Fee
U-D.L is prepared to accept the implementation r:l a ncminat .Pr8liminary
Anatysis Fee:" In which the AuthoritY wcutd detBrlT1lne wtIe1her a par1Ia.IIar appIicatioo
merits further review, cr altamatively, to determine and I'8pCX't to the approval auttlc:riy
that !here ani no further concerns and the plan is accepQbl8. 'The wggested amounts
fer the var1aus appIicatian IOiitegories ~ to be generally acceptable and it is
understood that the proposed $500 fee for a pian of subdivision l'8ilects appl"CDCimalely
one day at staff time for the average apptic:dion. We tZI~ that this _ indudes
the services involved in saeening the application, CXlrldI..Iding a site visit as necessary,
and prcvisioo of a repcrting letter to the approval agency on the appiication.
Variance applications, as had been cflSOJ:SSed at our meetings, would be -
harded mdty at the municipal level, ~ theraby, avoid any involvement of Authority
std.
PI.nUant to the saeening program in amsultation with the municipalities,
the number of applications forwarded to you for review will be ~
The parUes ad<nowtedge 1hat a plan of subdivision typically involves mora
staff time than the other types of applications and, aa:crdingly, requires a greater fee.
For small subdvisions (20 lots or less), the fag ia to be ~ on the .CQnsent"
stnJdure.
m ProeessinQlPnlliminarv Comment Fees
U.D.L is prepared to accept the implementation .ProcessingIPretiminary
Comment Ff!JIi' which would be implemented only if such services are deemed
~ "'t II' Y ater the -Preliminary Analysis - stage.. Furthermore, the amounts suggested
far tns ssvice c::ategcry fer the various appUcattons, appears to be generatly
acceptable.. The stated fees in this sec:tioo for subdivision applications ;;n between
S2. 000 and $2.500 and this represents 4 - 5 days at staff time to review an average
appIicaticn.
It Is understood that the Planning Ad. imposes timelines on the approval
<hority and that the Conservation Aulharty must conform with these timelines.
-22-
0344 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
.. Attachment #27 - Fees
---
May 28, 1997 I
Ms. V1c:1ci Barron, Credit Valley ConseMIl:ion Authority
i
Iv Final ClelU3ftce Fee !
Aa disc:us8ed. once the dlMllaper provides a copy at 1he executed
subdMsian agreement to the Aulhcrity damOI~. 'W U. abIIgatian to theM conditIana.
a deBranC8 letb!:r b-......I~ a straiylltt'ulVfsU adrrltnisa'ativ function per 12'18 aaad18d
schedule at a fee of $2SO.
., MuttfDle ADDllcatlons
As agreed, fer ~ultiDle '-1CaIIons". the requisite fee would only be that
charged fer the highest at the ~cab18 ~ 'I.
vi "'an Revisions
U.O.l. suggests that fer "nMsion" fees such as where major l'ed-iine
changes that affect the Conservation Authcrity's previous ccmment3 are made to an
aIreadV draft~proved plan, that these fees would only be charged if ~licant- -
gena.ded. If sudl cha'1ges a'8 initiated by the nuticipality, thera Vt'CUId be no tees
applicable. Redudfon in the number at applicatians fawarded to the Authority through
an aff8div8 saeering prctoccI should asa assist in this aea
vii Phased P1ans
The nominal dearance fee of $2..1:Q may be charged fer aac:tJ phased
c:Iear3nc:a provided. but wherever possible, 1hB Authority wcuId provide a .blanlcer
cIeanInc8 fa" the entire plan with the first phase.
VIII HIstoricaf ExemQtion
Fees lnier this proposal would only be collec:ed on new applications after
ftnaIiz3tia1 at the fee schedule.
I Ix Prr,.., cu.. Monitoring
I UD.1. endcrses the c::cncept of participating in a "mcni~ group with
I
! the Aulhcrity that would meet periodic::aJly to review the progass of the new stnJcture
: cnce implement8d. We understa1d that the May 14/fIT Addendum will be included in
: the staff ~ and will serve as a basis for diet' ''''';00 regadng the variaJs
I streamlining initiatives that are underway in Peel Region.
I
,
,
-23-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0345
-- Attachment #28 - Fees
May 28, 1997
Ms. V1dci Barron, Credit Vailey Cansernltion AuIha1ty
We appreciatB having the ClA)Ol1unity to meet with Authority Staff and to
offer these ccmments in the hopes of e5tabl~ a fee system that is fair and
~wDl8 to all par1iu.
F'naUy we wculd appreciate receiving a ccpy of hi nMsed report once
lMIiIab18 for our 1inai review ~ ccmment, and to be made aware of 1he dare at which
tis repcrt is ia lt8slded to be brought fDrward to the Bcan1
Should you require further discussia'l of 1hese matters, please do not
tt.itD to aontact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT INSTIlUTE, PEEL CHAPlER
~ -
RES:es Ron Starr
Char
c.c.: Mr. J. Murphy, Po6cy Adviser, Mirister of Municipal Mairs & Housing
Ms. Meredith Beresfcrd. M"tnistJy of Municipal AffaiF3 & Hcusing
Pk. Peter ADen, Region cI Peel, Commissioner of Planning
Mr. Doug Billet, Region of Peel
Mr. Mark~, U.D.l Ontario
Pk. Fred Johnsen, MInistry of Naiu'aI Rascuces
Ms.. Renee Jarrett. MetropoJitian Torontc and Region Conservation Authority
Ms.. Brenda Axon, Halton Conservation Authonty
-24-
D346 .Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
" Atta'chment #29 - Fees
I
APPENDIX m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
-25-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0347
'" Attachment #30 - Fees
10fST ~A~ 0' t:~ERST~'DNG
no Urban Deorelopmet'~ Insm:nc:Cmzio
%0%5 Sheppard A'f'GIZIIO!In
Saita 2201
WUIowdaI.. 0Iari0
M2J 1 V6
AJIocWion at C,DUtvat!on Aucboriliu of Cautio
(Rcpruemin& the OTA-aueC COASelVICCII AlUIlontiu)
120 Barview Pvmy
Bo% 11
NcWD'lukcl. 0Dw1ll
UY 4WJ
no Urblll Dwtlopmee wrltuw'Omario (UDI). ~e CiTA-based Ca::sc:v.tioD Aulhoritiesllld the officI
of Ule ANogaUon oC ConSfC'VaCon A"choritie:s oC Om;:rio (ACAO) have hdd I.cria of ~~~ duriDI
tile Pall of 1996 to diacm.a d1e :cJc of CoNc:rvloon AutIloritiC$ iD Onurlo's new 1&1Zd \Ise pl&lll1iac
ODviromnea:.. the services thlt they provide md the !\mdlnc fot tilt deli"U1 ot theee services, We bave
r'lYilWed vlricua mllGicipal pWl.nla& lmpltme:2W1o:1 mwrs wlt!lllWed loal of teduciq duptiarion,
I&ramliaiq ~(O - IIId lIIIabJiabinl I fair md ~ultabl. fumJial lDoldIaaism tbr dac c1dlvcry ot
plaaiWIc 11rYi_. wu. It II acbowledp! dw w Boan!a o( CitlCOl'I haY. tile rlabs to I. mul;ic
4IrKdo1l !or tbli: UxiivichW CoZl.1ltVllion Authorities. tile fo!lo..~ rqlfe:seDts !he conse:lSIIS that has
been adrimd in 1211 aral of:
. d11 ~ AuUlomy'S role;
. plm iDpvt aDd plm rcviclw lCn'iaa;
. IIl'Vict ttmdlq IIICl r_ impltmlllW:iOll;
. munm.,. pbD tM" lDCdels; _
. e'~of~d~.mfu~
Cons..n.dOIl AudJarltTs Role
. As pan of lb. Govtrnmw'S bf"Olcl As~ ~ Sa'aSIJic objlC:tivCl. lbe province hu Jet out to
rtduca lIS Q:lmmoattlll rola ItlliM use lllaMi.cl&. Provincial ~& suppon 1br CollSer'Y1doC
AllIAoritJ ~ has also bean lWTOWaI, tbrouCh rw.:ent IlIislmvl and policy dlaQ&_. to
mlea 111lrt'OWel1 proviDcial rol.. Thillw DOt. h~er, impac:eJ thellWldate of CollServaDon
AIIClllrltlea II swed in Sec:rion %0 of thl COlUeI'V1lion Aulhoritiu Act. --zM objlcu 01 c2II
aIilMri:y ar, ttJ Uf4hlWr antlllNU~. ill 1M QTttZ rr..u 'NIridr illw ftuisdicrioll. a Prol1Tllfl
ustrlled fO ftuT/lu '^' colt.urvcrriofl, ruIofTZtilJlI. drw/o~ aNJ IftG1IQlfm,nr of IWlIU'Q/
mQlVctS oWr dl.an ICU. oil. co.z.llJ1ld lfIinI~ail' (I,S.O. 1910. C.IS, ..20).
-26-
0348 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-, Attachment #31 - Fees
. II is adanlOOCi dill . healthy ICOllOlII)' iJ v;ui to CatU'JO's lOll' I""" proaro....:ry. Wiwy
lIWIIpd JI'OwUl caD raulc ill commlll1iti. ..:-ak;b ~e e.:.o:DJ:;caI1y aDd CftVIrcm:wzuUy SG>l:d
MId wfUch mar Uta t'I&ll flQ&e r:f n&elk of tbetr :lIaCl:: md t\i=:e 1"tSJdcaa. ne C~ZtletVatiall
Alldlori:y'1 ral.lA ~ me tIlVltolUZlom met ;ruolle hcalUl tunUClt 1D tae Prvvineial Pollq
StawnG. tmIIC ~ balmc.ed by the ~ to ~romct1 am~ =sc.etflcive c1....t!e;!:tI1m and Iud
1111 palllnlS wtUcll s&imullte eccDOmic IX'Owth, Ac=n1iAaI1. t!l.e role aad lmcraa of lJlI
C4acrvaUall AYrtlor!ty sAowd be imq:uaj with tIl. rt'le mci imerms qt ome ;qmcics ~1ve4
in 1Il. IJZld IZS. plllWzll sysccm.
. Ia c.vdq . dtciliOD OD ~ lIS. 7La.a:illl ~. the ~ authority c!llllll,vI reprd tor
CU poliQa .........in"" in cnc ~roviDci~ Po!i!:y SWCZlcDC aDd locaUy dtve10ptd aDd lJ'PfOYed
~ poJld. . -no Aa pan of thl dedIioll-alltma pnlCtII., r.be ippl'O\'&l .mority
wt1J CODaid. aD rlll\"lDt I.n!omwloa provided by the Col:at:rvaaaza AaG2arity aDd GUIer
COClftIIIdI2I IImQ. bat it is IIftI1cntDDd thIl wit Jc=sIOD is appe&IlIIJI to tilt 0Bw10
~.pa1 Boanl.
P!aD laput ucf Icrin SeMia.
. Prov=W pUll ia.plll will COnD:we tl:l bo providcll1 o~ '::o.xl. poli;y oriented dcl=::::acca 11m will
be reancud 10 Kq;onaJ OP~. RellCzW OPAs. lowet.nu OPt ~d lo".ez.<<iar OPAl (lnc:ludi:li
Stc:Cll4ary Plw) waic:, .. .in the opinion of the Reg:t;n Gte lIOt mi:1or _ ~. ~c1.:te or revise
policy that Us . ZCDaaJ impac: CG pro,icc:i~ policy interests.... C.,nse:vatiOD Authorities will
provide iap&t Oil th.1I IFP:i=ons c1irecUY to the ~:c...d ~t!:.otil1 ....bet: it willl:lc: rmonailZai
wids lb. . from a11 oUtlC cozmaeatina &i=.:la. Th. .I)Jl.....iDdow. ~ Q( the MiAiauy
at MWlia::ipal A1fm1 .wi lIcnzsi.q wiJJ b. us~ to .:::xndinate !:Cmmms oC s1l Mimsuics before
. proviucia1 poa!Ccc iI offc:rcd :G the approval mchority.
. f'r1MDdJ1 pl4 RYie... r=pc=sllilinca &re beiq tnm{cmd to llNmcipaJitia ecnm Oawio IDd
an unaI1y dtftMd by MmIonIIIda of Uadvstadlq (MOUs) or ItmilIr ~aa. AI 1Uc:h.
Ill, proviIldal MiAiIui. will 1IO lcaaer be rlYillWiDJ site specific loc:aJ OPAs. stabl1\vlsions,
=lll1ominiums. z=lq by-11M wi ~lU, 00DJaD. part loe ~tlU'll1 ~aws. lJIiaor
~ md Iu.. pUm, lD nsmy aMI. municipalitl. art dtoostq to eDPlI CoZlServadcG
AdIoritiu CO ptO'I'idll'll&DY olthea. plm rniew s....iC1ll &Ad, ill to doiq. an 4eveJoplcllbrm.a&
&lid Ult'onDa1 bilazeni ~ to splll:ir~ly dc:tiDe ths nw:c &ad lWIZIl o{ their fwlc:ti01\.
Oeariy, It ia II dsc discretion of !til IZI:IImclpllitia as to !low tAt proviftCallmc1 laC policy
imlrats an to be procecud md c:ootd1naad wt1h other zpnc:ies,
. CoZlSwvlrio: AIIdlor1tioi provi4e iDionnmon, aWY1is IDd ce:ommandltiou to lIllmi~aJ
declllon m.Wn ~ IJWtCO of n=n1l1mrd I2WU&cmaIt as part of tllir!)lm . md
plm revilW IIMea. 'Ibis iIIc:luda c:ommewl on ftooci plaiA mwcemcnt I7I3Uen &Ad arw
subject to lJoodIlII, crosiol1, d~c: buchcs JIoIll th. sIIorellnes of dle Cral 1.<aa -St.
Lawt=e lUvu !ymm, meMo c:resion. slope imllbility am! soil insClbIlity 3= a ill ~ at
hfIh waur lIbl... orpzuc: or paz 1lDi4 me! 1= or semlt!VI DWiM day soils. nalY .111
ClOatbme :G pafcrm thls n:ie. f\ll1h.cz, they wUl ClC7Ctinue lD pravi4. ~alions ...hich
=cru' replarory raqultIIDMCS felUTJinJ Fill. Coasttudloo aDd ':'icontlols to WUUWIYS
KqulaiCllll,
. Additional plm mi..., rcsjX)nslbilltla a.uocialed with 1WllnI1IeciQil mICers. inc:ludlnl thh
habitac acd ..c:dm1 \saulS, mould be OI.lIHned iD 111 .liTcem:ct ll<<,*etIl me CoascnWOD
Aumortty ml iu a:embor ItlIuuc:ip&litiea. CO=lIl"fmOD AllthOriry tecam:nollllUtio:ls ...Ul iAlq:.:e
-27-
Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0349
June 20, 1997
-. Attachment #32 - Fees
tI~ty nqWtwn~ :tlWl:xa Fin. Cor.s:ruc::or. &lid ~::ua:::lC ~ W~:t:"Wa)ts Rer.:!JT::~.
. COIIHI"YWoIl Aulhc::t:. may providl coa::r.ena to 1!:lIIC1;'ipli d~lclS ::utes wl:idl ~ act
outJl:=d Us fonzW qrccmems, in botII pian UIp\It mil ?11A r....iew ptoceUa. ..bie!: rcae
waccnbll1 r.l,ced ~.. lbac Iuvc bc= ~proYlld lbrcu~ , !cnrW publis: lINe.s. n..
...........lIQ will ~ a.uiy id=tiiied u dun. or a ~~ed revi.w acc=y IUldcr lb. PtmAiDr
Ace.
. It ,llouJd be IlDUld cItal UDI has ~nc=m.; "ver the :wIIr: lad =t=1I ot me c..nscrvatloll
AIltboriry'. ;tall in;M md rM_ rol. Oil nmual hcn~,. CJalUn whicilln: r.Qt specif't.:al1y
dciqaed to m. Consct'YUioll AlWIority by :b. Mllwuy of Nw.~ XClC<c. or iU individual
=ember muzrielpalitita (thzoqh ~).
. n. Comczvl1icD AlIl.bcrf~'s pl. rmcw CODZIIMaU lAG 4dvica ....iII b. provided in m. ==au
oCt!!. pallci. Itld Imd III' desii-"l.1tiom of the qljlrovac1 Dmc:ial Plan. How",<<. ill QSOI when
:.!leu politi. ICe II Var.arlU ..Ie lb. PtoYincW l'olicy Sl3lamcnt or JDY och" Ic=J policy of
a CollISCrVadOI1 Autborlty wbich has been 4'PrtlYed t!lrouib . jlubJzc jm)C.s, then dI. lmer sh~i
apslly. While 1:14 COIUe:Y1:JOI1 .'\~~Odty i.s oblipted to !:form me mtllUcipalily o( these
poclll:ial dbl::':p&ll~ClI. it WO ~wl.c,.., that its cor::::::.~ couid sianif1:mtly ir.lpact pri...ate
Intcrasu IIld shcWd :here!ore be otf=red witA due care.
. Bued Oil Sec:uon :1 of the Comervation Authority A~ It Is un.:::stood :lW ~ CCl:lScrvltlan
Authority ... h.u poVltt :0 S1Udj' aDd il%Vestip= the wllusllod ~ to dacnnUIC I Prclfle
w!u:reb)" m. aDlral l'NCNrc:.. of the wuermed :my b. ccmerved. reetored. developed and
mmqe.' HoWCYU. it is also 1IC.kno..ledpS chit thau protn= wllI&Clciuad poliei. c:ou!d
have bC'Oid and sjpiftcmt impac::a en privau iDtemu 3lId, 'cccrdincty, they lUlUt N approve&1
tIIrcuib I fon:al publi.; procc:s.i witl1 c2WI Q)cswatloQ ....Ith all .tr=rod putlrs,
Flmcllai sad v... F_
. The maner of clwrin& rell md tflc specific fucdln& UTlDIemc= ..uI be d~ by
qroer:an b....1III :Is. comcrvaCol1 awdIot1ty mc1lu IIWrIbcr municipalities.
. lh.e is . dear i1~D becweea plm ~ aDd pWI review st::tYica wi. ~ to tIl,
MOUI, me lll\lel ot provi.lll:;'~ involvama in exb. As.. raWt. me c:n= of awrovall\lChori~
effort asd, by way of memormd.. of ~ tile dfort of the CDnurvlliaD Autborlry will
ciitrer >>wtiJ. My ~....-!.,"'It fees ~ Cot I COt1UlVWoa AucboriEy IDlUt reftec: ~
uinct.loll to CGIUn chIS COS&5 - Wrly IIIC1 equitably disuiln,...ed =oapt those who hlOl&.
. Provi.ndaI pia iIlpvt W'lll condnu. to be provided an braJd. policy ariemed clocw:=lts wblch
bald11m entire tmlllicipalit"J or a sizeable i'CrtiOD :hereof. The I\uldizz& 2I1Mmall support1DC
COZUtrValiua Aw!Iocil)' izIpIu CD lb., doc:umcms showd r,fleet chis brotd baWl.
. For site specitl; awliariol1J, it may be 3ppt"Opriatl {or :he coslS o( CiJlISClV.tioa Autllority
rIY11W to b. bol'Dl by t.bose W:downen wt10 cllncrIy bcnetit. In cues wbere a USIt fee systCal
(or plm rwi.. :s ~cd. the t'aUawtll& !'uZ.ameZltaj prluc:iplcs shaulllll, mpccled:
1. tees will b. l'USonabfe. eaily jlUciiablc and dcsillled :D recover bur DOC ~ccec1 the
CDmplere c:ostJ o( dallveri::l the "IUt rmew service;
-28-
0350 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
~. Attachment #33 - Fees
%. I Ai~y c! r.. ..,1;1 ~. sa !wed Ilr. the c.o~ic:.l;:l .~, t.~1 arpU~:t w ~ !eva
of Rn ~ to :1'ii.. it;
3. _11..... aeictll>oun~ Cous~a AlIdloriLics UIoulJ ~ COIIS!sIenr to cIl1lrNlIIC
-- potI~.. It is NlXlpi:.Dd. h.:l.......~c. eII& Ipprt'nl IIMboriticl IIIIIY baYI
aip1&&mIy difhnnt ~a wbic!1 wiD impact oc the fees d1a =11 d1qe;
4. fees will 00l clupli.:an i'f'll'YUICW ~, :mmicipal levies lIIlllor fees or my omit
COIIIrilNU01IS 4inclld z: tte piazl ~icw t'lmctimL !\"ct)' a'flm will be lDIdc ro
EIIicmaila tU CoDlla'VciOJI AutIlonty', fMe ...Im me ~illiealoA ud A'lt'Ww Ceo. of dI,
aw- m:llow<< oar m=i~alW.:
5. CM tIUlI1ishm_ will ccmiD a coZllldraioD pEOCQS WIC!I aU rdCYlllt sutdlOl4as:
5. f_ may be coUIICtId uodar audwlrUy of tN P!W1in& Aa or the COllServanon AlltMritit.I
Ar1.. 'Ib.e ..ec:Uoll of the pce&rr.d mec.!wUsm for 1:o'J1tl1n1 rea WIll t:. doaa by the
=mi.ity lad !laud OD local admi4Utnlive procedur..
. UDI bdl~ !ba& _ ibould be QOUcaeO :I:du :h. "olthOrity oi S$CUCll fIR of t..", P1anm~J .';t
ill ord= l~ plt'\'ld.lhe necessary rlducticn. waiver and ~peal r:plS. Cons.fntion AlOtborities
will casun rU manicipalities UI ~war~ at:his ;:'OSicon d~'inI the:: dilC'.Wicns It tb~ low lave{,
1( Section 21(111.1) of 1hc ConservatiOIl A\llhociuca Aa i! IIWi:el!. :l:= :he Mi:tiaay ot" NIr'.:nl
ReIOloIr1:ll' ~!icla cu1 ProadIues !ot' the CbUiUli c:' CiJaset'nliou Aultlomia Fees" will
~7'
. the priDclpl. at .who shoaJd pay- for pl1l1 Urput &::d pllll review lmica prcvlC1ec1 by Ibe
Comcrvaic= Aumori&y. shoW4 1>8 Dil1ml by tile faUowi1ll:
A- PI. . oa ~7/aen...ny balefimtla dOCUlZlws should reRer:: 1Ilis bcAcfi1 lad
~ ~ ~ ~ mDl1Icipa11CYy, ~ or equivalcm aDd wiD .;over:
. oft!dII pl_
. official pIIIl aa=d=CZlCI . polky. rrowth &Del s.ullmtlll
. !<<'CZIdIry plMI
. CGIDpnIUDaiVI by-~ '1OninI (WId \In). ~a! rVfPCSI i... rcpJOtl cemcvat. rmce
CGIIUllI. treI removal
. ZIlIIDzI by-law IIDIlIIl1mena - pamlned uses, 4cvdvpmCollt standuda
. mmldpal ~c:s - la.ad II.SC, lIIrUtal systczm. IIlbwatried servicizll scudi-. powdl
IIIW&-- 1I!Idlea. eaviroDmcnuI mater plam, f100d p12in znappinl. mum
dniaqellervtciD& pllllS. ICe.
B. P!III rllYlcw of .ts. ~c: appiiwiol1l or d..,dopmCf\1 i'roposm &boWel be /bwsced
&IIrou1h ua.. r.. aDd "U1 CO'YIr.
. miDar YVf~
. plam of c:aadomiIuu.aI
. a!lc plaa
. COIlSIla . asw lou, technical ~Juscn=u
. patllot a2mrol by-laws
. pbns at sl&tldlvlalcm
-29-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0351
" Attachment #34 - Fees
. lice lpec.!ftc: :ciUq by.;,...., ~ m=Q::lClm
. site spe;i& local \l~,;a: "lr. &mIZSl1mc~ts
. ~UVCIQJl A~riaa aIl4 r.t1ar ~ =.wa9aJ i!: u Mould Vie prwri1y :tl d".,dopiq I
-~' IMC:lIAism to 1\'C;d :be IlIlD<<""uuy ftvl"'" of Sill: specific IflIIJlcadom &Do1 Ill.
imposition of III auociDd ,.,
. PlIII rwlSW foa wbicll l1rte bec1 pad 'OJ I I't'JPOMJ\t sinca !Ill proctan:Jtie= of Bilt ~, bat
l:II;loaed U &II tmcrim lI1warl by . C~uvuioll Autllorlt)'. sIloulC1 ~ llt14 III trUst and. If
IIKcuary, paniy ~ed bued all ltle 1IDD\111U eoauiD.t ill I n.,. Fee Sc:hedW. imposlli
panllUt 10 !!lis JoiJlt SWtmIDI 0( t:ac1~,
. n. ~_....dl betwea a CQcallr'YlCon Aumority aDd its mcmtlet lmUli.wcs may >>so c:oYa"
dae ptOClII ud aaocia&l:d (ea !or pravidiq thl lechDiQi -:!U:IIlC. 5mc:do1l (i.I. penDittIDJ).
nc cmDl~ ot (_ for dti& !lulcri= s1:ould be based on the plan rm_ fee principia
l'Iferreci to IbaYa.
A!1wnat1Tt PlaA KcTicw MocScJI
. In area wAet1I MOU. UU1, the a;proval aulhcr:!iQ 1:"":' :he Prcv~c:e !)lve Jointly committed to
uplIJrinI alWlWlve pi: :eviev.' aleQa.~sms whlc:: :'lve U t!1eir objective. I morl :cst-
eif~vI, saeamhl1ed m:l dfic:ic::n approvals prcceu The followinc altensa1lVI: plan review _
model. aUl ~ cnay be alNic1&ted l:y lb. Ipproval 4101t.~riry :;) fult!l tAis objec::ive:
A. PMr Rmcw . The ~pt'O'Ial ~rit). =uId reta.::1 .. :::c::suIWltlpllCt -= j)fOViclt I ~telf!c:
ptm:-.vi.... .~ Incr'''':nr thz ....hidl ~ ClJrr~:ltly bela& ~rQVid~ by me CocsUVlliml
Aatb0rit7 .
B. ApproYal AudIoriry Teadlriq .7h. Ipproval wthoriry c:aWd raaill I callNllaftl wIlo
1IDI1enab1 till work oa their bdlalt', but who ~ ult:ma:dy patd lOr by dll dlYlIO\'IISW
s=poDClt. Uo1du cb :Dlldel. tile need fur the p!m fMeW MrYiu it vlmaalty
elllIdzlJIad.
C. ~ CQaauItIat - A YfIC'J limited plu ~eview service II provided because tII.
~'S amsWWIt lw obtained lIS "Jcc:uI1i:mou' whld1 ensuta ~ :.lie wort 10 be
lIDI1eruka 1J XClpcabll 10 tile ~ JW:hority.
. S\lI!'icilDl diaCl.Wioft '*-- UDI a:Jd ....CAO rqudiJ1& aJtermlive pllIl re.i_ 1BOC18ls hu BOt
Y. occmred DOt fa it ~ariIy III approprilre topic of disc:wi01l betweell dl. t1IfO
~m. It is ~ bcwever, ds.at th. I9PfOV1J .oritics _ill be -....;..''''1 the
~ of tile Ccascrvatio: AloIdllniry in p:ovidiJlllhl plIO ~Icw sctYice II part 0( \!lei:
lDCIItInDda of II'CIllGZIDt IIlli, iA so doin&. ~y caulder <em.be :DDIids.
IucaD.t Sanias
. At pre:satt. !!l. vut majotit)' of La1crmaUcu U$Cd la CDa:pl==t approvai as=crlty ljedslollS aa
it raJ&a 10 pro~ md often local amEcnmc=tal policies, Ius como &em COllScrvaUoIl
AmhcridM IDd. othC' public: SCiCU)r bodies. Ex_es iadllClc flood line mappic&.
aMrotlmenWJy smsitiv. ItU reports me! fuh l1abitar ,C\ldJes, '111e dec:Wol1 as to !low best tel
xqvlro m. mlormaUcc I1CCNIrY to Npport l2I.o plan input M:l"\'ica 011 tIl. broad. policy cdeatcd
-
- -30-
Watershed=Management- Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
0352
-. Attachment #35 - Fees
.
dOCl;:aau whldl are 1=-=l11y l:cr.r.lc;'., (1.\ :l~a:r= I: ;4 l't6, .1'. '",J: t~t: wj~~, ~Jb"~
lcar.
. ImatmaUoII USed to S\IPPOft stt.c 1pecU!c appli~ UI ~-=v.iO;:'!1em prC!J:OSlla (~ :c(:ztcd :: orr
'lie 4), sboaJd be prayldcd II} tIl. ;ropoacm. l'bis .cows die propouar ll:t otui:l iadcpcadatt
Idvice ud \IJ01I1d nold pottm1aJl, ~~ ,inzuwns wfses tile C04W.""IUioa Audsority ia cDt
provider 1M rm.ww 0{ the lame i:2fonnadon. Conservatioll Audaoria. wm. !lcwevcr. ..
~ aron to provide wharl\."Il' diu If lias to ~sr rtIc prepone:zt iJI the pMpasll c1ltYllopmam.
lbal&Adempad heRby tItW 10 Ibve ud cUacv.u!his Iou: ~UWI:lec at tJademandlltl.;~ Ulclt ~
IDI:DbtnJUp IIId fa drcu1ae if "'ida, to appnn-al ~rilies and maD:.:ipa1:tI. ac=s Omartc Ie form
iIlIpolUllt iDpuc aICO local d..lbcnDoa.
1HZ tlUAN DET.ILOPMENT 1N~..uao
S.'PhM lUlt..
Presldem
-
nm ASSOCIATION OF CONSEltV.t.nON ,urm01U'IlE:i O"F O~~.uuO
J~ S. Aldcsoll
OIlllR1 Mwaer
~
-31-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0353
-. Atta'chment #36 - Fees
.
APPENDIX IV
-32-
0354 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
,- Attachment #37 - Fees
cor~"'AnQN AUnfDRlTY STREAIWNlNC; 1HmAl1VES IN PEEL REGION
...... PItnr.:IJ'w;
. 0eMry aI io.tl.vo.-..d pMn"'" f&lnc:ticm far ncnI......... ~ -.Id
_ mlNglIIMd by CA'a
. Suppclrted by: WDlA.d pe.~ ~ klbmatian Ind dig, DiIting IIftlIII,.
dIsclpIIn;gy-.n.1Ir*aga wtIh aaw CA..w:es eg, '~.d~""
40~
. Im~ IdIIcl8ncy and dec;.1f1..aess 1hrough: "-=cpecr SIUC2V ~ r..xm:e
cantIIc:t~ OCI~~ Ind Iandfta, *-
...... Fra.._L
. N::NJ ~vS~ 1Sl8S
. IoNIICA -cn.~ ~
. PrD.;'~ TrInsfw gI PIm R___ RJnclIcrw
. PramQaI ~~ aI Apprawl AuIhclrity (PlInnino Ai;t Red T~ etc.)
. ~ P..b_4bP Mem~_.Jums
CA Olliuli...-;
In ~ wtIh pnMnciIII and m~ pctMrS, snamllne:
. 1he circul.aian aI ~Icallcns~~ ~. ~g crUria
. 1he.a.~ aear.a of ccndJtIans of apprcyaI ttvaugh SUbwIIII!aitled ~Ing ~
aIw~
. 1he pennIalng IIppRMII ~ents ~ one ,window- cW.v~161ntc8d to
pIlnUng ..w:-. aamp1Icns, simpiUd adminisZra1iv8 pI'l:X:aRS and CJItw nHIdtws -
.....A.;.~ Calle:
~
. ~hIc SCl'8Ming nwps based en c:aaru culling INs re1IedInQ 1tMl1ccaticn aI
ncnI heritage ~ md.MILnI hc:wds. ~ raIric:t circuIIdIan alai
dwefClPl'WIt 1Ipfl" " do tlllClIpt ~ 1D...,wtItWI or ~1O_
IdentIlI.d en 1t..-1MpL
. SuppcnIng sene illig criteria 10 fl.lnn8f nadUce cIrcuIIIIcIns sucn III:
~ 0nIy..,.:"a.- ~1o:~'.ii;nds: iflntensifyW\g ~~.nl-
b) 0nJv aIII.....- !Nt 8djUst prqMrly limits (net mcrtgIIga nnstera.l-
cJ 0nIV ccndcminium IiPpIIcmicns hit hiMI net ~ previous input 1hrcugh 1tMa
8Ubdivi:sion or rezlClI i119 Proc:ess; 1hIIt ~ tp.a.I.c;onditions n 1M ~.rt..-
. D.ve&op prac0dw8s fer cin:Wdions aI.revIsed ~pIi~ I'8gIsttaIlans at phased plans,
lIlC.
TeetmIenf Cle8l8l...-. .
. Whwa 1heN Is suftlc:fent ~ ilPpnM(i ttvougn SUOW.....i,.d pIa1nfno. ermWd8 CA
campiance nNew at 1M A,., ",.nar ~aYimm.~ pIIft stage.
. Development ot.-..naning aU8rta fortablellnd -mnent ~
Pmn~
. FWdue>> wa1CsIactIvities of a miner nmure 1rtrn raq\JInn,. permils undlll1ha CA AD..
. Combine ltIe approval aulhaity fer 1Ip~ permitting fundicna 10 reduca 1he
runber aI ~_ invoIYed.' (Petmitling fundia1s Should rWm lD pIIn I'INi8w
flJnctIcns) .
. SimpOly admlnislr2live ~ by: proIiIdlflg fer. sr8tr ~r;lttlWIs. creating -ane
windaw" IIppIicldion centre1 "
-33-
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0355
RES. #D72/97 - METRO RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
Status of Metro Rural Clean Water Program.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the 1996/97
Metro Rural Clean Water Program be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
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). The goals and
objectives of the program are in keeping with those of the Don River and Humber River
watershed strategies.
The program began in 1995/96 and has just completed a second successful year. Although
the partnerships are many and varied, the program is funded primarily from Environment
Canada (Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund).
The Program provides technical and financial assistance and public extension/education
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 through project implementation;
3. increases public education and awareness; and
4. demonstrates pollution prevention/reduction technology
which is transferable to other AOC's, The Program
encourages "at source" as opposed to "end-of-pipe"
pollution control.
Over the past year, twelve remedial projects were completed with private landowners. Ten
of these were in the Humber while two were in the Etobicoke watershed. As both bacteria
and phosphorus loadings to watercourses have been identified as concerns within the Metro
RAP area, annual reductions in loadings for these parameters were calculated for each type
of project.
The number and types of projects and associated loading reductions are outlined in the
following table:
0356 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
Table 1 Number and Types of Projects and Loading Reductions
- Metro Rural Clean Water Program 1996/97
Number and Types Annual Bacteria Annual Phosphorus
Watershed of Projects Completed Loading Reduction LoadinG Reduction
Humber 2 septic system 1.1 X 1013 f....c.o.li 4.3 X 107 kg
3 manure management
1 livestock access restriction
2 milkhouse wash water disposal
1 riparian planting (not included
in calculation)
1 stream bank and field erosion
control (not included in
calculation)
Etobicoke 1 septic system 2.7 X 1012 f... .c.o.li 8.2 kg
1 windbreak planting (not
included in calculation)
TOTAL 1 .4 X 1 01 3 f... .c.o.li 4.3 X 107 kQ
In addition to the reduced pollutant loadings, approximately 595 bare root trees and 750 bare
root shrubs were planted in riparian zones or as part of a windbreak projects. The total length
of riparian zone protected in 1996/97 is estimated at over 2,35 km or a total area of 0.40 ha.
It is also worth noting that the Metro Rural Clean Water program has provided great economic
spin-off benefits to local contractors. In its second year of operation the program has
generated approximately $253,500.00 towards local industries and contractors.
The MTRCA recently received notification that funding will again be forthcoming in the
1997/98 year to continue this worthwhile program. Furthermore, interest in the program is
growing as is evident by the fact that landowners have been contacting MTRCA staff to
initiate projects this year.
Report prepared by:
Ann Marie Weselan, Ext. 323
RES. #073/97 - 1997 SPRING FLOOD UPDATE
Watershed conditions during 1997 spring flood events.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on watershed
conditions update be received for information purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0357
BACKGROUND
This winter and spring have been mild and wet, with the amount of rainfall significantly above
normal. As a consequence, the Authority has been quite active in issuing flood messages.
To date this year, staff have issued 9 flood alerts and 1 flood warning to our municipalities,
9 flood safety advisories to schools and 1 press release dealing with spring flooding, In
addition to the normal floodplain type flood messages, the Authority has also issued 2 High
Lake Level Alerts for our Lake Ontario shoreline. The latest message issued on May 6, 1997
was a High Lake Level message. With the high lake levels expected to peak in June or early
July this year, we can expect several more messages related storms on the lake to be issued,
especially if accompanied by winds from the east or southeast.
In mid March, the Authority in co-operation with the other Greater Toronto Area (GT A)
Authorities issued a general press release that instructed parents to make sure their children
were aware of spring flooding dangers and to stay off the remaining ice on all creeks, rivers
and ponds. They had also been advised to stay away from river and creek banks which were
soft and unstable. This GT A press release will become an annual spring initiative.
To date, the year's most significant events occurred at the end of February on the 20-22 and
again on the 26-27. The February 20-22 event had forecast rainfalls of up to 50 mm along
with unseasonably warm temperatures. The Authority issued both an Alert and a Warning in
anticipation of flooding along the Lower Don River and related ice jamming. We received only
30 mm of rain. At one ice jam location at Rutherford Road and Highway 27, water levels
locally reached close to 100 year levels both upstream and downstream of Rutherford Road
and lasted in excess of one week. On February 26 a further 50 mm was forecast and we
once again received approximately 30 mm of rain. Authority staff alerted our municipalities
to expect similar flood levels as experienced the previous week. Specific concerns with this
event centred on areas where existing ice jams were present. To reduce flooding in
downstream areas, our flood control structures were operated in accordance with their
operations manuals. Levels within Claireville reached their previous historical high set in 1986
during the February 22 event.
No significant flood damages were reported, as in each of these events we received much less
rain than forecast. While winter returned after our late February thaw, we experienced a more
moderate melt over the last week and a half of March with no flooding in our watersheds.
The threat of flooding at this time relates only to heavy rainfall events.
Report prepared by:
Lucy Shaw, Ext.344
For information contact:
Don Haley, Ext.226
0358 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #074/97 - DON WATERSHED REPORT CARD
"Turning the Corner" - The Don Watershed Report Card
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report entitled "Turning thB
CornBr" - The Don Watershed Report Card, dated May 1997, be received . . . .. CARRIED
MOTION OF APPRECIATION
RES. #075/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THA T the Chair and Members of the Watershed Mangement Advisory Board extend their
congratulations to all staff involved for their great work and effort involved in completing "The
Don Watershed Report Card. .................................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council's Watershed Reporting and Monitoring Committee
began preparation of the Don Report Card in 1995. The purposes and objectives of the Don
Report Card, as defined by the Don Council at that time, were:
1. To celebrate progress and actions in regenerating the Don watershed.
2. To cause further action in regenerating the watershed.
3. To educate the watershed community and communities beyond about both the
health of the watershed and actions and activities taken by people in the watershed,
Eight public workshops and one workshop with scientists and experts were held in 1995 to
select the most effective indicators for reflecting the health of the watershed. In 1996, the
final 18 indicators were selected; baseline data were accumulated; targets were set for each
indicator for the years 2000, 2010 and 2030; and the Report Card text was drafted and
formatted.
The Report Card was launched at an event held at the Don Valley Brick Works site on May 5,
1997.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0359
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Turning the Corner, and all future Don Report Cards will provide the Don Council, the MTRCA
and all their partners with a framework for assessing progress towards reaching the vision and
objectives of Forty Steps to a New Don. The Report Card is necessary in order to evaluate
progress towards the goals of the watershed strategy, assess the impacts of efforts and
facilitate the refocussing of efforts if necessary, as well as celebrating successes. Funding
agencies are increasingly asking for this type of evaluation as a justification for the provision
of funds,
The Report Card is also a fundamental tool through which the MTRCA and the Don Council
can communicate the watershed story to the general public and promote increased watershed
stewardship from all sectors of society.
The Don Council is currently working on a three year work plan based on the findings and
targets presented in Turning the Corner.
Report prepared by:
Brian Dundas, Ext. 262
For information contact:
Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
0360 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
RES. #076/97 - SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY 1997
CONFERENCE
The Annual North American Soil and Water Conservation Society
Conference is being held in Toronto between July 22 to 25. The
MTRCA will be hosting six tours of our watersheds on July 24 as
part of this conference.
Moved by: Lorna Bissell
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report, dated June 13,
1997, be received for information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Soil and Water Conservation Society
The Soil and Water Conservation Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to
promoting increased awareness of the need for wise use of our land and water resources.
The Society is internationally-based and is organized according to local chapters. The
Ontario Chapter was organized in 1951 to give focus to chapter member's interests in
conservation topics within the province,
The 1997 Soil and Water Conservation Society Conference
The 1997 conference theme is watershed management. As such, much of the discussion
will focus on the need to shift individual conservation activity approaches to watershed,
ecosystem and biodiversity approaches. At the conference, participants from around the
world will share ideas and experiences, It is anticipated that new ideas for ecosystem
management within watershed units will emerge. Technical sessions and workshops will
connect participants with success stories.
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0361
The topics that will be discussed include water quality, water diversions and consumptive
uses, exotic species, erosion and sediment control, storm water management, soil quality,
policy development, application of geographic information and global positioning systems,
wetlands, recreation, ecosystem protection and restoration, agro-forestry, land use
planning and development within watersheds, conflict resolution, and partnership building
strategies.
MTRCA Involvement
The MTRCA has been heavily involved with the organization of the 1997 conference,
Alyson Deans is chair of the Communications Committee, and Dave Dyce and Beth
Williston sit on the Tours Committee.
The Conference Tours
The MTRCA will be hosting or co-hosting six tours of our watersheds as part of this
conference. It is anticipated that 1500 individuals will participate:
Tour #1 Watershed Management Practices on Agricultural Lands.
(This tour will focus on the Credit and Humber River watersheds).
Tour #2 Watershed Management Issues from Past Urban Development.
(This tour will focus on the Don River watershed).
Tour #3 Watershed Management Techniques in Headwater Areas.
(This tour will focus on the Oak Ridges Moraine, in particular, the
Humber and Rouge River watersheds),
Tour #4 Watershed Management Issues in Urbanizing Areas.
(This tour will focus on the Rouge River and Duffins Creek
watersheds).
Tour #5 Fisheries Management on the Credit and Humber Rivers.
Tour #6 Watershed Management and Our Great Lakeshore: Metro Toronto Waterfront
Boat Tour.
An additional tour to Hamilton Harbour and a Mobile Workshop to Oshawa Second Marsh
are also being offered on July 24, hosted by the Hamilton and Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authorities, respectively. The Upper Thames and Grand River Conservation
Authorities are hosting a pre-conference tour that will illustrate conservation authority
approaches to soil and water management.
MTRCA staff have been involved in the organization of these tours. Staff have been asked
to participate as tour guides and as speakers at the numerous stops along the way,
Additional speakers from our partner agencies, including the municipalities and provincial
agencies, as well as consultants, will also be speaking at various stops during the tours.
0362 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
As a way of thanking the tour guides and speakers, we understand that the Ontario
Chapter of the Soil and Water Conference Society will be inviting all tour guides and
speakers to attend the conference plenary sessions on July 23 and 25 at no charge.
Information on registering for the conference may be obtained from Beth Williston at
extension 334.
Prepared by:
Beth Williston, Ext.334
RES. #077/97 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT IN
THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1995 -
1999
Port Union Concept Site - Shoreline and Waterfront Trail
Improvements (Highland Creek to Rouge River)
To report on the work program for the implementation of the Port
Union Concept Site - Shoreline and Waterfront Trail improvements
(Highland Creek to Rouge River).
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the
implementation of the Port Union Concept Site be received;
THA T staff be directed to proceed to obtain the required environmental approvals and
undertake the detailed design of the Port Union Concept Site, City of Scarborough, under
the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto 1995-1999 and within the 1997 Metro capital allocation of $400,000 for this
sector of shoreline;
THA T staff be directed to establish a working committee with community and agency
representation;
THA T staff be directed to take all necessary actions with the partners to proceed in an
expeditious fashion to secure all approvals for early implementation;
AND FURTHER THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Scarborough,
the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee, West Rouge Community
Association, Centennial Creek Ratepayers Association, and the Office of the Greater
Toronto Area be so advised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0363
BACKGROUND ,
At Authority Meeting #9/96 held on October 25, 1996, Res.#A201/96 was adopted:
MTHA 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 /SMP 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;
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
MTHA 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
0364 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
At its Meeting #11/96 held December 20, 1996, the Authority took further action on
implementing the East Point Park Concept Site by adopting the following Res.#A262/96:
MTHA T 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 Environmenta/ 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 a/I necessary actions with the partners to
proceed in an expeditious fashion to secure all approvals;
AND FURTHER THA T The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City
of Scarborough and the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering
Committee be so advised. W
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
As part of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan, the attached Figure 8-3 outlines a
concept for shoreline regeneration between East Point and the Rouge River.
Discussions have been taking place with the community and various levels of government
on implementing this concept and achieving a waterfront trail which links to the Port Union
Village community and the approved Metro Highland Creek trail at the waterfront.
As part of the discussions with the community, CNR, Metro Parks and Culture Department,
and other levels of government on implementing the waterfront trail concept and providing
a safe community link to the Highland Creek trail scheduled for construction in 1997, the
Authority undertook a preliminary design for a pedestrian tunnel connection proposed on
the western edge of the new Port Union Village community. This proposal received the
community associations' support.
Consultants for the City of Scarborough recently completed the Port Union Village
Common Design and Development Study which proposed at the foot of Port Union Road,
a Village Common (part of approved Secondary Plan) as a recreational, social, commercial
and historic focal point as well as providing a key access point to the Lake Ontario
shoreline and waterfront trail. This Feasibility Study is scheduled for consideration by
Scarborough Recreation, Parks and Culture Committee and Council at a future date.
The Authority recently received requests (see attached) from the West Rouge Community
Association and Centennial Creek Ratepayers Association endorsing the shoreline
regeneration/waterfront trail concept from Highland Creek to Rouge Beach (see attached).
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0365
The Associations are requesting that the MTRCA proceed on an urgent basis to facilitate
early implementation of the waterfront trail from Highland Creek to Rouge Beach and
connection to the approved Metro Highland Creek Trail scheduled for completion to the
waterfront in 1997. Their support is based on the necessary technical and environmental
studies being undertaken and their participation on a working group.
On June 10, 1997, the Council of the City of Scarborough adopted the following
resolution concerning the Waterfront Trail and Shoreline Improvements East Point Park to
the Rouge River:
"'That Council endorse the concept of shoreline treatment from East
Point Park to the Rouge River and that Council request that the linkage
from East Point Park to Port Union Village Common be made a priority
and completed as quickly as possible, subject to completion of the
necessary environmental assessment and further consultation with the
community. "
RA TIONALE
The 1967 Metropolitan Waterfront Plan, as replaced by the February 1994 Metropolitan
Waterfront Plan, provides the basis for the Authority as the implementing agency. The
Metropolitan Waterfront Plan is a Metropolitan policy document directing Metropolitan
investment and operations and projects of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
It is the policy of Council:
"38. to establish a continuous recreational trail across the Metropolitan
Waterfront as generally identified in Schedule 2 in conjunction with Area
Municipalities, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, other public and private agencies and the community."
At its Meeting January 28, 1994, the Authority reaffirmed its support for a continuous
trail across the Metropolitan Waterfront and directed the incorporation of the trail priorities
in subsequent multi-year capital projects.
This section of shoreline regeneration and waterfront trail should proceed at this time as
being:
. consistent with the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan;
. consistent with the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan;
. part of the approved Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project in the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 1995-1999;
,
0366 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
. supported by the Scarborough Waterfront Plan and Council resolution of June 10,
1997;
. an extension to the implementation of the East Point Park Concept Site as
directed by the Authority for this sector of the Metropolitan Toronto waterfront
(Scarborough) ;
. a safe community connection in the vicinity of CNR to the Metro Highland Creek
Trail scheduled for construction in 1997; and
. supported by the Community Associations' (CCRA, WRCA) with an identified
urgency to implement the shoreline works and waterfront trail to ensure public
safety and realize the community vision and access to the Lake Ontario
waterfront.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff need to proceed in a timely manner to undertake the necessary design and obtain the
necessary environmental approvals including CNR approvals.
An integral part of the design and approvals work will be a "project working committee"
with representation from the community associations and key agencies.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The initial design and approval of the work will be carried out under the 1997 Metro
capital allocation ($400,000) under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project
1995-1999 for this section of shoreline.
Staff have estimated that cost to undertake this work at approximately $100,000.
An implementation strategy, including a funding partnership, will be prepared prior to the
Authority approving the construction of the shoreline and waterfront trail works.
Report prepared by:
Larry Field, Ext.243
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97
D367
-. Attachment 1
WOI Ra-r c..........t.,. _Iioa =.~>>
<:Jo ~70 ftIN;I: HlIIs 0r1'Ic
~ro1l{lll. QmInll
Mlenl
May 2, 1997 DELrvERED BY FAX
MI'. 1. Cr.ng }..1a!hcr
CAO.
The MelIOpolnan T oJronto JIld
Regional Cunservation AuIhoriry
5 Shon:ham Drivc
Do.....nsview.Om.mo
M3N 154
De:II' ~[r. Mather:
Re: Development ofW:lternont Tr.lil
011 behalf of th.: Wo:st Rouge Communily .)"ssociation ("~"Rc.~'J I Jm \ltTiting to endorse
the Association':J supprot for th.: shoreline regcllCr:1QOn waterfront tr:Ul concept from Highlmd
Creek to Rouge Beach. For many ye:u-s the residcmts of our community have been hopin~ for
shoreline a.ccess and implemdlt:Uion of the w:ttcrttont component ()f OUI' communi!) plan. It now
appears for the: first time that oJur wishes may caml,; trUe.
In this regard, the WRCA. endors~ the shoreline concept as proposed by thl: MTRCA
through the integr.1ted shoreline m:magement plan and the need t.:l address public safety 3S a result
of the proximity of the CN r::ril~01Y \r.lcks. The WRCA supportS the Authority's applic:uion tor an
order of dcclar.uion under the Emironmcnt:1l Assessment Act on :m urgent basis to fucilit:UC a trail
connection from the proposed Higlilimd Creek to Rouge Bcu:h md constrUCtion of the :1pPt'ovcd
Metro Highland Creek Trail to the waterfront in 1997. This suppoIt i3 offered having regard to
public safety and mbject to the same level of technical stUdies as normally would be completed
under and environmental assessment. toge'tb.er with WRCA's involvement on an ongoing basis (in
3. working group) with respect to the design and implcmentarion of the shoreline works and
w;l.terfront trial.
...fl
D368 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5-/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment 2
Pas- ~
We laok iorwarci to working with the ?\.ITRCA and other partners to realize the waIerfront
component (If (lUI' community. If you require anything from us to apcdite:he complction of this
trail. please do I1CIt hcsiuue to conlact us.
Yours very truly,
WEST ROUGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CHR1S BURKE. PRESIDENT
c:c:
WCSt Rouge Cummunicy A5soci:mon
- PWlnln! Commluee
Ccntelll1ial Community R~:1Yers Ai.iVcl:ltlon
- P1annin: Commiuc::
MetrO Co=illor Ken Marruob (392~1:O)
Sc:vborough CllUl1ctllor Ron Moeser (396-5271)
MP1> Steve Gilchris1 (28I-~60)
S=boroulh City Clerk (~96-430 J )
Metro ClerK. Ms. Trudy Perrin (392-:980)
TOTo:.t.. P.eJ3
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0369
-. Attachment 3
...
~ I PRESm&NrS A!PORT I
well Kay was a very ":2u.y _t::.. :...~:.. Bver./OJ:le ~\lQh :.~
II:. ~.arJ a"8:Ycma '411 ~::Y1J:q au:'.!. ~t~ for =:.o1a._
to get. l!IVe...-;~D9 :10:1.. prior :0 a~l trail thG Ca:I.&d:.=
the a= hc...~Jays. lllat:':l%l&l lAi.lway :0 L.:!.ow t=a
eltteu:.~ <:: :2 YJ..;hl..o.nc Cree.<
'011 May :'~t::'. ~ =~ :ra..:.:. UD.l!a: thu: ~~eJ:= 0:0
r_1.... 0: tbe V1U.aqe CQInQn I&.c: ?o:u:: ?a:Jc.
~ hQst~ ay tha =ity at
SCAJ:>orcuqb. QQce :.::'8 ;:1.an ~s .,)n lIay ~O~"l. 1\: ~W"a.:
t~=:d t:ha :::'':'':-f v:.':'':' llUY ~= :::l:'1..;1a:e. ~ P-=1C.~ ~=:1s
if n.ed be. CXOlr=p:~t. :~Q (VI1:z.Ch L-a ;:QV .:1 c=o:r.::: .,:
l..allQ l'l.fUI~ed ._ ;':.:::.':'.l tile.:..: ~e ~Ol: :Uu':'at::.or. .l3.:1:l) =d
;lromioia. 'l'i..--:e ~a at Ul& a :vuo':':.= :.~or:a:icr. :u.~: :0
usane". W:.::.~ til. .pp=1=~ a~1,. ~ as = hQw the\, ;:1Ir.
Keq..C:..:~. i~ ...,cn.Lld. o. e.:-=---.....bly to :R&:' ~ ':~Q Mar..sc:'"o. .:ac~=~.'
~iU.r :..: loA! ........ :10~ in a ~ :le&D. .:;: t..':e su:===:i1::c;
poaitio:1 of hav1~ =e pl~ ~. (b ccnJ=:i:lr. "1~
p:rocee~. u owased :0 :.avi=:; tl:..:...s cl__ lip ~pos.:. 1S
to :l:O'/. iu =uai::.,," ;0 a l1eW ~QZl,:.!.y . da"&lo;::ller.t
lIIW:i:i:loll 'J0'germM::O:. :lrQPClsa.l. ':!l.a lat':e% Up.:::
.- ~ 00: ~: bllfln ;Ir&._:eo -:::
'Ka~o :'or=-::: C=::se:"'nl::'o.: to". C~:y ,,= ~ ~t:r.) ;:..&
Aa~r:.t'l loa p~~:.;:.q eo b'Jl~d =:::::~.... 4l~'" ~ ;:anc :.s
a. l;::~ or. the ::out.C ~.id. 0: t~e ~ ';OQ:u :u,:'.rU:.
J ~e ra.l.:_Y :...-a..;.1:.:. 'rhey ~v. faco:o:-I IC:.~ tor :I..:"
rac:oc;::.i::ec1 ~a =v_co.! "t Ue lodiacr:''''1.:a.:e:'y c11:~.d
.il:~t~on, b__-i:lq :.n ::W:.:i ~ ~stoS ....te .L..:. =..r QC
GII:IlI:lOlr of p~.!.. wAc a..-a lIlDlI'~ pla.ce. n. 1&1:.': ..1.1: bve :0
iAl:O ~ azea an4 ~ ~.~ ot l:ICe:qo l Clan l Ez1":.ro~':lII"~
..~ety. !Peogle ue =liainq Claa.:! '21). t'tIe C.C.R.A. has
... ovar the ~-w.elt" to :&lch e. a1OQl;UtK. :0 <<::Ie l'CIl.a:.::~ !.'::.':a
1&k8l.1 n:a ::lveral: IC= ...:.:~ that. all at ~. ~o:.l s~ulc !:Ie
fJ.: ln nice~7 '61.::: ~. 'li~~aqe rQl'llQ".ad ~ m,):1.!.<!. Ule :=d !:Ie
CC1lIllCm. ~e pl~-: h.a& ne: bellZl evec:::al::; dev.l::ped., IoIa...-r..:.=..
!:lClA:'l:ed :wr ~ :uc1q.: 'f1:'. wr.:... "auld be lUlcad in ~.
'ro belD !pe~ ~ t::.e pro::us otten ot pa..~."e. .A.t l;t.Gl
~e C.C.~.A. ill p&:':A~ in t.lnIl of -.rr..t.iZlq thi. rapere :1:1.
a:1Y ac4 a.ll maeti1lqa c.o try ':.0 ~icm ~ = =t ..,r.. wi-.:.'>
l:l-..:-:y tl1.: ;roc... a:c _ have a.a. (Su.y t:Im44. oec..",.. ~~
passed 4 rasolucion suppc=t~q oce e&A become & biq =ess)
~e lindellvour.
· .~ lI&y ~::!. 1597. ae Por: Ur.:.=
'k..:: ?o~nt Parlt Ilaa ":)ec::=a I. R.e CeIll:n. tAe C.::.lL.\.. 101..:
p.t ;lrojccc of lfecro ~=1.1~:or RcuQ. ADd lliqhl.uld Cre..:': C:::l'
It_ ~=.:.::I1. (I:: ~ ep~~:oc hcsud. ?adaral ~ll C.r.~:.":alS
the:! al:lN.l.<1 p:oDablj' re-::loIlIIe _ce=;. It'Per.lt1ucq wer.: Ver'.l
the p&:lt Qe MD=:z...l: s-,ot'~1S well. !:vuyone S=vtci. AI:
Call1;l~.l !!a is do:.:l.l; oe :i= of "'"%:':~"l" :~s =aE:~:-~
....er.rt::.:...::r..q ":1e r.:an :0 11nlc:tle lC.<;ht I !:hanlc &:'1 o~ ~e
OlliLy1=.q :iel:b :0 OIl: CO=c.io:y C:C~~= for ;l&=~=i~1:~:U; :"'"'1
vu . "':'s il _l~ &Ad hi"e (=t....1
5
J'UN 9'97 09:51 1 ':16 282 7~~ ~.OO2
0370 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 June 20, 1997
-. Attachment 4
':.;
et
, =:
. .
o.
~
Go
l:
U
0
0
ID
0
1
s
.lC
0
.
U
'II
t
i:
~~
~C11
_E
cCII
0>
i:e
ClIo.
-E
lG-
~CII
ii1&
i:Il!!
0.0
, 8 ~
· c"
~ 8 :a
w
Z
::iz
~~
Ou.
If-
: (/)z
Ow
w~
, i~
:
0<
Wz
!z<
-~
June 20, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #5/97 0371
TERMINA TION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:00 noon, June 20, 1997.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/pl
~
, the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #6/97
August 15, 1997 Page 0372
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, August 15, 1997. The Vice-Chair,
Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Jim McMaster ............................................... Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Joan King .................................................. Member
Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES. #078/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THA T the Minutes of Meeting #5/97, held June 20 , 1997, be received. . . . . .. CARRIED
0373 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
RES. #079/97 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT
1995-1999
Ashbridge's Bay Coats worth Cut Dredging, City of Toronto
To carry out maintenance dredging within the Coatsworth Cut
navigation channel at Ashbridge's Bay.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
maintenance dredging, and to commence the development of a plan for permanent
shoreline modifications at Coatsworth Cut, City of Toronto, under the "'Lake Ontario
Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at a total cost of $250,000.
AMENDMENT
RES. #080/97
Moved by: lIa Bossons
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THAT staff bring a report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the
status of the shoreline modifications that would eliminate the need for annual dredging of
the Coatsworth Cut.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Coats worth Cut has been an on-going navigation problem due to unsafe water depths
and insufficient channel widths, all as a result of sediment deposition from various
sources. Dredging of Coats worth Cut was last carried out by the Authority in 1995 to the
extent of the available funding. Approximately 5,300 cubic metres of material was
dredged at a total cost of $150,000. A water depth survey taken in July, 1997, showed
that siltation has again reduced the navigable waters and dredging would be required to
maintain a safe channel entrance to the public boat launching ramps and the service
facilities of the boating clubs.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
To achieve minimum navigable standards, up to 6,000 cubic metres of material will need
to be dredged. All dredging must be carried out by marine equipment and since the quality
of the dredgeate does not meet the "open water" criteria, it is proposed that this material
be transported and disposed of in the endikement cells at Tommy Thompson Park.
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0374
Ouotations from marine contractors will be received to carry out the dredging,
transportation and disposal of the dredged material.
A long term solution to the problem of sediment deposition and continuous dredging of the
channel entrance is the modification of the shoreline alignment on the west side of
Coatsworth Cut to retain future sediment accumulations. One of the alternatives over the
long term includes land creation south of the existing main Ashbridge's Bay sewage
treatment plant which could be incorporate a modified channel entrance. An assessment
of various shoreline configurations will be undertaken to assist in the preparation of a plan
including the necessary coastal and environmental investigations for review with
Metropolitan Toronto.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget to carry out the maintenance dredging and shoreline configuration review
in 1997 is $250,000.
The budget for the project is as follows:
Dredging Contract ES97-40 $140,000
Disposal Charges to T.H.C. 70,000
Engineering and Contract 30,000
Supervision
Entrance Modification Study 10,000
$250,000
Funds are available under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999
Account No. 211-16.
Report prepared by:
Joseph Delle Fave (416) 392-9724
For information contact:
Jim Berry (416) 392-9721
0375 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
RES. #081/97 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT
1997
The Regional Municipality Of Durham
Approval of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1997
for the continuation of waterfront regeneration activities within the
Regional Municipality of Durham.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Lake Ontario Waterfront
Regeneration Project 1997 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 and 1996, separate projects were approved for the
Regional Municipality of Durham waterfront activities.
At Meeting #7/95 held on August 25.1995, the Authority adopted Res.#A197/95:
"THA 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. "
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0376
The Regional Municipality of Durham has recently approved new waterfront policies which
provide the regional context for the waterfront initiatives in Pickering and Ajax.
The Town of Pickering has recently completed a new Official Plan supporting the various
waterfront initiatives. Recently, the Mayor's Task Force "Pickering Waterfront 2001 n was
established to formulate specific recommendations for Council on an integrated plan and
implementation priorities for Pickering's waterfront.
1997 Project Implementation
Objectives and Priorities
The following are the implementation objectives related to planning, regeneration and
acquisition for specific segments of the Durham waterfront:
Pickering Waterfront Area
. participation in Pickering Waterfront 2001 Task Force and partnership on
implementation priorities
Rouge/Rosebank Area
. continue land consolidation
. complete waterfront trail linkage
. shoreline regeneration in accordance with the shoreline management strategy
Petticoat Creek Park
. complete acquisition (Fairport Beach)
. regeneration of Fairport Shoreline
Frenchman's 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 to existing Duffins Creek Trail
0377 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
Duffins Creek Waterfront 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
The 1997 Implementation Priorities are as follows:
Pickering
. waterfront trail linkages
. regeneration initiatives with community groups
. acquisition of key land for public purpose
. habitat rehabilitation lie. tern rafts)
Ajax
. waterfront trail linkages
. maintenance of Authority land not under agreement
. tree and shrub planting
. Pickering Beach property acquisition
. habitat rehabilitation (ie. tern rafts)
RA TIONAlE
The Authority has prepared the lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1997 for the
Regional Municipality of Durham to reflect the plans of the Region, Pickering and Ajax for a
regional waterfront open space system.
DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Upon approval by the Authority, we will be working with the Regional Municipality of
Durham and the Towns of Pickering and Ajax to confirm the 1997 priorities and establish
specific capital works for implementation in 1997.
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0378
The Town of Pickering has requested partnership involvement from MTRCA and Ontario
Hydro for the extension of the waterfront trail from Montgomery Park Road (connecting to
Duffins Creek Trail) to Sandy Beach Road (west side of Ontario Hydro Plant). Authority
staff will work with the Town of Pickering on the design and implementation of this
section of waterfront trail.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The total budget for the 1997 project is approximately $100,000. With the exception of
minor maintenance work, the project will be funded on the following basis:
The Regional Municipality of Durham 50%
Other Funding 50%
The Regional Municipality of Durham's share of the project has been approved as part of
the budget process.
No Provincial grant is currently available in 1997.
Staff are continuing to explore new sources of funding from the municipalities, private
sector (ie. Canada Trust Environment Fund), service clubs and Federal funding (i.e. Great
Lakes Clean-up Fund 2000) to augment the scope of the work.
Land sale revenues may be available to help with the acquisition components of the
project.
The Total Budget may be exceeded if additional funds can be secured.
Report prepared by:
Larry Field, Ext. 243
0379 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
RES. #082/97 - WATERFRONT 2001 - TASK FORCE ON THE PICKERING
WATERFRONT
To provide an information report regarding the Waterfront 2001 -
Task Force on The Pickering Waterfront.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on Waterfront
2001 - Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront be received;
THAT the Authority indicate its support for Pickering's Waterfront 2001 - Task Force, and
confirm Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist as the Authority representative on the Task
Force;
AND FURTHER THAT Mayor Wayne Arthurs and Task Force Chair David Steele be so
advised. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 27, 1997, Pickering's Mayor Wayne Arthurs officially launched Waterfront 2001 -
Task Force on The Pickering Waterfront. The Task Force was established to develop a
comprehensive vision and strategy on how Pickering's waterfront should evolve in the
future. A critical element to the Task Force's work will be to integrate the publics' ideas
and vision. A copy of the News Release and Mayor Wayne Arthurs letter is attached.
The Mayor has appointed David Steele, Chairman of the Task Force. Attached is a list of
the Task Force Steering Committee members. The Mayor also requested participation of a
representative from the Authority. Senior Staff of the Authority concurred with the
participation of Larry Field, Waterfront Specialist.
At a recent public meeting, David Steele outlined the proposed work of the Task Force and
the various sub-committees (see attached summary). The sub-committees are chaired by a
Task Force member and include representation from the community at-large. No political
representatives are on the Task Force or sub-committees.
The Task Force is scheduled to present a Phase 1 report to Council in September or early
October on the preliminary waterfront plan and priorities to complete the plan and initiate
specific projects.
DETAILS OF WORK TO -BE DONE
Staff of the Authority are participating on the Task Force and various sub-committees. All
environmental data, park plans and watershed planning strategies (ie. Integrated Shoreline
Management Plan) has been made available to the Task Force.
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0380
Staff will report back to the Authority on the Task Force's recommendations and actions
of Pickering Council in continuing the waterfront initiatives and implementing Waterfront
2001.
Report prepared by:
Larry Field, ext. 243
.
0381 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 1 5, 1997
Attachment 1 - Waterfront 2001
WATERFRONT 2001
PRESS RELEASE
Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront
-
.
Waterfront 2001 - A task force on the future of Pickering's waterfront was
announced today by Mayor Wayne Arthurs. The task force will invite
"ep"~o"'~^", t:.-........- ~orr-"tlu.~t-.;; org:uuz::.::cns, publk agt:nclt:s and pnvate
..... . ......,_... ....... ~.l va... interests. Input to the task force will be sought throughout this summer.
Mayor Arthurs has appointed Mr. David Steele. a long resident, community
organizer and activist to chair the task force.
Mr. Steele says "I am calling upon all those interested in Pickering's waterfront to
become involved with and communicate ideas to assist in the creation of a master
strategic plan for Pickering's waterfront". .
Waterfront 2001 is a task force of Pickering residents. landowners and agencies
established to develop a comprehensive vision as to how Pickering's waterfront
should evolve in the future. The task force plans to meet with both landowners
and residents as the first step in developing a comprehensive strategy for our
waterfront. Mr. Steele said that "public access to the waterfront, bringing the
waterfront trail to the water, enhancing the existing community and preservation of
Frenchman's Bay will be top priorities of the task force".
"The public has played a big role in past projects to improve the waterfront, and
continued involvement will be vital to imp!emer.t the w:lterfror.t vision that
emerges from the public input the task force receives this summer''' said Mayor
Arthurs.
The task force hopes to hold a design workshop for the public in late June.
For further infonnation about Waterfront 2001. please contact David Steele at
837-0117. Written submissions should be addressed to Waterfront 2001 c/o David
Steele 966 Timmins Gardens. Pickering. Ontario L1 W 2L2.
. . .
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0382
Attachment 2 - Waterfront 2001
PICKERING WATERFRONT 2001
The Mayor's Task_ Force on the Pickering Waterfront
,.
STEERING COMMITTEE MEM'BERSHlP .
David Steele Chairman
Craig Bamford Vice Chairman
Nick Eyles Vice Chairman
Secretary (to be appointed)
Larry Field Metro Region Conservation Authority
Tom Smart Ontario Hydro .
Harold Huff Pickering Harbour Company
Jim Dyke Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club
R~y. t.t:JdiN'!J"OH' Pickering Eastshore Community Association
~
Beverly Mitchell Baywest Lookout Community Association
Suzanne Barrett Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Tom Melymuk Liason to Town of Pickering
.
0383 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
Attachment 3 - Waterfront 2001
WATERFRONT 2001 PHASE 1 THE BUll..DING BLOCKS
Mayor Anhws Task Feme aa tbc Warcrfroar
4 HISTORY. HERITAGE
AND TliE ARTS
4 TliE. ENVIRONMENT
INCl.UDING
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
4 TOURISM AND
RECREAnON
4 THE WATERFRONT
. TRAIl.
4 PUBUC EDUCA nON
HISTORY, HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT COrvnvITTTEE
THE ARTS 4 To recommend pnOnllt!s tor
improVed watel'$l1ed
4 To identify oppomulItJes management
and melt10dS to encourage 4 To study tile current status of
public partJOpatJon 1/1 tile the enwonment and Identify
aI13 as an inteQral part of both Its constral/1ts on future
lhe watertront develOpment and tile
4 To doaunent the hisUlry of opponunlties to enhance tile
PlcIcenng's wmertront elMronment
4 To identify methods to 4 To educate tile publie on how
presefVe and communicate they can assast to improve tile
lIMt hlllOry of tile _lel1ront functiomng of tile watershed
.. c.n.:a: MIL.. _ c:;,..." and water quality.
__~_Colra .. c.r- Or. ... e.,..~:zs..
u.-.ty"'T_~
..... ..1m Dile 4'~2!I&-7'lIoI FlIYC
Recreation, Tourism and SMALL WATERCRAFT
Waterfront Trail Design COM1vfITIEE
4 July and ealty August. vanoua axnmlllees wiG \ .. T.. i.-r1Ity _ '" ~......
identify needS. oppottun\ties and possable Ioc:atlons CDI\ ..... .- !he -.mont.
fer required fadlilies ~fInq
4 Landowners wiI be encouraged to commuruc:ate ltletr ~ .. T"odrdy~IO
ObjedIVes at the Outset of discussions ~'-.- _allracl
8dcliIicreI_
4 Recreation wiD be broken down into tIlree committees .. To.-~iIy'-.anaII
(amaa waterc:raft needs. HartlOurIlarge cr.aft needs. c:nft IIu'I::Iwlg faaity _
Pat1<Isports requrements) .-nge-.--
4 Waterfront Trail Design wiD be broken up into three .. T.. ~ pouGIe funding fer
subcommittees in order to taalilate lOCal coml'QlJMy _o/pullIic~
fmIi_
involvement '-- .. CorIacI e.m. Lunm.. ~130
4 Imeradion wrtnthe enwonmentaJ committee WID be SWWlS Manna
Q'1tic:a1 to Identify constraints on adivrtJes proposed
1
. . .
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0384
Attachment 4 - Waterfront 2001
LETS SEE HOW 01HER MUNICIPAUTlES ARE
PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMITIEE IMPLEMENTING A WATERFRONT VISION?
... To develop resource ~ On Sa1urday July 19 (1__'
_ WlII be VISIting communities
materials for use in the west of TOl'Ontl:I
classroom to educate .. The Wautrfront Trail Design
the public about the ~..._..- subcommittees will be walking
Pickering Waterfront "----- --- .., 1he _lei1l'Oi1lt niL Please
and importance of .-~ - - .- - - sign up for the __ that
protecting the interests you
- ~ In August _ wIil be YISIllng
watershed
.. ConIa:l . additional communities east Of
ht'. B8114111 l!ili B522 Pldcllnng
PiwIdge HIQIl Scnool ~ Please SIgn up wetl in advance
PHASE 2
... In September the committee will be
submitting a report on phase 1 to
Council
.
... This report will include a listing of won<
required to complete a plan for the
waterfront. recommendations for a
second phase of waterfront planning
and a request for budget funds to hire
necessary consultants
.
3
0385 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
RES. #083/97 - THE DON WATERSHED FISH COMMUNITY AND HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Endorsement and implementation of the Don Watershed Fish
Community and Habitat Management Plan (Copies of the plan will be
available at the meeting).
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Watershed Fish
Community and Habitat Management Plan, dated August, 1997, be received;
THA T staff work with the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Ministry of Natural
Resources, municipalities, interest groups, UDI and other partners to implement the plan,
subject to available funding;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report in the future on any aspects of
implementation of the plan which would require amendments to Authority policies and
practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The need for watershed fisheries management plans was first identified in the
Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy (CBMS) for The Rouge River Watershed. As a
result of the recommendation in the CBMS a Rouge River Watershed Fisheries
Management Plan was prepared and endorsed by the Authority at Meeting #2/94. Based
on the experiences gained in the Rouge Watershed, it was identified that Fish Plans should
be developed concurrently with the Watershed Strategy. Therefore, shortly after the Don
Watershed Strategy was initiated, work on the Fish Plan began. The Fish Plan was
prepared concurrently with the development of MForty Steps To a New Don, Ir and elements
of the plan were used in the preparation of the Watershed Strategy.
A draft Fish Plan was prepared by the Spring of 1994 with technical input from Authority
staff and staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). The draft Fish Plan was
identified in the Memorandum of Agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources for the
Don "One-Window" approach to permitting for watercourse alterations, as the guide for
fisheries comments on permit applications under Ontario Regulation 158. The Authority
endorsed the "One Window" approach to plan review at Meeting #4/94. Authority and
MNR staff have been using the Plan as a tool to guide the management of fish
communities and habitat in the Don Watershed since the inception of the One - Window
Agreement.
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0386
In the Fall of 1995, the draft Fish Plan was circulated to members of the Don Council, local
and regional municipal staff including the departments of parks, works and planning, local
interest groups, consultants, university professors and the Federal Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, for their review and comment. The comments that were received were
complied and used to make final revisions to the Fish Plan.
The completed Fish Plan provides an assessment of the present condition and potential of
fish communities and habitat and through analysis, identifies an aquatic habitat
classification system for the watershed. The classification system allows watercourses to
be grouped into categories of similar characteristics for which there are similar habitat
requirements, fish community targets and management implications. The plan outlines, in
table format, pertinent information such as Habitat Types, levels of storm water control,
fish community targets, and construction timing guidelines. This type of information
provides the guidance for managing fish communities at specific reaches and sites in the
watershed.
RATIONALE
The Fish Plan is a resource document to assist the Authority and its many partners in
ecosystem planning and to guide development and implementation of regeneration
projects. It is anticipated that the scope of information presented in the draft Fish Plan will
eliminate the need for future broadly based fisheries management studies in the Don
Watershed. Furthermore, the level of detail in the Fish Plan will reduce the need for many
site specific fish community survey's normally associated with Plan Input and Review. The
Fish Plan will help staff to provide a timely and consistent approach to managing potential
impacts to aquatic habitats.
The Fish Plan provides strategic direction for pursuing aquatic habitat regeneration
projects. The Plan formed the basis for a five year implementation project to mitigate the
impacts of in-stream barriers to fish movement. The Pottery Road weirs were identified as
potential project sites in the Plan and subsequently, through many partnerships, the
impacts of these weirs were mitigated and migratory salmon ids are now able to access up
to 10km more of the lower and middle reaches of the East Don River. Partners in that
project included, the Authority, Great Lakes 2000 Clean-Up Fund, Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Transportation Capital
Corp, Canadian Highways International Corp, and the Ontario Wilderness Canoe
Association.
Receipt of the Plan by the Authority and direction to staff to participate in implementation
is an important step in beginning to achieve the objectives of the Fish Plan and the
Watershed Strategy.
0387 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Print and send copies of the completed plan to municipal partners, interest groups and
consultants in the watershed;
. Identify and secure funding for projects;
. Implement the monitoring program;
. Request official endorsement of the Fish Plan by the Ministry of Natural Resources;
. Consultation with the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Ministry of Natural
Resources, municipalities, interest groups, UDI and other partners to implement the
plan.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
It is apparent that The Fish Plan will be beneficial in streamlining the management of
fisheries in the watershed including assisting in the provision of planning services.
However, resource documents can become out of date as more information becomes
available and our knowledge expands. It will be necessary to update the Fish Plan as new
information becomes available. Staff believe that this could be achieved by updating
sections of the Fish Plan on a subwatershed basis as enough information becomes
available or after 15 years which ever occurs first.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Implementation of The Plan will require continued partnership with the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Environment Canada, municipalities, property owners, interest groups and the
public.
Staff will work in cooperation with the other groups to:
. explore opportunities for implementing the Fish Plan;
. provide groups with technical assistance;
. assist in setting priorities for work;
. assist community groups in planning and implementation of projects;
Projects will only be undertaken subject to available funding. At this time staff anticipate
printing and distribution costs of less than $4,000.
For information contact:
Bernie Mcintyre, Ext.326
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0388
RES. #084/97 - CITY OF TORONTO STORM WATER GROUP WORK PLAN
Authority staff involvement in the implementation of the City of
Toronto Storm Water Group's WORK PLAN, as adopted by Toronto
City Council.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue
participation as a member of the City of Toronto Storm Water Group, by providing
technical input and assistance as necessary during the implementation of the Group's
WORK PLAN;
AND FURTHER THAT staff advise appropriate watershed councils and alliances of the City
of Toronto's initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Storm Water Group was established by City of Toronto Council in June 1996 in
response to a directive from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, as a condition for
rescinding the requirement for a full Environmental Assessment for the proposed Western
Beaches Storage Tunnel. When first appointed it was called the Non-Structural Working
Group, but was later renamed to better express the group's mandate. City Council instructed
the Storm Water Group to:
1. Identify areas of the City where implementation of natural systems rain
water management is feasible;
2. Identify "alternative methods" for storm water management and combined
sewer overflow and water pollution alleviation; and
3. Examine the feasibility of implementing such solutions for the Ellis Avenue
and Howard Park Avenue storm water outlets as specifically requested by the
Minister of Environment and Energy and included in the Western Beaches
Storage Tunnel.
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) was invited to
participate in the Group, by designating a staff representative. Other members of the
Group included 2 city councillors, 9 citizens, and staff representatives from Metro Works,
the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, and City of Toronto Works and Parks & Recreation
Departments.
The Storm Water Group met about two times per month over the past year, and in June
1997 presented a Progress Report to City Services Committee and subsequently to City
Council. At its meeting on July 14, 1997, City Council adopted Clause 58 of Report No.9
of the City Services Committee, with a minor amendment. The key recommendations are
as follows:
0389 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
"1. City Council indicate its objective and policy is to stop all untreated
combined sewer overflow, stormwater and sewer flows discharging into our
waterways, ravines, ponds and Lake Ontario and that this be achieved
through a combination of structural and non-structural means.
2. The following principles be confirmed as the basis against which
expenditures on stormwater management projects are measured:
a) Green infrastructure is the preferred means of restoring ecological
health.
b) Getting rain out of the drain is a priority strategy.
c) Rain is a resource.
d) Pollution prevention is the most effective means of mitigating water
quality problems.
e) Non-structural ecosystem-based approaches are a cost-effective
means of restoring health to our waters.
f) Public participation is essential to cooperative support and planning.
Staff reports to Council and Committees of Council should assess public
and private undertakings in light of these principles.
3. Approval be given to develop Implementation Plans for three (3)
Demonstration Projects as described in more detail in the report (June 10,
1997) from the Commissioner of City Works Services to determine the
feasibility of applying various Non-Structural and Natural System Methods
for SWM and CSO control and demonstrate the potential reduction of storm
water run-off and water pollution which can be achieved through such
methods, at a total estimated cost of $300,000.00 with funds to be
provided in 1997 from the Sewer Reserve Account...
5. The Storm Water Group be confirmed as a special committee and re-
appointed, with the principal functions of providing advice and direction to
City staff on natural systems relating to stormwater and CSO management,
and commenting on initiatives and proposals related to stormwater.
Consideration should be given to expanding citizen representation on the
committee.. .
7. Approval be given for the use of a comprehensive outreach and
communication program that reflects the principles outlined in the report
(June 9, 1997) from the Storm Water Group so that programs to enhance
the water quality are easy to understand and implement, and that the
Commissioner of City Works Services, in consultation with the Corporate
Communications, report on such a program... "
The remaining recommendations directed further investigation by City staff into the
feasibility and legal requirements associated with modifications to existing City bylaws
and programs.
August 15, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 0390
The three demonstration projects are to take place at: 1) combined and storm sewersheds
north of Bloor Street to Dundas Street between Runnymede Road and Keele Street; 2)
combined and storm sewersheds north and east of the David Balfour Park System, south
of the Mount Pleasant Cemetery and easterly to the City limits; and 3) Garrison Creek
Demonstration Project - for which exact sewershed boundaries need to be established -
involves open space park and school sites along the Garrison Creek system. The
demonstration sites will be the focus of intensive application of existing City programmes
and additional activities suggested by the Storm Water Group, with the intent of reducing
combined sewer overflows and storm sewer contamination.
MTRCA staff are very supportive of the principles and recommendations outlined in the
Progress Report and as adopted by City Council. They are consistent with direction set by
the watershed strategies of the Don and Humber Watershed Task Forces and the Metro
Toronto and Region RAP, all of which emphasize the importance of managing storm water
at source to the extent possible. "Natural systems" measures will help to restore a more
natural hydrology in our urban watercourses and improve water quality, habitat, and
overall ecosystem health.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
There is opportunity for continued MTRCA representation and involvement as a member of
the Storm Water Group. Areas for MTRCA assistance could include: technical advice
during the planning and implementation of demonstration projects, monitoring,
communications, and information sharing with upstream municipalities.
For information contact:
Sonya Meek, ext. 253.
RES. #085/97 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #3/97
The minutes of Meeting #3/97 held June 19, 1997 of the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information.
Moved by: Bev Salmon
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #3/97 held June 19, 1997, be received.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0391 Watershed Management Advisory Board #6/97 August 15, 1997
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
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUCEMENTS
(a) The Official Opening of the Don Valley Brick Works Opening will be held on
October 19, 1997. For further information please contact Adele Freeman at
extension 238.
(b) The Humber Watershed Alliance will hold its first meeting on October 21, 1997.
For further information please contact Lia Lappano at Extension 292 or Gary
Wilkins at Ext. 211.
(c) On October 23, 1997, The 4th Annual Charles Sauriol Environmental Trust Fund
Dinner will be held at Weston Prince Hotel in downtown Toronto. For further
information please contact Waneeta Robertson at Ext. 276.
(d) Conservation Ontario will be holding its first Golf Tournament at the Board of Trade
on September 22, 1997. Please contact Craig Mather at Ext. 240 for further
information.
TERMINA TION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:48 a.m. on August 15, 1997.
Lorna Bissell Craig Mather
Vice-Chair Secretary-Treasurer
Ipl
~
, the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #7/97
September 19, 1997 Page D392
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, September 19, 1997. In the
absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, the
Chair of the Authority, Richard O'Brien, called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
PRESENT
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Joan King .................................................. Member
Jim McMaster ............................................... Member
Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES. #086/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THA T the Minutes of Meeting #6/97, held August 15 , 1997, be received . . .. CARRIED
0393 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter, dated September 15, 1997 from Mr. Trevor D'Souza regarding ongoing
negotiations between the Authority and Mr. D'Souza and the erosion of his
property.
(b) A letter, dated September 4, 1997 from Drew Westwater, City Clerk for the City of
Scarborough, urging the Authority to undertake remedial construction on sections
of the Highland Creek behind some properties at Seven Oaks Community in
Scarborough.
RES. #087/97 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Bev Salmon
Seconded by: Joan King
THA T the above-noted correpondence (a) be received;
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to prepare a
report on the "formula" used in deciding the contribution of homeowners, when the
Authority carries out slope stabilization or remedial work encroaching on the homeowners
property, most specifically in the cases of Mr. Trevor D'Souza and Burgundy CourtlWeston
Road Project in the City of North York;
AND FURTHER THAT after considerable discussion by the Members of the Board, that
staff be directed to continue negotiations with Mr. Trevor D'Souza to work towards an
agreement to carry out slope stabilization on his property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
RES. #088/97 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Bev Salmon
Seconded by: Joan King
THA T the above-noted correpondence (b) be received;
AND FURTHER THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be
directed to prepare a report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the erosion
of Highland Creek behind some properties in the Seven Oaks Community ..... CARRIED
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0394
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
RES. #089/97 - METRO TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Spadina Quay Wetland Creation Project. The Spadina Quay Wetland
Creation project be approved by the Authority and $50,000 be
allocated to this project under the Metro Toronto Remedial Action
Plan Implementation.
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY that the Spadina Quay Wetland Creation
Project be approved;
THAT Metro RAP funds of $50,000 be allocated in support of this project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to assist the City of Toronto in the implementation
of this project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Toronto Bay at one time supported a broad variety of fish and wildlife habitat. Historically
these important habitats were a combination of the sand peninsula and the many lagoons
and bays of the Toronto Islands. Along the north shore and to the east of Toronto Bay in
Ashbridge's Bay, there once existed a broad expanse of wetlands. Over time, these
habitats have changed due to the many pressures of a growing city and the development
of a major port.
Today the north shore of the Inner Harbour can be characterized by a series of existing
embayments bordered by vertical seawalls and a deeply dredged near shore zone. The
existing conditions are not conducive to productive fish and wildlife habitat, with the
exception of the Spadina Marina. The Spadina Marina is a small boat basin located
adjacent to the project site. The marina has encapsulated a portion of the shoreline and a
shallow and gradual sloping near shore profile had developed. These conditions provide a
degree of protection from the harsh wave environment of the Inner Harbour. This
protected environment is now fostering the development of extensive submerged aquatic
macrophytes and an improving resident fish community. There have been numerous and
verified accounts of mature northern pike frequenting this location in the spring of the
year.
0395 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
The Spadina Quay Parklands are the latest addition to the City of Toronto's 40 acre
Harbourfront Parks System. Building on the success of the 1995 Harbour Square Park
shoreline project, the City is proposing shoreline habitat enhancement along the eastern
portion of the Spadina Quay Parklands bordered by the marina to the south and Spadina
Quay to the east. The proposal will transform a barren parking lot into a diverse and
ecologically stable wetland that provides a variety of terrestrial and aquatic plant
communities. Breaks in the existing dockwall will assist in establishing physical and
vegetative conditions that are conducive to high quality northern pike spawning habitat.
It is intended that the new shoreline wetland habitat at this location will bring enjoyment
to the many people who live, work and visit in the area and develop a special identity for
the Harbourfront Parks System. The proposed water's edge boardwalk and viewing
platform will showcase the restoration of functional fish and wildlife habitat in a highly
urbanized sector of the Toronto waterfront. This will undoubtably increase public
awareness and provide educational opportunities related to fish and wildlife in the Inner
Harbour. The project will also provide an area for the Harbourfront community to
participate in a public planting event. We are optimistic that this project will provide a
meaningful venue for local school students to grow wetland plants under the Aquatic
Plants Program.
RATIONALE
The remnant habitats that still exist within the Inner Harbour are generally concentrated in
and around the Toronto Islands. This project will create a new wetland along the north
shore of the Inner Harbour in a highly visible area. This project, close to the downtown
core, will highlight the significance and importance of Great Lakes wetlands. The Spadina
Quay Parklands including the proposed wetland will establish a softer wetland shoreline in
contrast to the existing seawalls. This location is an excellent spot to create a wetland
because it is relatively isolated from the influences of local storm sewers. This reduces
the potential for poor water quality conditions, odour, and concerns over contaminants.
The habitat that has developed over the past few years in the Spadina Marina will
complement the development of a wetland in the Spadina Parklands. Many species of fish
and wildlife will utilize the newly created wetland because of it close proximity to the
aquatic weeds and protected conditions within the nearby marina. This wetland habitat
will provide the shallow water and flooded vegetation required by spawning northern pike.
We know from our environmental monitoring efforts that there are seasonal concentration
of northern pike in the vicinity of the Spa din a Marina. We have verified accounts received
from anglers that fish in the spring season are found in spawning condition. This project
is designed to provide spawning and nursery conditions for northern pike which will
enhance the quality and diversity of the local fish community.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0396
FINANCIAL DETAILS
For 1997-98, funding for this project has been identified from Environment Canada's Great
Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project
and the City of Toronto as follows:
City of Toronto $80,000
Metro RAP $50,000
Environment Canada's Great Lakes CleanUp Fund $30,000
I Total I $160,000 I
The total projected project cost is estimated at $160,000. The funding from Environment
Canada and the Metro RAP will be administered by the Authority. The overall project is to
be coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Toronto and
MTRCA's Environmental Services Section Staff. In addition to this funding, staff from the
City and the MTRCA have actively pursued additional financial support from groups like
the Toronto Star Great Salmon Hunt and the Canadian National Sportsmen's Show.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
This wetland will be a combination of open water and emergent vegetation. It will be the
easterly terminus for a traditional City styled park and provide a unique transition from a
manicured area to a wild and natural habitat. To achieve this wetland feature, portions of
the site will be excavated in the Fall of 1997. Some portions of the excavation will be
below existing water levels and the remainder of the site will be gradually graded to
provide the proper topography for wetland plant communities. The area will be planted in
the Spring of 1998, with the desired wetland plants and to enhance the diversity of these
planted areas, tree stumps, log tangles, and anchored trees will be placed throughout,
providing important critical habitat for wildlife. The selection of appropriate aquatic plant
material for this project will be based on the composition of wetland communities along
the north shore of Lake Ontario and specifically within the Greater Toronto Area. The
graded areas will be inoculated with a variety of suitable aquatic plants including soft stem
bulrush (Scirpus validus), arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) and Cattails (Typha sp.). Material
will be established through a combination of nursery stock, Aquatic Plants Program,
mature transplants and seeding.
For information contact:
Gord MacPherson, Ext. 246
0397 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
RES. #D90/97 - LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION
PROJECT 1995-1999
Endorsement of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College
Area Master Design and Implementation Plan, April 1997, prepared
by the City of Etobicoke.
-
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Lakeshore
Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College Area Master Design and Implementation Plan, April
1997, prepared by the City of Etobicoke be received:
THAT the Authority endorse the Master Design Plan as outlined in the Lakeshore
Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College Area Master Design and Implementation Plan report as
it supports the initiatives and strategy directions of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's approved Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-
1999 and is consistent with the approved Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park Master
Plan:
THA T the implementation strategy be modified to streamline the proposed Design and
Management Committee and the City of Etobicoke appointed Public Advisory Group with
the establishment of a single "'Working Committee- made up of agency staff and key
community members to ensure appropriate site design implementation:
AND FURTHER THAT the City of Etobicoke and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
be so advised. .............................................. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 1997, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority received a
request from the Council for the City of Etobicoke for endorsement of the
recommendations contained in their consultant's report on the Master Design and
Implementation Plan for the Humber CollegelLakeshore Hospital Lands.
The study was undertaken by the City of Etobicoke as a result of a July 1995 order from
the Ontario Municipal Board which set out urban design policies and specifically directed
that a master design and implementation plan for the sub-area be prepared. The area of
the study was defined as the publicly owned lands south of Lake Shore Boulevard West
between Twenty Third Street and Thirteenth Street and including Colonel Samuel Smith
Waterfront Park.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0398
The Master Design and Implementation Plan for the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber
College Area was prepared for the City of Etobicoke by a design consulting team led by
Moore George Associates. Throughout the course of the study, the consultants reported
to a steering committee comprised of staff from the public landowners in the area. The
steering committee included the MTRCA, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto,
Metropolitan Separate School Board (MSSB), Humber College and the Ontario Realty
Corporation. In addition, a community meeting and a separate community workshop were
held to receive public input and comment for the study.
The purpose of the Master Design and Implementation Plan was to guide the development
activities of the various public agencies owning lands on the Lakeshore Grounds. It should
be noted that the Master Plan will not be adopted as a formal document by the City of
Etobicoke and it will not form part of the Secondary Plan.
Study Goal
A single goal was established that is essential for appropriate development of the site:
To conserve the heritage features, evoke historical land uses and restore
ecological integrity to the site while providing a place that is distinctive,
accessible and conducive to the public's education, recreation and well-
being.
Site Management Units and Guidelines
The site was divided into six management areas (Fig. 1) and guidelines were established
for planning, development and maintenance activities in each area.
1. Heritage Conservation Unit Guidelines
- The landscape and buildings within this area should be carefully protected and
restored respecting the original design intent.
- Horticultural planting should be permitted and encouraged within the ravine area.
The feasibility of restoring the previous watercourse should be examined.
- Landscape restoration around the Quadrangle should include re-planting of street
trees, restored foundation plantings and annual beds reflecting turn of the century
patterns.
- No new buildings should be permitted beyond the limits of the existing Quadrangle.
- - The Pedestrian-and vehicte-circulatjon system Should use the .historical circulation
routes as much as possible.
- The original orchards should be re-established and maintained.
0399 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
- Landscape modifications within the area should maintain the openness, spatial
qualities and the visual access to the waterfront.
- The landscape should be maintained as a mowed grass ground plane with groupings
of deciduous and coniferous trees.
- Perimeter buffer planting should be installed adjacent to the eastern property line to
provide increased privacy and spatial definition.
- The building restorations should be guided by the Heritage Protocols. The former
porches and the tower of the Administration building should be restored.
2. Landscape Regeneration Unit Guidelines
- The landscape within this unit should be managed to encourage the natural
succession process, biological diversification, and habitat creation.
- Generally, no new buildings should be permitted in this area.
- Native vegetation species should be planted.
- The landscape in this unit should be self-sustaining with a minimum amount of
human intervention.
3. Park Transformation Unit Guidelines
- This site will be transformed to accommodate new uses.
- A ..:I:.. 30 metre setback from existing and proposed roadways and property lines
should be maintained(except 20 m where the MSSB site has been reduced at the
south end).
- Building envelope III is reserved specifically to accommodate the future Health Care
Services if needed.
- Building heights should not exceed three storeys.
- Develop buildings in a scale and style that is complementary to the architectural
character of the Quadrangle complex. New buildings should be distinguishable
from the original buildings while respecting and enhancing the spirit of the
architecture of the Quadrangle.
- Building mass should reflect the built form pattern created by the complex of
cottages in the Quadrangle. Repetition, Rhythm, proportion and enclosure are
design principles that should be applied.
- Parking required for new buildings should be located underground or should be
integrated into the landscape and screened in sensitive areas. No on-street parking
should be permitted.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0400
- The Assembly Hall is proposed to be refurbished to create a community cultural
centre. This includes exterior areas adjacent to the building which are to be
designed to accommodate related public uses. A feasibility study should be
commissioned by the City and used to guide the redevelopment of this project.
- The Power House is proposed to be retained and refurbished to create a park
centre. This includes parking, outdoor seating areas, park services, recreation
facilities, pleasure skating track, and an access point to the walkway system and
Amusement Green.
- The roadways, pathways, site furniture, and lighting system should be similar in
character to those of the Heritage Conservation unit. A historical and traditional
design style of light standards and furniture should be selected.
- The park transformation unit development should extend the campus atmosphere
that prevails east of Kipling to the western part of the site. This will help to unify
the east and west sectors along he Kipling Avenue axis.
4. Waterfront Transition Guidelines
- This area should create a harmonious transition between the Heritage Conservation
and Landscape Regeneration units.
- The former shoreline should be expressed in the landscape design.
- Planting of native grasses and forbes along the trail verges should be considered.
- A continuous, clearly defined pedestrian and bicycle corridor, connecting east and
west boundaries of the site should be developed. The key intersections with the
north-south trail systems should be articulated.
5. Boat Club and Basin Guidelines
- The site of the Lakeshore Yacht Club and the potential expansion area should be
managed to accommodate the needs of recreational boaters.
- Public access along the boat basin promenade should be maintained.
- Landscape buffers should be established to screen automobile parking.
6. Primarv.Strore1ine Guide1ines
- A diverse range of visitor experiences and views should be provided along the
shoreline area.
- Cobble beaches and armoured headlands should be made accessible with a
continuous walkway that is connected with the main trail system.
0401 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
- Vegetation should be kept relatively low between the walkway and shoreline so
that views of the lake and distant shores are not obstructed.
- Seating should be provided at convenient intervals and locations along the shoreline
trail.
Study Implementation
The consultants recommended that a Design and Management Committee be established
with representation from each of the landowners and the Health Care and Social Service
agencies. It was proposed that this committee would operate within terms of reference
set out in a written formal agreement negotiated between the owners. In addition, a
Public Advisory Group of local and regional residents representing various interests would
be appointed by Etobicoke Council to provide input to the Design and Management
Committee.
RA TIONALE
Authority staff have participated on the Master Design and Implementation Plan for the
Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College Area Steering Committee and provided
input during the formulation of the report.
The report has incorporated the Authority's approved Master Plan for Colonel Samuel
Smith Waterfront Park and the proposed guidelines are consistent with the Authority's
Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999 for the Park.
In addition, the report adds strength to the Authority's work as it:
. reflects the objectives and policies of the Metropolitan Waterfront Plan and the
Greenspace Strategy;
. provides useful information and guidance for future Authority projects and
programs on the site; and
. reinforces and adds rationale to work that the Authority is doing or planning now
and in the future.
The only aspect of the report that should be modified is in the implementation strategy.
The preference would be to "streamline" the proposed Design and Management Committee
and the separate Public Advisory Group into one working committee, that functioned
without a written formal agreement between the partners. The new working committee
would review and provide input into proposed projects and developments within the design
block. This adjustment to the Implementation Strategy has been reviewed with City of
Etobicoke Planning Department and Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Culture staff. This
would provide a more efficient and effective way of co-ordinating the implementation of
the Master Design Plan.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0402
WORK TO BE DONE
This report and recommendations should be forwarded to The Municipality of Metropolitan
and the City of Etobicoke. Authority staff will be available to sit on the "Working
Committee".
For information contact:
Larry Field, ext.243 & Mike Bender, ext. 287
0403 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
Attachment - Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital
-.-.- i ~ ! ! ~ ~ i ~
; j i ; ~ : i :
~:~!~,-=--'\' J ''iJ-.Ji-l ~I --- L1....:
.......- ~..._....,.
........... - (
[
}:
---------..-...
i~
----------.
I
i
/
6)
-~ -
- -- -
LaC"ND ~ ~~ ~ :t ~
~ -..-.- i :; :: -r- ~
---....---
..... -t - ..... -
(;I -- .,-_. --
-- --..-
- .-...--.-
SITE MANAGEMENT UNITS :~,,:,"~.::':..~".D1'''.,
1. Hentage Conserva1ion :::::::::=.._.._
2. Landscape Regeneration ._._..~.._._
3. Park Transfonnation : ::..:-'::'~7~::'
4. Waterfront Transformation \ .....__._.._
5. Boat Club and Basin
6. Pnmary Shoreline Figure 1
.--- -...... ~
...,u'"TP.. DESIC:< MfD Il'oIl'I..E."U:.'n" ~ ~o,.. PLA:< , I
---. --
n_. SITE :\o(AX-\GE:'vfE~T t::'ilTS ---- ..___.n _~'_~II
...,---
.----.. =. '-;:.-. 'I
In".t."I.J\CUI..,I! ~Cr4IAnIC 'O~""'''l... otl;MSU '_--=L:..!CE iLa .....s.. . ,... ~3)no1ro.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0404
RES. #091/97 - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
Habitat Creation/Restoration Projects - Phase II 1997-1998
Approval of Phase II of the habitat creation/restoration projects to be
implemented at Tommy Thompson Park in 1997-1998.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1997-1998 Habitat
Creation/Restoration Projects at Tommy Thompson Park be approved;
THAT funding under the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project in the
order of $135,000 be allocated in support of Phase II of these habitat projects;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with implementation activities related to
Phase II of these projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1995, staff prepared three proposals outlining specific habitat creationlrestoration
projects for Tommy Thompson Park. These proposals were submitted for funding
consideration under Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund.
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 collective 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.
0405 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
Objectives
. 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:
. 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 involves the rehabilitation of an area at Tommy Thompson Park that has been
lakefilled and abandoned as part of the Park construction. The project site (approximately
3 ha) 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 is 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 includes landform grading, tree and shrub regeneration, and the inclusion
of structural habitat features using a variety of aggregate and woody materials.
Embavment 'c' Habitat Enhancement Proiect
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 include the construction of underwater shoals and reefs in this
location and diversify the shoreline area through wetland plantings.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0406
Aquatic structural habitat diversity will be achieved 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, and to provide
protection from wave action.
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.
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.
In 1996, funding was received from Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup
Fund for Phase I of each of these three habitat projects. This funding was matched with a
portion of MTRCA's allocation under the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan for a total of
$300,000. Implementation activities related to Phase I of each project were completed by
March 31 st, 1997.
Funding applications for Phase II of these projects were submitted to Environment
Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund during the spring of 1997. Approval has been
received for Phase \I of the Terrestrial Habitat Creation/Enhancement Project, and the
Embayment ~L-If8bilat EnfTBnr:emenr-ProjfJct. -Approva110r 'Phase -\I Of the Natural
Resource Area Habitat Enhancement Project is expected upon the completion of a
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Screening Report by Authority Staff.
0407 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will initiate the detailed planning and design preparation for Phase II of each project
upon receipt of written approval from Environment Canada. Details on design, habitat and
community types, target species and vegetation species selection have been developed
through a design workshop to be held in late August 1996 and were developed as part of
the Phase I planning for each project.
Site preparation and grading will be undertaken from November through February 1997 in
order to take advantage of existing MTRCA staff resources and to coordinate same within
existing work and project priorities.
Vegetation planting (aquatic and terrestrial) and regeneration will be undertaken during the
1998 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,
birdlife, 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.
. Advance the science of habitat creation/enhancement for transfer to other AGC's or
- areas-within the13reat-Lakes "Basin.
These projects represent several 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.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0408
FINANCIAL DETAILS
For 1997-1998, funding for these three projects has been identified from Environment
Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and under the Metro Toronto Remedial Action
Plan Implementation Project as follows:
Terrestrial Habitat Creation/Enhancement Project
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund $45,000 (appr
oved)
Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan $45,000
Embayment 'c' Habitat Enhancement Project
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund $45,000 (appr
oved)
Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan $45,000
Natural Resource Area Habitat Enhancement Project
Environment Canada's Great lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund $45,000
(pending CEAA Screening)
Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan $45,000
Total $270,000
For information contact:
Scott Jarvie, ext. 312
0409 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
RES. #092/97 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY
AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT
Burgundy Court/Weston Road Erosion Control Project
Humber River Watershed, City of North York
Construction of the Erosion Control works at the rear of Burgundy
Court and Weston Road Humber River Watershed, City of North York.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with
the construction of the erosion control works at the rears of Burgundy Court and Weston
Road, City of North York under the. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley snd
Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001" at a total budget of $ 325,000 subject to
receipt of all necessary approvals;
THAT the owners of 8-10 Burgundy Court contribute $2,000 towards the cost of the
works;
AND FURTHER THAT the owners provide permanent easements over that portion of their
property where the works are carried out. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Burgundy Court and Weston Road developments were constructed in the early 1980s
and consist of single family homes. The houses were erected along the crest of the
Humber River valley. The lots extend part way down the slope, while the balance of the
valley lands are owned by the Authority. A number of minor slope instability problems in
this general vicinity were brought to the Authority's attention in 1986. In the Spring of
1987, a large circular slope failure occurred at Burgundy Court affecting five properties,
Nos. 6 through 10. In addition, the properties 3030 to 3068 Weston Road and in particular
House Number 3068 have experienced slope stability problems since 1987.
In 1990, the Authority proceeded to carry out remedial works under the previous Class
Environmental Assessment, however, due to an inability to sign indemnity agreements
with all of the affected homeowners, the project was put on hold. In 1996, Authority staff
were approached by the homeowners of Burgundy Court and asked to reconsider doing
remedial works behind their homes. Staff met with the residents, re-evaluated the site, and
concluded that work was still warranted in order to protect the homes. In June of this year
Ecologistics Limited were retained to complete the design for the slope remedial works at
the rears of Burgundy Court and Weston Road following the Class Environmental
Assessment process. An open house/public meeting was held on July 29, 1997 at which
time the consultants presented an overview of their study findings and alternatives for
remedial works. Public input from this meeting, in addition to questionnaires that were
returned by individuals who attended the meeting, assisted the consultants in the
assessment of the preferred option. Meetings were held with representatives from the
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0410
approval/commenting agencies as input to assessing the alternatives. These included the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Culture Department and
Metropolitan Toronto Works Department.
The valley lands affected by the proposed remedial works fall in an area where the
Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Culture Department are planning to construct a formal
pedestrian pathway. Staff coordinated Ecologistics' design efforts with the Parks and
Culture Department to ensure compatibility of the two projects.
Construction access is proposed through lands owned by the Order of St. Basil abutting
Weston Road. Staff are in the process of finalizing a construction easement through their
lands.
RA TIONALE
The Burgundy Court site has been identified in the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project " as a priority based on the information gathered
through the Authority's ongoing erosion monitoring program.
The Authority's goal through this project is to:
"Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river
banks, valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural
attributes of the valley and lakefront settings"
Several of the key objectives outlined in the Authority's Erosion Control and Lake Ontario
Shoreline Program are:
(1 ) to implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect
public and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by
erosion;
(2) to implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to
protect the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and
terrestrial habitats adversely affected by the erosion;
(3) to design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem
approach for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable
public access adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible, be conducive to
maintenance, and enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources;
(4) to acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost
of remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property;
(5) to secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed
and where the lands are valuable additions to the green space systems;
(6) to protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated
terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and
0411 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
(7) to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any
other environmental protection legislation.
The design option being recommended addresses and achieves many of the objectives of
the Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project. Ecologistics Limited are in the process of
completing the Environmental Study in accordance with the Association of the
Conservation Authorities - Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion
Control Projects. This report will be filed for review and comments by the public.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
At the rear of 8-10 Burgundy Court the remedial works consist of constructing an
engineered slope buttress as shown on the attached plans. The compacted free draining fill
will be placed at a 3 Horizontal: 1 vertical slope inclination complete with internal drainage
system and then revegetated. This berm will be constructed at the base of the effected
slope on lands owned by the Authority. It is anticipated that fill material to construct the
earthen buttress will be in short supply, therefore it is proposed that material will be
excavated from the floodplain adjacent to the Humber River. This will allow work to
progress uninterrupted and will also result in the creation of an additional wetland habitat.
In addition, the slope will be planted with native shrubs and trees.
At the rear of 3068 Weston Road an armour stone retaining wall will be constructed to
support the failed section of the slope. The pedestrian trail proposed by the Metropolitan
Toronto Parks and Culture Department will be incorporated into the design of the remedial
works. Also proposed at this location are fisheries enhancement structures including
riparian plantings.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Ecologistics Limited in conjunction with staff developed cost estimates for the each
component of the remedial work. The estimated cost for the remedial works at Burgundy
Court is $150,000 and for Weston Road $175,000. This work will be carried out under
the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 -
2001 ".
Account No. 132-01 has been set up for this project.
For information contact:
Jim Tucker, ext. 247
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0412
Attachment # 1 - Burgundy Court
, ~\.:.
",the metropolitan toronto and region conservalton authonty
55I1olllnamd/lVe. dO.......-. onl8l10 m3n 154 (4161661.6600 FAX 661.0898
nnp:tlwww rmrca.on ca
4
.c
t:
".., 0
=
AREA OF
SLOPE INSTABILITY I
/
' . scale = 1: 1600
....... .
." ''', (/ /1/
. ~ f(
___ d.
? 'P'
"", r
I
J~
I
I
\
I
I
I
!
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace
0413 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
Attachment #2 - Burgundy Court
---- -- - -
g l' i::1 ':1 ~i:lr---m'~ !Ii II
~ - ~ ':. I _ I' II! '" ;ill ; I I
~ 1 ~ ~ ! ~ )1 I dl :! ;If. . !!f E wI' ;'
~ ~ ; E ; lQ ~ ~ _ /fi I I ~ JI ~ l!J ~: !!i! i I
E- . ,- I, I Cll.-' I .,
..:r -. ~ _ ~ " I I 1 t , I
...;..::;: 171 0 -.. ,-" - , -
c.! ': - l: ca .:: '-'1' I I I l'E- '(Jl 0 I
~1I ='0 _ ; _!--! I I CU CL ' !
-... 0 ~ u - . I 1:'- I - 0.. I I
~.= ~ ~ .. =' f '! I j, ~- 1.2,; :J I
=:5 = 171 ~:) ..n.." I f I: V1 1 u. Vl t, ~ I
; .. i; e: ~ I c I :.~ j ~ ~ ti. I '
1: '.c: 0 . I 0 - ,:: ..
; ~ - A 0 I 1/ .- E j (Jl I V1 I' I 0 I t I '
.0" ;. 0 - _ I - .... .- .- 0 u:. j - I '
~ ~ ~; ; ~_/{ ~ ~ -:. I W r: I tI1
" ; _ E ~ { 1...// III i I I - C I;:'
;: : g ;;.. .; :f./ - - = ~ I I 0 0 lo.. I
~~ - - ~ ~ ;:; i-// ~ L: ... I 11 I ~; ~ ~ :~I : :;
.2. 2:.. 0; 01 _ / II ~ J: ~ : '1_' J"O : -::! . '[ ~ ~
.'! ~;;;; ~ ~ ; - / 1;-- u -:: I ~ II il ' ill ~, it'll:
~ '5 ~ ~; ~... ; , /1 _ 0 a' . all ~ I !. ~' ~ .' . I
~ u ~~~ a~ Z' E ~,/-L // _ S w ~ " ,-,- .,... !I~il ]/;;'\'111 I Iii Ill; i
~ . ... ~ - ; 'II 0 - -= _ .... L.J ' '! . ; L2!iJ .. . .
...i g'O'tf 22 :2 ::I I~', .0. ~o:,l"l
a ~ ~ 0 ~ .. 2 ~ ~ ~ I /1 0- ~ ~ ~ l.o..
=~ '2c iE.~ ~t 1/ :~- ..:.
12 :] 0 "5 2 '::; - - I' E ~'IJ
a... ...,E..c 5- ,'-:::: ~
:: ~f~ !: ~~ (I' ~~~' ~'a~
~; 2:~ : go i ~ :5 ;.3 ~':r;;
l!l !lqr;!, ~i ---, / ~ ~;
... -' -..._ i..
, _.-: i - f.
.,- ,j / ^ ~.
..... , ~..... !
'\ ,'.. , f.
'j . , <
:, a ,.l.., ,.. _ 5 ;",--
, ; (.q. I' .;. !..;.."----- ,
~~- '-I ';./'? ;.
. .;;,. r"~ . ,~
r ;_ .0
, / /': .~'~ l ,~
,,, \~..:-:;- \ ,; "
:; .A'"'~-:' ):
.;- '-y""'" 0 l ;. ~ I
~5 -: ., .:.;: '"6::;21,'
_ , -- ...... e . < ' I
~, 0 ~ ~ _ _, J 0 .
~ u ~ ,# -- _~,.,. : ..... ;), , ,
cD , ______ '-' :1_,' l' il .g' , CD\ J I
I ,--# "--...--;-... ~~ 0 .
4.... ' "" "~' 'r . , EI , ~, . \ '
'~. ~. 9 V., f :-;. i 0 \
"^' I r ~ , I
---. . '" , t', . '\ , I
- -........... 1 j, I
~ \:\. .'/ ,~/~ .:' J i!, ", I
, ~,.-..,...-" , "". .... f " I '
\ " 'I' I
' ,',..-.' 'I' I
\. -, 9 , ." ,
.-J- ....,~ '
-=---, - ,/ '-~-'. . I j
~ '-.), / / (, II
r-. ---:,"~'./' / I (' (21 / (
/ I, 'I !
. " I I
''''-'"1 _~ "( ;' ,I l I
~'"" ''--- ,\ I I
;;.- '\.---- ;;;6o .... ; ~_ i
I . __--. -._~ I ~;: 1.......-1
:' ~. I l~, I i~ -: (;
--/~ ~ ' I -; g I, '
."J' -- I 04 r:: I
~---:- -- '\. I ;~ I'
_ ~, .~ I .,' - - 0
-' ~ -;~~~~: .-.:;.:;) ! ~.. \ :
- ,- ; : ~~ r1
, . , ' I ,
-- -- ,-' ~..1-.l.. Y
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0414
RES. #093/97 - SUGARBUSH DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED PROPOSED
PARKWAY BELT WEST AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Don River Watershed, City of Vaughan
Application for the deletion of lands from the Parkway Belt West Plan
(PBWP) consisting of two parcels totalling approximately 7.41
hectares of the Sugarbush Developments Limited property (formerly
Baker Farms) at the north west corner of Highway 7 and Bathurst
Street, in the City of Vaughan.
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the
Parkway Belt Exemption Application for the Sugarbush property be received;
THA T the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, the City of Vaughan, the Region of
York and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council be advised that consideration of this
application is premature pending the disposition of the balance of the Sugarbush property,
inlcuding the Baker's Woods ESA #128;
AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff be directed to meet with the owner and the
appropriate municipal and provincial staff towards the satisfactory resolution of this
matter.
AMENDMENT
RES. #094/97
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THA T the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph one of the main motion:
THAT the Authority confirm its position that the Baker's Woods Environmentally
Significant Area #128 should be protected; and
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE- MAl N-MOTION,AS-AME-N DED , -WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
0415 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/96, held June 14, 1996 the Authority considered a report
addressing a number of referrals to the City of Vaughan Official Plan (OPA 400) to be dealt
with at the Ontario Municipal Board.
One of these referrals (Referral 9) related to the Baker Farm property situated at the north
west corner of Bathurst Street and Highway 7, in addition to the City of Vaughan's
woodlot acquisition policy. At the time, the Province was pursuing the acquisition of
these lands through the Ontario Realty Corporation; recently, however, Baker Farms
Limited has been in negotiations with Sugarbush Developments Limited regarding the sale
of their lands.
The entire Baker Farm parcel consists of approximately 200 acres of land, north of
Highway 7 extending from Bathurst Street to Dufferin Street in the City of Vaughan. A
portion of the holdings are within the Bakers Woods Environmentally Significant Area
(ESA 128) which were adopted as part of the Authority's inventory of Environmentally
Significant Areas at Authority Meeting #2/95, held March 31, 1995. This same area has
been designated as an ANSI by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
PARKWA Y BELT WEST AMENDMENT APPLICATION
The purpose of the Parkway Belt West Amendment application is for the deletion of two
parcels from lands designated Special Complimentary Use Area and identified as 'Sugar
Bush' in the Plan. The parcels are situated at the north-east corner ( + 1- 2.14 ha.) and
south-west corner (+ 1- 5.27 ha.) of the property (see Attachment 1). The disposition of
the balance of the Sugar Bush (+ 1- 28.24 ha.) is not provided.
The objectives of the Parkway Belt West Plan applicable to the Sugar Bush property
include the following Implementing Actions:
Section 6.5.3 (m) In the Special Complimentary Use Area located in Lot 11, Concession
II, Town of Vaughan, ensure the continuation of the existing use of
the 'Sugar Bush'. However, should the existing use be endangered
or should the owner request, the area will be acquired by the
Province.
The intent is to remove these two parcels of land and incorporate same into the overall
Block Plan for the Langstaff Woods Community, which encompasses lands surrounding the
Sugar Bush north of Highway 7 to Rutherford Road, between Bathurst Street and Dufferin
Street. Authority staff are in receipt of the'Master-Environmental Servicing Plan and
support documentation related to the Langstaff Woods Community and are currently
reviewing this information as per the requirements of the City of Vaughan Official Plan.
The balance of the Sugar Bush, which constitutes the majority of the Bakers Woods
Environmentally Significant Area (ESA 128), was the subject of further discussion between
the City of Vaughan, Region of York, MTRCA and the Province. Specifically, the
acquisition of these lands was to be addressed by the Province at the time of filing a
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0416
Parkway Belt West Exemption application, however it does not appear that any disposition
related to these lands has been provided.
CONCLUSION
Standard protocol in considering applications of this nature is to undertake a field
investigation to confirm that the limits identified are in accordance with the program and
policy interests of the Authority, which has not been completed to date. Additionally,
supporting rationale and/or studies are required to justify the removal of the lands and
possible impacts to the ESA.
Given that these matters have not been appropriately resolved, and in light of the
significance of the overall Sugar Bush property, staff are of the opinion that a
comprehensive approach to the preservation and protection of the property should be
completed prior to any individual amendments being granted for these lands. To this end,
staff will continue to work with the owner's agents, the Province, the City of Vaughan and
Region of York to seek the satisfactory resolution of this matter.
Report prepared by:
Luch Ognibene, ext. 284
0417 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97
September 19, 1997
Attachment #1 - Sugarbush
.-- ATTACHMENT 1
., ,
RUTHERFORD ;:ro.
. - - . - . .
I ; i:
I j, 'I
I: ~, : ~ ;
'--7 ,
"
\',
..... ---~~~r"-=-
- - - -
I-
l1J
:.u
~
-
/'J
.1_
'"
""
..
I
Q
~
b
Q
'=-
.:~ ~
-:=
i ~
I ~
I
Q
'-=
.:;:
~
r\ \ G r\ 'N po. '{ ~
~ IN57:7'JT:CN,l,.
~' ". ~l-oCCLS
:lementary....,st!C:lit:ar(!a .. 51!oarate
~ ?ARKS 5
~ NP N"hood OP JISt:'1Ct Figure
LECEND WOODLOT .l. 3U;:=ER
ea CP:."l S?~C: .l. SWM?
BLOW OE'ISiT'Y RESiCE.,,7:,l,L E:ZJ METRO ;:lESERVCiR LAND USE PLAN
MEOIUM OelSITY ;:lESiCE."n,l,L ~ ARTERI,l,L RO,l,aS
:::m MIXED USE ~ PRIMARY ~CAaS
- CCMMERC:,l,L ,...., GREE."lWAY
NC ~,l'hOOd He Hu;nwav c: :.vnverlenCB
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0418
RES. #095/97 - THE CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 400
Referrals to the Ontario Municipal Board. Authorization for staff to
represent Authority interests before the Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing on referrals related to the City of Vaughan Official Plan (OPA
400).
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to represent
Authority interests before the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the referrals related to
the City of Vaughan Official Plan;
THAT the firm of Gardiner, Roberts be retained to provide legal representation for the
Authority at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing related to these planning applications;
AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to pursue the resolution of Authority issues in
cooperation with relevant parties andlor participants prior to the Hearing. . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/96, held June 14, 1996 the Authority considered a report
addressing a number of referrals to the City of Vaughan Official Plan (OPA 400) to be dealt
with at the Ontario Municipal Board.
Since that time a number of referrals related to OPA 400 have arisen, specific to lands in
and around Paramount Canada's Wonderland and the proposed Vaughan City Centre, north
of Rutherford Road, between Highway 400 and Jane Street (see Attachment 1). Two
referrals of specific interest to the MTRCA are summarized below.
Paramount Canada's Wonderland
A portion of Paramount Canada's Wonderland's (PAW) holdings are subject to an Official
Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law which would provide for the future expansion of the
theme park and its core entertainment operations north of Major Mackenzie Drive.
The lands in question are bisected by a tributary of the West Don River which drains in
excess of 125 hectares. These lands are regulated pursuant to the Authority's Fill,
Construction & Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158). No
provision has been incorporated into either the proposed zoning by-law or official plan
amendment to address the restoration, protection and enhancement of the watercourse
and/or the extent of flooding affecting said lands.
Authority staff has filed a preliminary issues list and a witness statement in relation to
these planning matters, and have been involved in on-going discussions with the owner's
representatives regarding the possible resolution of this matter.
0419 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
Jane Northwest Rutherford Realty Limited
lands immediately south of Paramount Canada's Wonderland, north of Rutherford Road,
between Jane Street and Highway 400, are subject to an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning
By-law, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit residential uses, in addition to a number of
mixed uses including retail, light industrial, recreation, entertainment, office, hotel, school,
institutional, park and valley lands.
The lands in question are traversed by two tributaries of the West Don River which are
regulated pursuant to the Authority's Fill, Construction & Alteration to Waterways
Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158), These lands have been going through a secondary
plan process, and the exact limits of development have yet to be finalized.
Authority staff has filed a preliminary issues list and a witness statement in relation to
these planning matters, and have been involved in on-going discussions with the owner's
representatives regarding the possible resolution of this matter.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, it is recommended that Authority staff continue to seek the resolution
of these matters with the relevant parties, failing which they be authorized to represent
Authority interests before the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on these referrals.
Report prepared by:
luch Ognibene, ext. 284
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0420 .
Attachment #1 - OPA 400
.......-., ... ~ _.. 1
~ . Cnf".' ~ lor '-'fr. ATTACHMENT 1
- !'lIUoo- _1:IOOllD
l'
_. s.-.~ -
-
- , ,
- ' ..........
- ~~---
--_.-- "5~
- ,
-
-
,
-
,
. -
I
-
- .-
"
;". - -
.. .'
- -
J\ ( . ,
. :...
.
-
I"
."
\.
\
..
I
... ~~
--.
0421 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
RES. #096/97 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Interview Process
Selection of members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board
to interview watershed residents for appointment to the Humber
Watershed Alliance.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Joan King
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Mr. Paul Raina, a Member of the
Watershed Management Advisory Board, be appointed, along with the Director of the
Watershed Management Division, to form a Selection Committee to interview watershed
residents for appointment to the Humber Watershed Alliance;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on September 26, 1997 on the
proposed membership of the Humber Watershed Alliance for endorsement and formal
appointment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/97, held on May 30, 1997, the Terms of Reference for the
Humber Watershed Alliance were adopted.
Membership on the Humber Watershed Alliance will include the Chair of the MTRCA,
watershed municipalities, watershed residents, business associations and other public
agencies. In total, the Watershed Alliance will not exceed 60 members.
Five watershed resident representatives from each of the five subwatersheds (Main, West,
East, Lower and Black Creek) will be selected to sit on the Alliance for a total of 25
members. The following criteria will be used in the selection process:
. demonstrated interest in the watershed or community through affiliation with local
committees such as Environmental Advisory Committees, LACACs, Local Business
Improvement Associations, Trails Associations, Humber Regeneration Projects or
with a background in education;
. willingness to meet potential time and work commitments;
. geographical representation within the subwatersheds;
. professional expertise or knowledge of the watershed in any area which would
assist in the implementation of Legacy and A Call to Action.
These positions were advertised in local newspapers, on the internet and through a mass
mailing to reach the widest possible audience.
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0422
In addition, Information Sessions were scheduled on the evenings of September 9, 10 and
11, 1997 in three strategically located communities. These sessions provided an
opportunity for the public to familiarize themselves with the history, purpose and structure
of the Humber Watershed Alliance and to encourage participation on the Alliance.
The deadline for receipt of applications is September 17, 1997 and interviews will be held
on September 23, 24 and 25, 1997. Once the membership for the Alliance is confirmed,
it will be brought to the attention of the Authority members at their meeting on September
26,1997.
DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
The first meeting of the Humber Watershed Alliance will be held on October 21, 1997.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, ext.211
RES. #097/97 - LEGACY: A STRATEGY FOR A HEAL THY HUMBER
Nomination of the valley and stream corridor within the Village of
Bolton as a Community Action Site.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the concept of a Community
Action Site along the Humber River within the Village of Bolton be endorsed;
THAT staff be directed to assist the community with developing and implementing a
Community Action Site in the Village of Bolton to meet the objectives of Legacy: A
Strategy for a Healthy Humber:
AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Caledon, Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association and
Caledon Heritage Committee be so advised.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1996, the Authority endorsed the Humber Watershed Task Force reports
entitled, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document entitled, A
Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber.
The concept of Community Action Sites was included in the strategy document to
illustrate how the documents' recommended objectives and actions could be achieved
within local communities.
0423 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 September 19, 1997
Sun Row Park in the City of Etobicoke; Caledon East Wetland in the Town of Caledon; and
Lake Wilcox in the Town of Richmond Hill are three Community Action Sites which have
already been developed and are in the process of being implemented. There are many
other potential sites and it is important that these initiatives be encouraged to achieve a
healthy Humber River Watershed in the future.
The Humber Valley Heritage Trail Association has nominated the ..Humber River Valley
within the Village of Bolton as a potential Community Action Site. The Caledon Heritage
Committee, at its last regular meeting, endorsed the following resolution:
uTHA T the Caledon Heritage Committee support, in principal, the creation of a community
action plan for the Humber in Bolton's Urban Community; and
THA T Caledon Heritage Committee review the Community Action Site Cultural Heritage
Component and, finally, the Caledon Heritage Committee will provide membership for the
Steering Committee."
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Authority staff will provide in-kind support to assist the community with the development
of a Community Action Site along the Humber River in the Village of Bolton. Planning
assistance is also expected from the public, interest groups, municipalities and other
agencies. Sources of funding will be sought once the required work is determined for the
site.
DETAILS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE
. Identify the boundaries of the Community Action Site;
. Invite interested stakeholders to an issues scoping session;
. Identify potential actions to show how the natural and cultural heritage, recreation,
education and economic needs and opportunities of the site can be addressed;
. Prepare a conceptual plan illustrating where specific actions could be carried out;
. Obtain the support of the community for the recommended actions;
. Establish a steering committee to implement the recommended actions;
. Seek resources to implement the recommended actions.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, ext.211
September 19, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #7/97 0424
SECTION IV - FOR INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #098/97 - DON V ALLEY BRICK WORKS
Progress Report - Verbal Report
Moved by: Joan King
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THAT the verbal report on the Don Valley Brick Works, presented by Mr. Brian Denney,
Director of the Watershed Managment Division, be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
(a) On Saturday, October 4, 1997 Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) with be hosting
an evening slide presentation and a guided Coyote Howl: MHowling with Cbyotes
at Tommy Thompson Park". The event begins at 8:00 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. rain or
shine. The slide presentation is being held at Bruce Public School, 51 Larchmount
Avenue, and attendees will be bused to TTP. Further information can be obtained
by calling (416) 661-6600, ext. 203 or by contacting Mr. Scott Jarvie at ext. 312
TERMINA TION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :30 a.m. on September 19, 1997.
Richard O'Brien Craig Mather
Chair of the Authority Secretary- Treasurer
Ipl
~
"the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #8/97
October 24, 1997 Page D425
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, October 24, 1997. The Chair of
the Watershed Management Advisory Board, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:10a.m.
PRESENT
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Jim McMaster ............................................... Member
Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Joan King .................................................. Member
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES. #D99/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Richard O'Brien
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THA T the Minutes of Meeting #7/97, held September 19, 1997, be received. .. CARRIED
0426 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
CORRESPONDENCE
(a) A letter, dated October 24, 1997 from Jim Robb, for Friends of the Rouge
Watershed, expressing concerns regarding the Morningside Tributary Sub-
Watershed Study. Please see pages D446.
RES. #0100/97 - CORRESPONDENCE
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT the above-noted correspondence from Mr. Jim Robb, dated October 24, 1997, be
received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0427
October 24, 1997
Correspondence # 1
~. Jim Robb
for Friends of the Rwge Watershed
Scarborough. ON, MlJ 2P9
phone: (416) 431-4556
fax: (416) 431-0866
Fnends of the Rouge Watershed Oaober 24, 1997
Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty
Executive Council and Staff
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON
M3S IS4
Re: Input to .\-ITRCA Re: Morningside Tributary (of the Rouge RiTer)
Sub-watershed Study
De:J.r YfTRC.\ Scaff and Executive Council:
My input is based on 30 ye:J.rs of walking along the Morningslde Tributary, two decades of
education and experience in the :J.re:lS of hydrology, forestry and watershed management, and si x
years as an adjudicator with provincial tribunals. As an adjudicator, I applied legislation and
policies after objectively weighing evidence and legal argument on issues involving land-use.
environmental assessment. development and conservation.
Since I have already sent a number of detailed letters to the City of Scarborough for circulation
to the sub-watershed committee, I will summarize my concerns in thIs letter:
Concern 1 - The setback should be 30 metres not 10 metres
The Phase 2 sub-watershed repoIt and the YfTRCA have adopted standards (10 mete set-back,
filling of flood fringe allowed) which fail to adequately protect the resource and the public.
Higher standards are necessary within the Morningside Tributary for the following reasons:
. As our slides will show. there are many costly nooding, erosion and engineering
mistakes in this watershed. These costly mistakes reveal the weaknesses in hydrological
predictions, engineered solutions and the application of stream protection standards;
. There is growing evidence that extreme climatic eVents are becoming more frequent.
further reducing the accuracy of hydrological predictions and increasing the risk of
flooding and property damage;
. There are very sensitive fisheries (nationally vulnerable red-side dace and central stone-
roller), Rouge River parklands and downstream properties.
I
0428 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Correspondence #2
In this context, to fulfil its legislated public mandate, "due diligence" dictates that the MTRCA
should insist on 30 metre set-backs from the stable top-of-bank, or the regional flood line in areas
where the valley is not pronounced._ This higher standard recognizes the pre-existing problems
with flooding and erosion and the need to anticipate and avoid funher liabilities in terms of
flooding, erosion and Fisheries Act violations.
Concern 2 - Phase ill of the subwatershed study must include action plans for th~ full
remediation of past stormwater mistakes (e.g. Malvern II outfall);
As OUI' slides will show, recent and past mistakes have created serious water pollution, flooding,
erosion and siltation within the Mornmgside Tnbutary. For example, the Malvem II outfall is
a serious drowning hazards for children from nearby neighbourhoods and schools. This
stormwater (S/W) outfall is a significant SOUI'ce of flooding, erosIOn and downstream properry
damage. Over the last decade, many public warnings and suggestions have noted the need to
redress these problems but no action has taken place. These festenng problems are a ticking tuDe-
bomb of environmental and legal liability. The Phase 2 sub-watershed study and the MTRCA
input overlooks the seriousness of these problems and the urgent need for full remediation before
additional development. Cathy Gregorio's July 1994 input to the sub-watershed study contains
detailed suggestions and recommendations on these matters. FRW would be happy to work With
the MTRCA to design effective remediation strategies and facilities.
Concern 3 - Any further development should require innovative runoff management to
improve stream base flow and reduce peak flow. SfW facilities should be
located in areas outside permanent stream channels and flood plains.
As our slides will show, piping of streams and engineered in-stream facilities are costly and
unsatisfactory approaches to runoff management. These approaches cause aquatic food chain
disruption. fish habitat destrUction. streambed siltation, water pollution and violation of the
Fisheries Act and policies. For example, the constrUction of the on-line pond in Markham has
led to serious erosion and siltation in the Momingside Tributary. In clear violation of the
Fisheries Act and policy, the pond design/constrUction has adversely effected stre:un flow,
trapping thousands of small fish within puddles between silt-clogged and rapidly-eroding stream
sections (e.g. September 18, 1997 slides and news September 19 reports).
Streams should not be piped and SIW reduction should focus on infiltration of runoff near its
source. Surface storage and purification of runoff should be accomplished through the use of off-
line CUI'Vi-linear ditch/pond/wetland complexes. FRW would be happy to work with the MTRCA
to design facilities which minimize solar heating and evaporative water loss and maximize the
rerum of cool. clean water to SUppOIt healthy stream flows and fisheries. Cathy Gregorio's July
1994 input to the sub-watershed process contained detailed suggestions and recommendations.
2
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0429
Correspondence #3
This letter provides a brief SUIDJJWy of our concerns about the MTRCA's position on the
Morningside Tributary sub-waIerShed study. For detailed information, please consult our other
letters to the sub-watershed committee. -
Please provide FRW with the MTRCA's response to these concerns and recommendations.
Sincerely.
Jim Robb
for Friends of the Rouge Watershed
attachmeIlIS
3
0430 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Correspondence #4
~ Friends of the Rouge Watershed ("Friends")
t
Who we are? - The Board of Directors for "Friends" includes:
experienced naturalists. environmental advocates and outdoor
$ education leaders; two field ecologists; several teachers; specialists in
communications and public relations; a photographer/web site
4: specialist; and many other volunteers with energy and diverse
~ conservation skills.
\
:t Successful Track Record - The people involved with "Friends" have a proven ability to develop
and implement ambitious community-based conservation projects. As volunteers, we helped to
~ develop the Rouge Park vision. the overwhelming community and political SUPPOIt for the Park,
and the federal invesanent of SlO million in the Park. We also helped to raise over $350,000 for
t the restoration of Pearse House (circa 1890s) as a Rouge Valley Community Conservation Centre.
Community Recognition - For community service, "Friends" have received: Scarborough
;f Environment Awards in 1987, 1988 and 1989: an Outdoor Canada Award in 1988; two Canada
~ 125 Awards in 1992; Markham Conservation Stewardship Awards in 1995/96; a Scarborough
Bicentennial Award in 1996; and a Scarborough Urban Design Award in 1997.
~ Patrons - Joyce Trimmer. former Mayor of Scarborough; Honourable Pauline Browes. former
} MP and Minister of State for the Environment; Honourable David Peterson - former Ontario
Premier; Scarborough Agincoun MPP Gerry Phillips. and Scarborough Rouge MP Derek Lee.
Ecosystem Protection and Planning Activities in 1997
t . Rouge Park Nonh Planning and Rouge Park Saucrure Review;
. Momingside Tributary Sub-watershed Srudy;
;f . New City Environment Comminee;
\ . Hwy 407 Environmental Assessment;
. Rouge Park Natural Heritage Action Group.
~ "Youth and Community Greening our Watershed Activities", Fall 1997
i Saturday September 'Z7, 1997 - Rouge River Valley Hydro Corridor Restoration - Planting
of 2800 native trees and shrubs and placement of screech owl boxes by FRW, Scarborough
~ Malvern Councillor Raymond Cho, 300 multi-cultural volunteers and 100 Girl Guides.
t Thursday October 2, 1997 - East Beaver Creek Restoration in Richmond Hill - Planting of
1500 native trees with the Town of Richmond Hill and St. Paschal Baylon Catholic School to
~ improve stream habitat and water quality .
~ Thursday October 9, 1997 - Carolinian Forest Expansion in the Lower Rouge River Valley -
Planting of 3,000 walnuts, bunernuts. hickories and oaks with the help of the Federation of
~ Ontario naturalists and over 400 high school srudents.
1: TBA - Beare Road Landfill Re-naturalization Project
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0431
Correspondence #5
Friends of the Rouge Watershed ("Friends")
Vision -
The Rouge River watershed and surrounding watersheds will be vital components of a sustainable
world. Located within the Greater Toronto Area in Canada's most populous region, these
ecosystemS will be healthy and vibrant, providing "sancruaries for nature and the human spirit".
Linked to surrounding ecosystems, the Rouge River ecosystem will SUPPOIt healthy forests,
fields, streams and habitat for diverse flora and fauna. contributing to the complex web of global
biodiversity. The protection and restoration of OUI' ecosystems will also safeguard human health
by sustaining the ecological processes which narurally protect the quality of OUI' air, land, food
and water. Healthy ecosystems will provide communities with better air quality, unpolluted
rivers, lakes and beaches. safer drinking water and food supplies, and exciting opportunities for
education, recreation and tOUI'ism.
In the Rouge River bie-region and beyond. environmental health will be nurtUred through active
citizen involvement. Coordinated conservation efforts among governments. businesses, schools
and communities will result in widespread awareness and understanding of ecological realities.
A strong sense of environmental stewardship will grow through a sensitive and collaborative
approach to conservation. We envision responsible communities living within a floUI'ishing
narural environment.
Mission Statements - The objectives of Friends of the Rouge Warershed are:
. to initiate and support community activities which will protect. enhance and restore the
ecological health and integrity of the Rouge River watershed and surrounding watersheds;
. to encourage productive conservation linkages between many partners. including
communities, youth, schools. businesses, religious organizations . governments ,
landowners, foundations, community leaders and environmental groups;
. to foster community environmental awareness and involvement through pro-active
programs which encourage environmental leadershIp and the involvement of dedicated
volunteers;
. to help develop and implement community environmental action plans. bio-monitoring
programs and conservation agreements, as outlined in Agenda 21 of the United Nations;
. to raise funds and in-kind resoUI'ces for invesanent in the health and productivity of our
ecosystems and youth.
To volunteer or for further information
Please call Jim Robb or Cathy Gregorio @ 431-4556
and please visit the "Friends" web site at www.onramp.calrivernen
0432 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24.~
Correspondence #6 ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT CORRIDORS
The MTRCA should require a minimum 30-metre wide ecosystem enhancement corridor along
the stable top-of-bank or set back from the regional flood line. where the valley is not pronounced .
A publicly-owned thirty-metre ecosystem enhancement corridor is essential to:
. buffer private property from the long term potential for erosion near valley slopes and
flood plains and thereby reduce the need for large public expenditures on engineered slope
stabilization and erosion control;
. provide an additional safety margin in times of increasing climatic extremes to reduce the
growing risk of liability from inaccurate flood and erosion models;
. increase natural vegetation and forest cover to suppon groundwater recharge, promote stable
stream flows. reduce flooding and erosion risks and create natural areas which are large
enough to sustain diverse populations of birds and wildlife;
. implement a principle of sustainable development by protecting and enhancing natural
habitat and ecological functions during the development process by acquiring ecosystem
enhancement corridors;
. anticipate and avoid the damage that construction activities (eg. root damage. groundwater
lowering. soil compaction. stream siltation. dust) inflict on the sensitive vegetation that
stabilizes valley shoulders and slopes and provides aesthetic beauty and wildlife habitat;
i
. increase forest cover and promote the long term maintenance of majestic treed skylines
! along the ~houlder~ of valley ~Iopes (eg. white pine or sugar maple - maxImum height in
the Rouge of approximately 30 metres) without presenting a wind throw hazard (public
liability hazard) to adjacent private propenies;
. allow sufficient width for the construction of curvilinear hiking and biking trails in
pleasant natural areas that provide visual access to the valley without intruding on sensitive
valley areas that may be susceptible to erosion, flooding or habitat disturbance;
. reduce private property encroachment onto public lands by providing a well-defined
transition area that maintains public access to natural areas;
. anticipate and encourage the use of healthy. safe and non-polluting forms of transponation
within and between communities by expanding the availability of bicycle and pedestrian
corridors that safely separate children and adults from automobile traffic;
. provide effective sound. light and visual impact attenuation between developing areas and
the valley land areas that both people and wildlife depend upon for serenity and isolation
from urban impacts. NOise engineers indicate a minimum 30 metre vegetated strip is
needed to effectively absorb and attenuate the noise generated by typical urban areas (eg.
lawn mowers. trucks);
. provide a transitional zone between developed and natural areas that is well vegetated with
attractive. low maintenance. native vegetation (e.g. white cedar. serviceberry. sumac. wild
rose) that will reduce the invasion of non-native vegetation into natural areas and maintai n
privacy and security for adjacent property owners; and.
. insulate sensitive wildlife habitat and ecosystems from the cumulative impacts of land
development and the tendency for intensification of land use and impacts over time.
14..ion,4r "f' .J.o D............. \I./....___L_.... ^_..._L ~_ "" ~ .........-
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0433
DELEGATIONS
(a) Mr. Jim Robb, for Friends of the Rouge Watershed, expressed the concern of the
Friends of the Rouge Watershed regarding the Morningside Tributary Sub-
Watershed Study. Mr. Robb gave a brief slide presentation and hi-lighted three
specific concerns; increasing the setback to 30 metres from 10 metres, including
action plans for full remediation of past stormwater mistakes in Phase III of the
study, and providing innovative runoff management to improve stream base flow
and reduce peak flow.
(b) Mr. Glenn Herrington of Save the Rouge spoke in support of the concerns of
Friends of the Rouge Watershed.
RES. #0101/97 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT the above delegations (a) Mr. Jim Robb for Friends of the Rouge Watershed and (b)
Mr. Glenn Herrington of Save the Rouge be received;
AND FURTHER THAT Mr. Robb and Mr. Herrrington be thanked for their presentations.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
PRESENT A TION
(a) The Chair of the Authority, Richard O'Brien, presented Awards of Appreciation to
Mr. Dave Rogalsky and Mr. Mark Preston, both Authority staff members. Mr.
Rogalsky worked with both staff and volunteers to complete the planting of the
Don Valley Brick Works site. Mr. Preston supervised all site work and building
renovations at the Brick Works.
RES. #0102/97 - PRESENT A TION
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THAT the above noted presentation (a) from Mr. Richard O'Brien be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Chair and Members of the Watershed Management Advisory
Board congratulate Mr. Dave Rogalsky and Mr. Mark Preston for their hard work and
efforts. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
0434 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
RES. #0103/97 - ENVIRONMENTALL Y SIGNIFICANT AREAS - UPDATE
Status of ESAs recommended for adoption that were deferred for six
months.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Environmentally Significant Areas
(ESAs) #52, #136 and #137 described in the attached summary descriptions 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;
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;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue discussions with the landowners of
ESAs 90, 126 and 140 and report back as soon as possible. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on April 25, 1997 the Authority passed Resolution #A69/97 as follows:
MTHA T the Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), summarized on the attached
table, 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
these ESAs through plan input and review activities;
THA T 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;
THA T Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) #52, #90, # 126, # 136, # 137 and
#140 be deferred back to staff for further review and that a report be brought
back no later than October 1997;
THA T Environmentally Significant Area #93 be withdrawn;
AND FURTHER THA T prior to Authority Meeting #3/97, to be held on April 25,
1997, staff be directed to meet with Mark Jepp, representing Urban Development
Institute (UDI) to determine if UDI would like additional ESAs deferred for further
review. M
October 24. 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0435
Staff have met with those that requested the deferral of the ESAs following the April
meeting. Staff provided further information on the ESA program as well as details on the
specific features and functions of the individual ESAs. The landowners or their
representatives were invited to review the information and contact staff if they had any
other questions or concerns. A follow up letter was sent in August indicating staff's
intent to recommend the ESAs for adoption at the Watershed Management Advisory Board
in October.
Representatives for landowners in ESA 90 (Jefferson Forest). ESA 126 (Frenchman's Bay)
and ESA 140 (Seaton Node) have met with staff and confirmed their desire and intent to
undertake additional investigations/evaluations. Staff are continuing to work with these
landowners and will report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board once the
work is complete.
For information contact:
Dena Lewis, ext. 225
0436 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24. 1997
Attachment #1
- CASTLEDERG
Status: Updated ESA (52)
Date: 12/96
Criteria Fulfilled: 2,6,7,8
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Castlederg ESA is located in the Town of CaJedon, north of Side Road 15 and east of Highway
50. It is on the Oak Ridges Moraine. in the Humber River Watershed.
The site is a combination of upland forest, swamp and marsh. It is characterized by gentle rolling
hills and smaJl valleys of moist dark sOils.
Currently, the surrounding land use is mainly pasture to the east and south, the Glen Eagle Golf
Club to the north. and Highway 50 and a few residences to the west. Some trails are found
throughout but the Impact IS mlmmal. Grazing and trampling by cattle appears to be confined to
a small area of the forest to the east.
BOUNDARY UPDATE
The onglnal 1982 ESA boundary was extended to the east to Include several isolated wetland
pockets and linkages.
CRITERIA FULFlLLED
Crrtenon 2
The many wetland pockets of the Castfederg ESA serve an important water storage function. The
site IS generally located on highly permeable sOlis and IS a good quality water source for the Humber
River.
Criterion 6
Most of the site is covered by mature, mixed and deciduous forests. dominated by sugar maple
(Acer saccharuml, american beech (Faeus erandifolial and eastern hemlock ~ canadensisl.
Canada yew (Taxus canadensis) IS the ground cover throughout much of the forest. Sub-dominants
include white birch. (Betula caovriferal, white ash (Fraxinus americana) and black cherry (Prunus
serotlna). The mesic portions support yellow birch (Betula alleehanlensis) and balsam fir (Ables
balsamea). A plantation of white pine (Pinus strobus), european larch (Larix decidua) and scots pine
(Pinus svlvestnsl, and a large staghom sumac (Rhus ~ thicket are found to the south. Early
successional forests are dominated mostly by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloldesl and white ash.
The forest swamps are dominated by eastern white cedar (Tsuea canadensis), black ash (Fraxlnus
mera) and white ash. Thicket swamps are composed of willow (SaJIX spp.) and red-osler dogwood
(Corn us stoloniferal.
Forest interior dependent breeders found Include red.breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensisl, veery
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0437
Attachment #2
.
(Catharus fuscescens\, black-and-white warbler (Mnlotilta varia\, ovenbird (Selurus aurocaoillus),
northern waterthrush (Selurus noveboracensls) and scarlet tanager (Piranqa olivacea). Wood duck
(Aix Soonsa\, northern waterthrush and swamp sparrow (MelosPlza qeorqlana) are wetland-
dependent breeders. One waterthrush temtory was found In an Isolated kettle wetland whose dense
cOniferous forest provides interior habitat.
Spring peepers (Pseudacrls crucifer) migrate from the mature forests, across the pasture, to the
kettle wetlands where they breed in the spring. The assocIation of upland forest as winter and
summer habitat with the wetlands for egg-laYing and tadpole development are necessary for the
species continuation on the site.
Cnterlon 7
Wetlands. especially those assocIated with mature upland forests. are of limited representation in
the MTRCA region. This site IS part of the Castled erg Wetland Complex which is considered
regionally Significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Criterion 8
The Castleaerg ESA also provides breeding nscltat for area-sensitive species Including veery (1
terntory), 'Nood thrush (HvlOClchla mustellna) 12 territories), black-and-white warbler (1 territory),
ovenbird (2 !errltorles), northern waterthrusn (3 territories) and scarlet tanager (1 territory).
COMMENTS
The farmland between the forests and the isolated small kettle wetlands have been Included In the
ESA to accomodate movement between the two habitats. especially for woodland frogs. Spring
peeper and wood frog seem to prefer the small kettle wetlands for breeding, as opposed to the
extenSIVe swamps In the forest blocks. ThIS may relate to tadpole development and more favourable
temperature In the open wetland as opposed to the cooler forest. CompatIble land uses would be
acceptable in the linkage. Other natural processes Will also likely benefit from the protection of the
linkage.
Rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheuctlcus Iidovlclanus)IS breeding on site. ThiS species IS declining in
its North American range.
0438 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24. 1997
Attachment #3
Environmentally S~gnificant Area #52
~ -
vmetro regIon
conservatIon
-
I
'.B.umbu ~
~ \
\
~"-
~
Town of Caledon
I11III E.S.A. #52 - Castlecerg 00
scale:
400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 Metres
-- 1996
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0439
Attachment #4
SPIRAEA
-
Status: New ESA (136)
Date: 12/96
Criteria Fulfilled: 2,5,6,7
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Spiraea ESA is located east and west of Highway 27 north of King Road, in the Township of
King. It IS in the Humber Watershed, north of Nobleton.
The site is a large wetland, with emergent marsh and thicket swamp communities. Virtually no
native upland habitats are associated. A pond is included to the south.
The surrounding land use is crop farmland on all SIdes. Highway 27 bisects the site. Nearby natural
features Include the Nobleton Wetland Complex to the northwest and the Black Duck Wetland
Complex to the northeast. The closest feature IS a forested block to the east, 3l0ng a tributary of the
Humber River.
CRITERIA FULFILLED
Criterion 2
The large wetland serves as a high quality water storage area
Criterion 5
The sedge Carex atherodes is conSidered rare In the Central Region of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and in the MTRCA Region.
Criterion 6
Though there IS no upland component in the Spiraea ESA, the wetland component IS very
respectable in the diversity and health of natural communities, and in the size and composition of
each community type.
The meadow marshes are dominated by sedges (Carex aQuatilis. C. Lacustris, Scircus rubrotinctusl
and grasses {Cal~magrnC:TI<:: ~ananpnC:IC:. eb.al..ao.s arllnnina~..al. Emergent marshes are
dominated by narrow- and broad-leaved cattail ILtlilia angllc:tifnlia, L Iatifali.al. American royal
fern (Osmllnna ~), pickerelweed (PnntPnPMt c:ardaIa1 and water smartweed (Pnlygnnllm
amphlhlan) were also found there.
The thicket swamps are dominated by willows (Salix d.i.scoJ.a.c, s.. exigua. s.. Iucida) mixed with
cattails, red-OSier dogwood U:'Q!!lIJS stnlnnlfpra). meadowsweet (~ alba) and red maple
(A.c..e.r wbwm) In more open communities. Winterberry (Il.e.x vPrT,,.,illaTa). black ash (Frax,"lls
CllgLaI and a small stand of eastern white cedar (I!lJ..ija Q~""npnTalic:) also grow In the swamp.
Spiraea prOVides breeding habitat for a variety of wetland-dependent bird species Including
0440 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #5
.
virginia rail 18..a1Ws limU:a!a1. sora (eauana caralin.al. common snipe (""lIin"gn g"lIin"gn) and
swamp sparrow (MAIMpi7" QAnrQ,,,n,,1. These species have virtually no breeding habitat south
of Highway 7 in the MTRCA Region. 'tJillow flycatcher (Empirtnn"y ttaJlli.i) are also present
dunng the breeding season. Muskrat (nnrt"Tr" 7InATn'!':IJ!':1 is a permanent resident of the site.
A northern saw-whet owl (AAgnlilJ!': ,,!':"rti!':IJ!':) was killed while flying across Highway 27, likely
moving between thickets on the site, in the fall or winter.
The Spiraea ESA supports a large diversity of frog species including wood frog (Baaa !':ylv"Ti!':,,1.
western chorus frog (PC:AlJrt,,!':ri!': trl!':Ari"T"1. northern spring peeper (P!':AlJrt"NI!': crucife.tl.
amencan toad (Bufo "mAri!':"nlJ!':) and green frog (Baaa c:lamiT"nc: mAI"nnTl't1. Wood frog and
spnng peeper, which breed on the site in the spnng, require mature upland forest in the summer
and winter. As a result, they likely migrate between the wetland in Spiraea and mature forest
to the east.
Criterion 7
Wetlands are of limited representanon In the MTRCA. This ESA is known as Spiraea Wetland
by the Ministry of Natural Resources and IS classified as a regionally significant wetland.
COMMENTS
A ratio of 3 na upland to 1 ha wetland IS recommended for promoting healthy wetlands. This
IS partly because many wetland fauna. .ncluding mammals, birds, amphIbians and reptiles, are
dependent on upland habitat surrounding the wetland. As a very minimUm, a 5 metre upland
fringe has been included in the ESA boundary for these species, to help preserve some of the
health and diverSity of the ESA. However, in addition, it IS strongly recommended that future
changes in the land use should accommodate the movement of fauna and flora between Spriaea
and the nearby natural features to the east and west.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0441
Attachment #6
Environmentally Significant Area #136
~ .
-
V metro region
conservatIon
~
./
\
~
J~"
/'
';
"\
..~
"-
\
~
"-
"-
~~'v
..-
Township of King
I11III E.S.A. #136 - Spiraea ({)
scale:
440 0 440 880 1320 1760 Meters
1996
0442 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24. 1997
Attachment #7
KING VAUGHAN COMPLEX.
-
Status: New ESA (137)
Oate: 11/96
Criteria Fulfilled: 2.3,6.7.8.9 .
GENERAL DESCRIPTlCN
-
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 Duttenn 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
mapleJhemlock 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 cattaJl marsh. thicket swamp and
mature silver maple swamp. The remaining features are satellite swamps. marshes and woodlots
which contnbute to the overall diversity and natural cover.
AgnculturaJ fields. residential develcpment and a public school are found throughout the complex.
Adjacent natural features Indude 11e Hcoe Wetland Complex to the south and the McGill Area (ESA
73) to the southeast. which IS In the Don watershed.
CRITERIA FULFILLED
Cntenon 2
Most of the ESA is on the South Slope physlograchlc region and the remainder on the extreme east
is on the Oak Ridges Moraine. The SOils are charactensticaJly 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.
Cnterion 5
The large mature deciduous swamp supports a great<ilue 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 southem Ontario and is not known to breed in the MTRCA Region. However, thiS
1996 occurance may be due to the late spnng 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 ECluisetum oalustre
arrowhead SaClrttana cuneata
northern manna grass Giycena borealiS
rattlesnake manna grass Glycena canadenSIS
eastern manna grass Glycena seotentnonalis
sedge Carex aquatlhs
sedge Carex lunda
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0443
Attachment #8
.
sedge Carex molesta
river bulrush S<:;lrpUS !luvlatJlis
clearweed Pilea fontana
moumam holly Nemooamnusmucronmus
stemless blue violet Viola adunca .
downy willow-Merb E:Jlloblum ~
black snakeroot Sanlcula qreqaria
marsh speedwell - Veronrca scutella
bedstraw GaJium t1nctorium
cardinal !lower Lobelia cardinalis
aster Aster ontanonrs
aster Aster ollosus
Four plant soec:es found on the site are conSIdered rare In the Cntano Ministry of NaturaJ Resources
Central Region (Riley 1989):
clearNeed Pilea lontana
stemless blue Violet ViOla adunca
downy willow-herb E:Jiloclum stn~m
ontario aster Aster ontarlonrs
Cnterlon 6
The wetland communities are for the most part undisturbed and of high quality. For example, the
rookery swamp suo ports large, mmure SIlver maples and the other large habitat nodes are very rich,
and diverse both botanlcaJly and stru~rally.
The community types range from upland dec:duous and mixed forest to kettle wetlands. The
wetlands are the most diverse habrtats. 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 stnped maple. a more northern speces. Treed swamps are comprised of silver or red
maple and several sustain peat communities which support tamarack, leatherleat, bog cranberry,
bog buckbean, bog willow, the sedge Carex tnsoermg, and mountain holly, most of which have a
northern 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 cattall, 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 4' 8 plant species (Varga' 996).
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 ~or a number of wetland-dependent
Species. They Indude appol')C1mately 50 nests of great-blue heron, and a number of pairs of wood
duel<, virginia rall. sora. common snipe. northern waterthrush and swamp sparrow Large numbers
of warblers and marsh birds use the forests and wetlands on migratIon.
0444 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #9
.
The wetlands, because of their association with upland forest, support large concentrations of
breeding spring peeper and wood frog in the spnng. The lowland m~adows 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 MTFlCA Region. Kettle wetlands are considered
uncommon in southern Ontario, being confined to moraines (Varga 1996).
Cntenon 8
The site is relatively undisturbed and provides conditions suitable for breeding by great-blue heron
and northern waterthrush. two area-sensitive species.
Cntenon 9
The wetland portions of the site are considered provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources.
COMMENTS
Although the wetland femures 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
movemem and dispersal of flora and fauna between nodes.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0445
Attachment # 10
. Environmentallv Si~cant Area # 137
- - .
-
)rn..... leGIOn
. con""'800n
.
-
'1)
~
City of Vaughan
~. '~<.'.~I ESA # 137 - King Vaughan Wetland N
laD a 10::0 4l:XXl Mllln ({)
D446 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 October 24, 1997
RES. #0104/97 - MORNINGSIDE TRIBUTARY SUBW A TERSHED STUDY
Status of Study
Authority staff have been working on a steering committee with City
of Scarborough staff, Agency staff, and interest groups through the
Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study to determine a strategy
to achieve sustainable development while maintaining maximum
benefits to both the natural environment and the surrounding
community. Phase 2 of the study is now complete.
RECOMMENDATION
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT this report be received for
information.
AMENDMENT
RES. #0105/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT the concerns of the Friends of the Rouge Watershed regarding the Morningside
Tributary be considered, including a review of an increase of the 10 metre setback, in the
Morningside Tributary Sub-Watershed Study and report back to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board as soon as possible.
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #8/97, Resolution #A213/97 was adopted:
'7HA T staff be directed to prepare a report on the status of the Morningside
Tributary Sub-Watershed Study to the next Watershed Management
Advisory Board meeting to be held on October 24, 1997;
AND FURTHER THA T Save the Rouge, the City of Scarborough and any
other relevant interested parties be invited to attend the meeting. IF
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0447
The Morningside Tributary of the Rouge River originates in the Town of Markham in the
vicinity of Brimley Road and 14th Avenue, and terminates at the confluence with the
Rouge River within the Metro Zoo property (see Fig. 1 attached). The City of Scarborough
initiated the study in June 1993 to develop a Sub-watershed plan which would provide a
strategic approach to urban development that is sustainable both in economic terms and in
terms of ecological integrity. The Sub-watershed study was divided into three phases:
. Phase 1 is to assess the existing sub-watershed conditions;
. Phase 2 is to assess and prepare a Sub-watershed plan to meet the study goals;
. Phase 3 is to develop policies, guidelines, and an implementation plan.
The study has been conducted with assistance from a technical steering committee
consisting of approval agencies including Conservation Authority staff. A public advisory
committee was also established and made up of landowners, residents, Scarborough
Council members and public interest groups including Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.
Several land use planning decisions and approvals, and existing infrastructure affect the
opportunities for environmental protection and for development within the Sub-watershed:
. the Morningside Tributary Sub-watershed within the Town of Markham is in the
process of being built out pursuant to approvals made under the A 1 Study Area
Secondary Plan. The definition of stream and valley corridors and protection of
other natural resource features are being finalised through the subdivision planning
process;
. a drainage agreement between the Town of Markham and the City of Scarborough
was established in 1978 and amended in 1990 which limits the 100 year flow rate
at Steeles Avenue to 35.4 m3tsec;
. in 1981, the City of Scarborough approved an Environmental Assessment (EA)
Report which allowed for the diversion of all flows, except base flow, from the
Morningside Tributary into the Rouge River at the south end of the Brookside Golf
Course. This study was undertaken to deal with existing erosion and flooding
problems downstream. At the expense of the land owners the diversion structure
and associated pond was constructed. The final implementation of the diversion,
however, still required the construction of a flood channel up stream to Steeles
Avenue and a dam structure at the diversion. Approval of the Environmental
Assessment effectively allowed for the elimination of the Regional Storm Flood
Plain below the diversion structure and for channelization of it above to Steeles
Avenue;
. official plan designations in Scarborough currently recognise the diversion as
approved in the environmental assessment report, and have provided for a narrow
stream corridor to remain open space between Steeles Avenue and the Canadian
Pacific Railway Tracks at Old Finch Avenue. The remaining lands through this
reach are for the most part designated for industrial development and are privately
owned. These same lands are zoned agricultural;
0448 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
. immediately south of the CPR tracks the lands are generally developed with
residential or industrial/commercial uses. The corridor is typically well defined
through this reach and the limit of open space has been defined as the stable top of
bank. Much of the servicing and infrastructure in this area was developed
anticipating the full functioning of the diversion structure;
. below this area the lands are in public ownership and include the Metro Zoo and
ESA # 82, Morningside Creek Forest. A drop structure approximately 10m high
has been installed on the Morningside Creek within the Zoo property to deal with
erosion issues; and
. the Morningside Tributary and adjacent lands south of Steeles Avenue are
considered part of the Rouge Park. Pursuant to the Rouge Park Plan, the Rouge
Park boundary is 30 m from the stable top of valley slope to the extent possible in
undeveloped areas. Much of the Morningside corridor does not have a well defined
valley. Through these reaches it has been recommended that the Rouge Park
boundary be set at 30 m from the stream corridor (including significant vegetation)
to the extent possible.
SUMMARY OF THE PHASE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The intent of the Phase 2 report was to produce a plan, using an ecosystem approach,
that meets the goals of the study:
. to ensure a healthy ecosystem by protecting and restoring the creek and associated
existing natural features;
. protect and enhance historical, social, recreational and cultural amenities while
fostering community awareness and education; and
. develop a sustainable urban community.
The recommendations contained in the plan are summarized as follows and mapped in
Figures 2, 4 and 5 attached):
. Re-establish a functioning watercourse and identify an ecological corridor
The ecological corridor was defined to protect and restore aquatic and terrestrial
habitats; provide buffers to protect natural features and functions and provide
biodiversity; protect against flooding and erosion; provide passive recreational
opportunities; and protect and restore riparian vegetation and woodlands. The
resulting corridor width varies from 100 to 270 m in width and is based on existing
or approved development limits and in areas where there is no existing
development, on.criteria provided by MTRCA an""d "MNR staff.
. Establish vegetated links to the main Rouge River corridor
Four vegetated corridor linkages are recommended between the Morningside
Tributary and the main Rouge River corridor.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0449
. Rehabilitate the stream in areas where it has been degraded
Restoration sites have been identified for stream rehabilitation which include
consideration of modification or removal of existing storm water management or
erosion protection facilities.
. Use appropriate best management practices for new development
Storm water management techniques for the control and treatment of runoff, and
techniques for conveying groundwater to protect or supplement baseflow will be
implemented.
. Modify the existing Tapscott Diversion
The Tapscott diversion and associated structures as approved through the
Environmental Assessment effectively eliminate the Regional Storm Flood Plain from
Steeles ~venue to the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks north of Old Finch Avenue.
As noted in the discussion on the ecological corridor above, an alternative corridor
width to that approved in the EA has been recommended. Modification of the
function of the diversion structure is required to provide sufficient flows for aquatic
habitat and geomorphologic function while continuing to address downstream
erosion and flooding potential.
. Revised drainage agreement
Results from the hydraulic modelling preformed for the Sub-watershed study
identified that peak flows passing under Steeles Avenue upon ultimate development
in Markham will exceed the flows agreed to in the drainage agreement. The
drainage agreement needs to be reviewed in terms of potential downstream
impacts.
Attached is correspondence from Authority staff to City of Scarborough staff which
identifies in detail, staff support of the phase 2 report and addendum, and outlines work
yet to be done in the study, and outstanding issues. A summary of the outstanding issues
of the agencies and committee participants are identified below:
Outstanding Issues - MTRCA
Discussion clarification and resolution is required on three main technical issues:
. maintenance of groundwater recharge/discharge function as it relates to baseflow;
. method of addressing potential/existing erosion downstream of the diversion
structure; and
. technical assessment and recommendations to address the Scarborough/Markham
Drainage Agreement.
0450 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Outstanding Issues - MNR
. further discussion is required on the protection of the woodlots at Neilson and
Passmore Roads;
. the study should demonstrate that the MNR forest target cover of 25% is met; and
. more discussion is required concerning the modifications of the Tapscott diversion
structure.
Outstanding Issues - Rouge Park
. clarification is required concerning the buffer width (ie: 10m vs. 30 m) around the
ecological features in the Sub-watershed that are proposed to be protected.
Outstanding Issues - Save the Rouge Valley System Inc.
Ten recommendations were put forward by Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. to improve
the recommendations of the study:
. that the entire existing flood plain (known as the Regional Storm Floodline) be
protected, renaturalized and brought into public ownership;
. that all streams and their headwaters be protected, renaturalized and brought into
public ownership;
. that all natural vegetation in the area be given a level one status so that it can not
be destroyed;
. that a protective 30 metre publicly owned buffer be established along all streams
and natural areas;
. that a 300 acre tableland forest be created to connect the Morningside stream to
the Rouge River;
. that existing energy dissipators and unnatural stream beds be replaced by natural
stream beds;
. that a natural hydrograph be achieved in the stream;
. that storm water management structures be located outside the flood plain and
natural areas;
. that new Toads-be prohibited from crossing lhe""Morningside stream;
. that the watershed be managed to ensure the following species are present for
future generations to enjoy:
- Red Side Dace, Central Stoneroller, and Rainbow Trout
- Red Shouldered Hawk
- Coyotes and Deer.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0451
Outstanding Issues - Other Agencies
All other agencies had no comments.
Outstanding Issues - Other Interest Groups
The representative of the developer identified that they are satisfied with the
recommendations of the phase 2 report and addendum.
In general the issues raised by the other interest groups have been raised by the agencies
or SRVS.
DET AILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
On September 30 1997, Scarborough Council reviewed the Phase 2 report and addendum
and heard deputations in support of the recommendations proposed by Save the Rouge
Valley System. The following resolutions were adopted:
"That the City Solicitor be authorised to extend the Scarborough/Markham/York
Drainage Agreement for one year in order to negotiate amendments.
That the Commissioner of Works and Environment be directed to report further on
the Rouge Alliance position regarding the Rouge Park boundary and until that
position is known nothing should preclude the ability of the Rouge Alliance to
provide comments on this matter at a later date.
That Council direct that staff proceed with Phase 3, the implementation plan.
That the entire existing flood plain (known as the Regional Storm Floodline) be
protected, renaturalized and brought into public ownership.
That all streams and their headwaters be protected, renaturalized and brought into
public ownership.
That all natural vegetation in the area be given a level one status so that it can not
be destroyed.
That a protective 30 metre publicly owned buffer be established along all streams
and natural areas.
That a 300 acre tableland forest be created to connect the Morningside stream to
the Rouge River.
That existing energy dissipators and unnatural stream beds be replaced by natural
stream beds.
That a natural hydrograph be achieved in the stream.
That storm water management structures be located outside the flood plain and
natural areas.
That new roads be prohibited from crossing the Morningside stream.
0452 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 October 24, 1997
That the watershed be managed to ensure the following species are present for
future generations to enjoy:
- Red Side Dace, Central Stoneroller, and Rainbow Trout
- Red Shouldered Hawk
- Coyotes and Deer.
That staff be directed to further report on the mechanisms to bring the required
land into public ownership.
That staff be directed to report back to the Community Council on a method of
implementing the ten recommendations of Save the Rouge Valley System. "
Scarborough Council clearly supported the position and recommendations of Save the
Rouge Valley System Inc. which goes far beyond the recommendations for protection,
enhancement and restoration of the natural features, in the Phase 2 report. The
implications of this new direction have not been fully assessed. However, we anticipate
that the land owners will appeal a current application for Official Plan Amendment and
Plan of Subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Authority staff will continue to work with the City of Scarborough staff and the steering
committee to assist in implementing the resolutions of Council and completing the Phase 3
report.
For information contact:
Mary Asselstine, ext. 304
October 24. 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0453
Attachment # 1
~the metropolitan toronto-and region conservation authority
Ssl10reham drive,downSVIew, ontanci m3n 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX661-6898 http://WWW.mtrca.on.ca
September 24, 1997 CFN 24892
Ms. Anne Rexe
Works and Environment Department
The City of Scarborough
Suite 1 000
300 Consilium Place
SCarborough, Ontario
M1H 3G2
Dear Ms. Rexe:
Re: Momingside Tributary Subwatershed Study
Phase 2 Report and Addendum
Authority staff have reViewed the Addendum Report for Phase 2 of the Mornlngside
Subwatershed Study. We understand that this report was presented to the Works and
Environment Committee on September 22 and that it Will be presented to Council on September
30. Please be advised that staff are generally supportive of the addendum report and the
proposed modifications to the recommendations in the Phase 2 report. However, we feel that
there should be some clanfication around the actions required to resolve the outstanding
technical questions. In addition, MTRCA staff would like to clarify our position on the boundary
of the Rouge Park.
ROUGE PARK BOUNCARY
Based on the existing information available to date, Authority staff support a 10m ecological
buffer as the standard for all natural features and thiS is reflected in our buffer recommendations
for the Momingside Tributary. Significant natural features and functions are also considered and
protected through application of storm water management practices and, if required, site
specific Environmental Impact Assessments.
The Rouge Park Plan identifies the boundary of the Rouge Park south of Steeles, where areas
are developing or redeveloping, as 30 m back from the stable top of bank to the extent possible.
This cnteria was established to support park uses and management and was not based only on
requirements for an ecosystem buffer for all natural features. Authority staff support and will
work towards achieving the Rouge Park boundary for the Morningside Tributary. The. limit of this
boundary should be clarified through a detailed park master plan. The mechanisms for
achieving this boundary are through the development process, land stewardship programs,
dedication, compatible land uses or acquisition.
SUMMARY OF PHASE 2 RECOMMENCATlONS
As a summary we have attached an expanded version of the table that was presented in the
Addendum Report. Authonty staff support the recommendations made In this table and believe
that there is a consensus in thiS regard from the Steering Committee.
.../2
1/,':-,- .~; -;-=;~.--=." .C" ;-;;,_.=......:'.'/: ~ '===.-_~:~':=
0454 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #2
.
Ms. Anne Rexe - 2 - September 24. 1997
-
Main Corridor
Item Recommended Recommended Action Required
Criteria for Corridor Ecological Buffers
Boundary
~ - stable top of bank - adjusted per . finalisation of Study
- upstream of Steetes - flood plain agreements for Study Area 1 A including
Ave. - natural vegetation Area 1 A buffers. SWM. swa
. eXisting retrofit and Markham-
development Study Scarborough
Area 1 A drainage agreement
Reach 2A the greater of: - 10m buffer on each - Integration with the
. Steeles Ave. to 400 - stable top of bank Side in public Morningside Heights
metres upstream of - flood plam ownership land use study
the diversion - natural vegetation
structure including the
Passmore Ave.
Woodlots
Reach 28 - reduce flood plam . 10m buffer on each - COrridor
- 400 m upstream of to 100 m wide (based side in public adjusted/finalised to
the diverSion on average Width ownership ensure no upstream
structure to diversion upstream and or downstream
structure including natural Impacts on flooding
- watercourse and vegetation)
flood plain to be
channelised through
the approved EA
Reach 3A . natural channel - 10m buffer on each - corridor
. diversion structure design incorporating side in public adjustedffinalised as
to Neilson Tributary the meanderbelt ownership required for
- remnant channel expanded to 80 m conveyance of
has no baseflow wide for Improved diversion flow
. Regional flood plain biodiversity
eliminated through
EA design
- lands deSignated
for development
.../3
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0455
Attachment #3
.
Ms. Anne Rexe -3- Seotember 24. 1997
Main Corridor Cont'd
Item Recommended Recommended Action Required
Criteria for Corridor Ecological Buffer.s
Boundary
Reach 38 - meanderbelt . 10m buffer on each - include all blocks of
- Neilson Tributary to including most of the side in public significant vegetation
Stains Road existing vegetation ownership in corridor
- flow from Neilson expanded to a - corridor
Tnbutary only minimum 80 m wide adjusted/finalised as
for improved required for
biodiversity conveyance of
diversion flow
Reach 3C - natural channel - 10m buffer on each - location of comdor
- channelised section design Incorporating side In public to be confirmed
on west side of Stams a meanderbelt ownership because of future
Road expanded to 80 m upgrade on StaIns
wide for improved Road
biodiversity - corndor
adjusted/finalised as
required for
conveyance of
diversion flow
Reach 3D - meanderbelt - 10m buffer on each - corridor
- Stains Road to the expanded to 80 m side in public adjusted/finalised as
CPR tracks wide for Improved ownership required for
biodiversity conveyance of
diversion flow
Reach 4A - flood plaIn - 10m buffer on each
- CPR Tracks to Old side in public
Finch Ave. ownership
. current planning or based on existing
application rear lot line
Reach 48 - stable top of bank - structural setback
- Old Finch Ave~To or based on rear lot
Momingview Trail line
- existing
development
~ - stable tcp of bank - structural setback
- Momingview Trail to - natural vegetatJon or based on rear lot
confluence with the -ESA line
Rouge River
- existing
development in part
of the area
.most lands in public
ownership
. ESA and Metro Zoo
0456 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #4
Ms. Anne Rexe .4- September 24, 1997
Tributary Corridors -
Item Recommendations Recommended Action Required
and Criteria for Ecological Buffers
Stream Corridor
Boundary
Neilson Tributarv - !lood plain limit - 10m buffer on each - alteration or natural
- portion east of forms the stream side in public channel design
Neilson Road drains corridor ownership details
greater than 125 ha - !lows must be . features and
maintained in watercourse
watercourse upstream of Neilson
- protection of Road
groundwater protected/assessed
recharge/discharge through SWM design
func:lon . see list of
restoration sites
Pitchfork Tributarv - protec:ion of - 10m buffer on each . identification of fish
. watercourse not watercourse channel side In public habitat
well defined that represents fish ownership - protect/assess
upstream of limit of habitat or flood plaln ground water
the existing flood . protection of function through
plain groundwater SWM design
recharge/discharge
functIon
Sheccard Ave. . COrridor protected - see list of
Tributarv restoration sites
- area of existing
development
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0457
Attachment #5
Ms. Anne Rexe .5- September 24. 1997
-
Woodland Features and Unkages
Item Recommendation Recommended Action Required
Ecological Buffers
Passmore Woods - protect ttle -10 m buffer in - incorporate into
woodland node public ownership landuse study
Pitchfork WoodlotCs\ - protect and - incorporate into
enhance to extent landuse study
possible in pnvate
ownership
Passmore Hedcerow . protect and . definition of linkage
enhance as linkage required
to Rouge In public . Incorporate into
ownership landuse study
Ontario Hvdro . protect and . incorporate into
~ enhance as linkage landuse study
to Rouge
Other Vecetated - protect and - Incorporate Into
Areas and enhance to extent landuse study
Hedcerows possible in private
ownership
0458 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #6
Ms. Anne Rexe -6- September 24. 1997
Water Management -
Item Recommended Action Required
Criteria/Objectives
Water Ouantitv . retum baseflow to - resolve drainage
watercourse d1s 01 agreement at Steeles
diversion structure Ave.
- establish riparian - erosion impacts
flow at 25 yr. storm associated with flow
- eliminate flood risk at diversion structure
d/s of CPR tracks - selVicing
- maintain flows to - maintenance of
meet infrastructure base flow
deSign d/s from CPR - determine location
tracks of pond on Neilson
- SWM oond on Trib.
Neilson tnb. To - establish targets for
maintain flows release rates from
- maintain basef10w ponds
supplied by ground
water
- retrofit South Pond
in Markham for low
flow control
Water Qualitv - retrofit South Pond
in Markham
. retrofit Tapscott
pond for water
quality treatment
- retrofit pond at
Sheppard Ave.
- provide wetlands at
storm outfalls
- level 1 protection
. required per MOEE
manual
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0459
Attachment #7
Ms. Anne Rexe .7. September 24, 1997
Restoration Sites
-
Item Recommended Sites
Restoration Sites . Passmore Woods
. watercourse from BMP
pond to Steeles
. riparian area Brookside
Golf Course
. restore watercourse in
reach 3A
. restore watercourse
reach 3C
. riparianlvaJley vegetation
reach 4B
. restore Neilson Tributary
. riparian vegetation
Shepcard Ave. Tributary
Many of the items Identified for action will be addressed through the "strategy" phase of ~he
subwatershed study (phase 3) or can be addressed through the City's Land Use Study or a
master serviCing environmental study within the development process. However, discussion,
clarification and resolution is required through Phase 3 of the study on three main technical
issues:
. maintenance of ground water recharge/discharge function as it relates to base flow
. method of addreSSing potential/existing erosion downstream of the diversion structure.
. techmcal assessment and recommendation to address the Scarborough/Markham
Drainage Agreement
We recommend that meetings are set up as soon as pOSSible with the appropriate City, agency
and consulting staff to work on these matters. We further recommend that the terms of
reference for Phase three of the study be modified so that direction is given to resolve the
remaining technical questions.
Authority staff are planning to attend the Council Meeting on September 30 to hear the
discussion on this item. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time if you require
clarification of Authority staff position.
Yours truly, lC -' . I ----.
,('"""", ---
f =-'. '-'-/ , .''''. -
Mary Assefstine
Plans Analyst
Plan Review Section
Ext. 304
MAlfa
cc: Mark Heaton, MNR
Gord Weeden, Rouge Park
Brian Denney, MTRCA
Renee Jarrett, MTRCA
0460 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1 997
Attachment #8
SCHEDULE "A" TO REPORT NO. 16 OF THE
WORKS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITI'EE (REF. CLAUSE 1)
.
I I
.
FBnW. M..N::PAlIl=Y ~ YORK I
.
I
.
I
Cr~.1t
BROUGHAM
REGIONAL M.NCFAUTY
OF DlR-iAM
LAKE ONTARIO
REGIONAL CONTEXT Morningside Tributary
Subwatershed
LEGEND
-........... ROUGE RIVER WAT'ERSH:D SOUlCE . VARGE. .. as. ,n,
----- ~ TRBUTARY Sl.e.WATERS!-ED EcCJlO9Cal s..v.y 01 tn. Rouge va..., Park
----_. REGIONAL ~CPAUTY BOt.JI()ARES
--@- IiGfWAYS
. Figure 1
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0461
Attachment #9
SCHEDULE ~A" TO REPORT ~O. 16 OF THE
WORKS AND E:wIRONMENT COMMITrEE (REF. CLAUSE 1)
I
I:
I
I
~ ~
:>-z I . I .' <'" > L:-F~ Z:Lr ..' > '> '> ~ <~ ,j ;:
. I '." -- '- . ,<:...<.., :. I: ,
. .., = ::J ~ :,.. ~ ~ < :w i''' ~ .: . ~.." en,-" ~
..... . 'J .. -. . .. .. ...... -.. :.It:i'l,. ~ ...,~
~j .. I ~..=-.;..!.=".:~._=:.~.. c:: CO
~ we. - -.. -, ~. - , , _ ".". .. I ..,
.. 1:;1 3 ':Ii -= _ i ~ ,.; 'j ~ i -. ~ ... f ~ ... ==.....
! > I '" ;-;-~;- - ~~:'2.~,~~1.: ,:;;=
- . WI .; ('"J -., - - ~"; i s ~ - -: ~ ;. Z i i l ~ '<--
.J:; ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ 7;' : i:' :";- - ~ ;..;- ~ io >:,) =
r I I :. :. t'o..J ~:. - ; ~ ' ~: r =' ! ~ ~ ~ 1 :OIl ...; ::; ~
t I~>> ... ~ ! .:z 20 ; r '! T :: :: Z .... tr'i ..,-.
i ;;'" I ~;~,i .. :ooC; ~~;; ~' en C.
o 'x.. - 1 - ..,.. - ., - .::::l - n
- Its ci.:.... ~~ == CI'J ;:; ~
. .'" - ""ll'" ;- c..,
I = C:I. (T: 1': - .." -.
I \15!\ I - i. r. = ,-, ~ CO
: 'i :.. y, ;:; · i 0 _ c _
~ ... I ~~ .. _ c. ~
~ : I ~~ I !'oJ j I r" '<..,
"'I..it =- > '<
ro I &- 2
. . . ~.
0462 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment # 10
SCHEDULE "A" TO REPORT ~O. 16 OF THE
WORKS AND E4WIRONME~ COMMITTEE (REF. CLAUSE 1)
.....:..--.. --.- .\. ~ I. . .' v' '.
_ ..... ~ . '_ v", \ '). ..::... ..,' . ... . .
_..--- e,-,')\.le ..-...~).t I.... ,',' -::.'" ~.. "
- .?~U1 ..-' ~.~..~;\: ..,.{.... '1!,.':I''(i' :
.... . .... ,.-:-,.., :;..:.~.;. ;<'"t',-,' W~'.' " ': //:-::< ,::;U\ ::.':.
~ .- ).-' f..<?!J., t .. 'V'" ,. ,. ~. . . '. . . ~
~...-- .~.I./".\. I"" ..'- .'!...'....~/........ ',:. CSt .S'
~ ...-. .. ". ;,., "'\("..', ..,.,/\ ',' /"'"( ,," . \' "'" ,',' .::'
~ ~~,..- '....~: _~ ~:.(",,,")>"-B ~:.
"':"""'- I . I . . .....\,. (, ~ ~ " . ~ ~. . ,. l : b .:':.
~ .:::------:~.--/<. ..,..;:::\ ..,. .:"<'/';::-~;:;. '<.. ... "
.' \ ".,....,<. ,~.;::..=-.......... ....)>:.~;..../,~,,~.\~ .....:::::;:
~ ...... . . . ...
\ \
..-__ \ I,...
...'
o~
,'\;
'3 cnn....-
->03:
~ :oz..,;:2
::. ~O::Jm
~ ;:"03:
-<<'"
CIl>-Z
>Z~-
Z~~"":l \.....--
~:oz~
C/)m('l>
<::JZ
rnm=
G)>Z
m"'G)
~m"
~~s:
m;:jz
m
:>
;:
>-z · III ~ [-" ."0' . . <<f ....~ . ~~~
.. ~~ Wi:.:.. c:: .~.:.~ ; '~i .. 1:"; en rJl3:
I :. = .." 'Z t. ire >> ~;' 'J'I ~.. ~~~ I. !11 c::: = Q
r -= - ;~i.~;.. i;l~~!~ t7~ . j-i =:I 1::';;1
; ! !.!, . f;O ~
I . =- t 2.. = -: i -: ::;! -"" 2 ~""I rn. ~ ~g ~ -.
Q.l ..: -:'-"-- ..,,-~~~ > ID ='
tn . 1..ci=~ j~ ~:,~..c". .f: ;~fj -IJ'Q
- 2 n ~ ..r~ ; Ii ;~: ~ Ii'-: -l-l ~ '"
i .. -l =-
~ ~ i ~~ - r ~ ~ ~ ! l .. :"l '" -
,I 1. .2 .. ... ~ := ::"~
... :::: .:. f '! ~ J! 1;0 " en ~ ~
t':l t':l t;":; ::t - Co.,
VI 2 < ~ ~ =~ en::
a Cij. ~.; 0 ==
... i ("; . a ~ Co-
f , c:. ~ ~ '< ~
.: .1 .
.. J I ,~ 1 > '<
GO ! -' 2
... ~
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0463
Attachment #11
SCHEDULE "A" TO REPORT :"l0. 16 OF THE
WORKS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITI'EE (REF. CLAUSE 1)
-
~' ~:~.
-. /,.'
.. Q~' I
I
I
-
.r.. -.- -,
j.
"
"!
~
0
~ ...."."..
D..
.<i ~
.,
'\ "
~
~ I -
:Il II \
m
~ >
...
m"'O
:Il>"
o~:;
6S~ \9
z <(jj"":l
nO::: ....
oc:z p
" z~c;). ,
~ -en .-
'\.. ..~ ~ ~ .~7~.- ..
,.."'~
, ..
..
'.
:::-- z . <: -~[[r[' ~"'. "<<" ..0'....10
.- - ~1 \:! -::' _<...!::< ~.'t ......--- m3:
p129 en
.- : ~ -: ;;::::! ~ : r t~ .; r;, ;:~ i -i =I"~ c:= .. Q
Ii ,I !-=:. I:;" ~;:ri~~;:i:;;: t'*tA.!u. I:l .. ..,
~ r >- -10.;;;; '='=
! ::;: i.j~ ;~;.;~~~=~'i! {;>H ~ ~ --
. - . -~ ';j':: ;-! ~=i;':-;;::i.~a. .. ~;: .. >> =
I . 1 ... ~ 1 i r~ [i~l~~~:~i =;j': > -~
I ::o-
J ,.::0 ...-l ~ '"
. 'jj .;;~ "'0 r .,; =-r-:; !';;. i 1 ~ -1:"1 ., =-
. -~ -- :r ~ n;- ~3i ;"::s... ... '" -
. to (IQ 1 ~:c ::"~
I~ .. c ~ .:. l~ 3i~ ~ ! ... < en ~~
0 V1
... C'J t L :- ~ . .. -
n .., . ... -
~ ~~ N ~ J = 1:"1 m:::
II &. .., 0 CC
i !
J: I U "':l c.:;
> f ! l:"'" '< ..,
.., > '<
'"
. if 2
0464 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
RES. #0106/97 - METRO TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENT A TION
Riverdale Farm Ponds Naturalization Project
The Riverdale Farm Ponds Naturalization Project be approved by the
Authority and $30,000 be allocated to this project under the Metro
Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation.
.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Riverdale Farm Ponds
Naturalization Project be approved;
THAT Metro RAP Capital funds of $30,000 be allocated in support of this project;
THA T staff be directed to assist the City of Toronto in the implementation of this project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to explore management options for the removal of
non-native goldfish and red-eared slider turtles from the ponds, and report to the Authority
with a management plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The MTRCA was asked by the City of Toronto to provide assistance in the restoration of
the Riverdale Farm Ponds. During the site selection process for Chester Springs Marsh, the
City of Toronto and The Task Force to Bring Back the Don identified the Riverdale Farm
ponds, as having strong potential for restoration and naturalization. Riverdale Farm is a
working farm located in downtown Toronto at Sumach and Winchester Street. The farm is
part of a complex managed by the City of Toronto Community Services Department
located in the lower Don River. The work will focus on the Sanctuary Pond and the Lower
Pond within the Riverdale Farm complex.
The Sanctuary Pond is located at the base of the valley wall and is surrounded by trees,
shrubs and herbaceous vegetation and is functioning as a refuge for some wildlife. The
Lower Pond is located within a manicured setting at the base of the valley just north-east
of the Sanctuary Pond. During baseline inventories carried out in the summer of 1996 and
1997 is was found that the vegetation communities surrounding these ponds consisted
predominately of exotic invasive species and the ponds were infested of non-native fish
and turtles.
The goals for this project are:
Create a more natural hydrological system at the site and emulate habitat functions that
are commonly found in mature oxbow ponds.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0465
. The ponds are currently augmented by a supply of municipal water which created a
completely artificial hydrological condition within the ponds. During the baseline
investigations during the summer of 1997 the municipal water supply was turned off.
The ponds were found to retain water without the input of municipal water. The
rehabilitation of the ponds includes the elimination of this municipal water supply
except for periodic cleaning of the duck pond at the top of the slope. In addition,
surface flow of water from within the Riverdale Farm Complex will be redirected into
the ponds'. In the proposed second phase of this project the waterfall connecting the
duck pond to the two lower ponds will be disconnected and the water flushed from the
duck pond will empty directly into the sanitary sewer system. Water from the Sanctuary
pond will then be circulated back up to the top of the waterfall by a pump to maintain
the aesthetic value of the waterfall feature which is enjoyed by the public.
Create a diverse, productive aquatic habitat using conservation design and natural
succession principles to enhance fish and wildlife communities.
. The hardened shoreline of the ponds will be replaced within selected areas with
emergent wetland plants. This softer shoreline will form a functional and critical habitat
for wildlife, it is the ecologically appropriate type of shoreline for a mature oxbow pond.
Improve the quality of water discharged into the Don River.
. Initial investigations into the water quality of the two ponds revealed that the ponds
have an excess of nutrients within the water column. The development of emergent
wetland plants along the shoreline will reduce the levels of nutrients within the water
and improve the general water quality and aesthetics of the ponds;
. Additional site investigations indicated that there is uncontrolled runoff from Winchester
Street flowing directly to the Lower pond. The City of Toronto is proposing to treat this
runoff with an in line storm sewer facility that will discharge into a constructed
infiltration trench that leads into the Lower pond. The Authority will improve water
quality and increase groundwater infiltration.
Rehabilitate terrestrial ecosystem structure and function, and create wildlife habitat for
native fauna.
. The wood lot surrounding the Sanctuary pond is surrounded with a variety of mature
trees. Unfortunately some of these species are invasive and non native like the tree of
heavenlChinese sumach ( Ailanthus altissima). The restoration works includes a
detailed plan to systematically replace existing non native trees with strategic
understorey plantings of native and more desirable tree and shrub species.
0466 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Provide interpretive, educational opportunities for visitors to the farm.
· The Riverdale Farm complex is an important community park that is utilized extensively
by many people throughout the year. In conjunction with the development of the
habitat features, there will be a system of interpretive signage and viewing platforms
that will explain the key components of our restoration activities and provide access to
the pond.
Reduce the occurrence of non-native species.
· The ponds are infested with ornamental goldfish (Carassius auratus) and the common
pet turtle, red eared slider (Pseudemys scriDta). These two non native species are found
in large numbers within the ponds and have established populations from incidental
releases of pet goldfish and pet turtles. There is no natural predator for these two
species within the ponds and their numbers have expanded to the point where it
threatens the success of any rehabilitation work. Together with the City, staff will
explore alternative management recommendations for these nuisance species and
develop and implement a viable management plan.
It is intended that the new wetland habitat at this location will bring enjoyment to the
many people who live, work and visit in the area and develop a special identity for the
Riverdale Park Complex System. The proposed water's edge pathway and viewing platform
will showcase the restoration of functional fish and wildlife habitat in a highly urbanized
sector of the City of Toronto. This will undoubtably increase public awareness and provide
educational opportunities related to fish and wildlife in the Don River. The project will also
provide an area for the Riverdale community to participate in a public planting event. We
are optimistic that this project will provide a meaningful venue for local school students to
grow wetland plants under the Aquatic Plants Program.
RATIONALE
The remnant habitats that still exist within the Lower Don River potentially provide
suitable foundations for habitat restoration and improvements in the ecological function of
the whole system. This project will naturalize two existing ponds in the Lower Don River to
restore and demonstrate the appropriate types of habitat conditions associated with ponds
adjacent to large rivers. The Riverdale Farm Ponds will provide a softer wetland shoreline
in contrast to the existing stone walls. This location is excellent spot to create a wetland
because of its isolation from the influences of local storm sewers.
This project also complements other initiatives currently underway in the Lower Don River
such as the Don Valley Brickworks Project and Chester Springs Marsh.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0467
FINANCIAL DETAILS
For 1997-98, funding for this project has been identified from Environment Canada's Great
Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation
Project, and the City of Toronto as follows:
City of Toronto $ 65,000
Metro RAP Capital Funds $ 30,000
Environment Canada's Great Lakes CleanUp Fund $ 30,000
Total $125,000
. The total projected project cost is estimated at $125,000. The funding from Environment
Canada and the Metro RAP Capital Funds will be administered by the Authority. The
overall project is to be coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of
Toronto and MTRCA Environmental Services Section Staff.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
This wetland will be a combination of open water and emergent vegetation. To achieve
this wetland feature portions of the shoreline will be excavated in the fall of 1997. Some
portions of the excavation will be below existing water levels and the remainder of the site
will be gradually graded to provide the proper topography for wetland plant communities.
The area will be planted in the spring of 1998. with the desired wetland plants and shrubs.
To enhance the diversity of these planted areas, tree stumps, log tangles, and anchored
trees will be placed throughout to provide important critical habitat for wildlife. The
selection of appropriate aquatic plant material for this project will be based on the
composition of wetland communities along the Don River, and specifically within the
Greater Toronto Area. The graded areas will be inoculated with a variety of suitable
aquatic plants including soft stem bulrush (Scirpus va/idus), arrowhead (Sagittaria /atifo/ia)
and Cattails (Typha sp.). Material will be established through a combination of nursery
stock, Aquatic Plants Program, mature transplants, and seeding.
Staff will contact various agencies to determine the most suitable management techniques
requred for the nusiance wildlife species within the ponds.
For information contact:
Tamara Chipperfield, Ext. 248 & Gord MacPherson, Ext.246
0468 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #1
..
~-
-
IIOooo<:l In:Ir OID:Il:'llal
~
~ CltyotTcmmto 1 Lx:lccr".lJ;~~":AL!".~,{~"71.i.'t',(1 J 0
~ 17:::'" I
. Oerrzrtmmt of 1
. Pms me! llec'utian i M.>;: :tc. So: .~.~ ';;-.~l I :..... I
Figure 1: Loc~on oftbe Riverdale Fmn Ponds
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0469
RES. #0107/97 - METRO TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENT A TION
Spadina Quay Wetland Creation Project
An additional $30,000 of Metro Rap Capital Funds for the Spadina
Quay Wetland Creation project be approved by the Authority for a
total Metro contribution of $80,000 under the Metro Toronto
Remedial Action Plan Implementation.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY the additional allocation of $30,000 of
Metro RAP Capital funds for the Spadina Quay Wetland Creation Project be approved;
AND FURTHER THAT the total Metro RAP Capital funds of $80,000 be allocated in
support of this project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority meeting #8/97. Resolution #A 197 197 was adopted:
'7HA T the Spadina Quay Wetland Creation Project be
approved;
THA T Metro RAP funds of $50,000 be allocated in support of
this project;
AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to assist the City of
Toronto in the implementation of this project. "
Additional funds have been made available through other RAP related projects that will not
be completed this fiscal year. The Spadina Quay project is in the implementation phase
and the additional funding will be used this year for the following components:
. Topsoil and compost mixture for the wetland area;
. Additional plant material (specifically wetland plants);
. Selected aggregates (gravel sand used in habitat features such as turtle
nesting areas, fish spawning substrates);
. Construction equipment and project logistics.
This additional funding will also provide greater project flexibility with the anticipated
financial contributions expected from groups like the Toronto Star Great Salmon Hunt, and
the Canadian National Sportsmen's Show.
0470 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The revised project budget is as follows:
City of Toronto $80,000
Metro RAP $80,000
Environment Canada's Great Lakes CleanUp $30,000
Fund
Total $190,000
The funding for the overall project will be administered by the Authority. The overall
project is to be coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Toronto
and MTRCA Environmental Services Section Staff.
For information contact:
Gord MacPherson, Ext. 246
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0471
RES. #0108/97 - DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS LANDS POLICY
Use of Lands For Municipal Parks
Request that staff report on the Authority policy regarding the sale of
Authority lands for park purposes.
Moved by: Jim McMaster
Seconded by: Lois Hancey
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report dated October 9, 1997,
on Authority policy on the disposal of surplus lands as it relates to sale of Authority lands
for municipal park purposes be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At meeting #7/97, held on September 5. 1997, the Executive Committee approved
resolution #B 130/97 as follows:
"That staff be directed to prepare a report to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board on Authority policy regarding the
sale of conservation area lands for park purposes. '"
This request arose as a result of a discussion about the possible sale of a one acre parcel
of surplus table land to Islington Woods Developments for conveyance to the City of
Vaughan for a local park within a new development. The one acre parcel would have been
used to meet the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act.
The proposed sale of the one acre parcel did not proceed and the report recommending the
sale was withdrawn.
RATIONALE
The Authority has adopted a policy and procedures for the disposal of surplus Authority
lands. The policy makes it very clear that any parcel considered for disposal must first
meet stringent technical criteria to ensure that it is indeed no longer needed for Authority
purposes. Also, the area and regional municipalities in which the land is situate have an
opportunity to comment on the proposed disposal and to purchase the lands (at market
value) prior to the lands being offered to the public.
The Islington Woods parcel was a unique situation in which the Authority had already
agreed with the developer and the City of Vaughan to make the one acre parcel available
for local park purposes under a management agreement with the City. The decision to sell
the land would have been in the best interest 01 the Authority since in effect the Authority
was giving the land over to the City in any case.
The policy is very clear that decisions to dispose of land are driven by the Authority and
that municipalities have the opportunity to comment and to purchase before the lands are
made publicly available. There is no suggestion anywhere in the policy and no precedent
for Authority lands to be used to fulfil municipal park obligations. The reference in the
policy to "routine public purposes" refers to sewerlwater or other utility easements etc.
and does not include local parks.
0472 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
The policy on disposal of surplus lands is as follows:
POLICIES FOR SURPLUS AUTHORITY LAND SALES
Res. #A289/94:
"THA T parcels of Authority owned land proposed to be sold, or otherwise
disposed of, for other than road widening or other routine public purposes,
at nominal consideration, be first brought to the attention of the Executive
Committee and processed in the following manner;
(a) A detailed technical review is to be carried out by the Authority's
technical staff. Appropriate terms and conditions are to be prepared
by the technical staff dealing with any technical concerns, including
potential impact or mitigation requirements relating to remaining
Authority holdings;
(b) The proposed disposition is to be circulated to the local and regional
municipalities;
(c) All sales are to be at market value, with agreements to include
provisions for all Authority objectives to be met.
THA T in those instances where the land proposed to be disposed of is of
significance, other than small fragments offered to abutting owners in
exchanges of land, minor sales or resolution of encroachment problems, the
following additional steps be taken;
( 1 ) The Authority's intention to consider disposal of the lands be duly
publicized, including adequate newspaper publication in at least one
local and one major Toronto region newspaper;
(2) At least one public open house information session be held in the
vicinity of where the lands proposed to be disposed of are situate;
(3) The general public and any other interested parties be invited to make
submissions, either verbal or written, to the Executive Committee
prior to a final recommendation being made with respect to disposal;
and
"(4) --. At'such time- as a-1inal recommendation is made with respect to
disposal, staff provide to the members of the Authority details of the
recommended disposition including commission rates and any other
specific information relating to the transaction."
For information contact:
Jim Dillane, Ext. 220
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0473
RES. #0109/97 - CENTENNIAL CREEK SUBWATERSHED PLAN
Weir Mitigation Project
Approval of the Weir Mitigation Project, Centennial Creek Watershed.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Centennial Creek Weir
mitigation project be undertaken and cost shared between the City of Scarborough and the
MTRCA RAP funding;
AND FURTHER THAT other funders be sought for the rehabilitation of the site including
Great Lakes 2000 and Friends of the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At meeting #1/97 of the Joint Watershed Management and Public Use Advisory Boards a
staff report was received on the Centennial Creek Subwatershed, a study undertaken by
the City of Scarborough to regenerate a highly impacted urban tributary of the Highland
Creek. The Authority at its meeting #2/97 held April 4, 1997 adopted Resolution #A44/97
as follows:
MTHA T the report for the Centennial Creek Sub watershed
Study be received;
THA T the Authority support the recommendations of the
study;
AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to continue working
with the City of Scarborough staff to facilitate implementation
of the recommendations and ensure that the Authority's
objectives are met. "
Included in that report was the information that MTRCA staff was currently working with
Scarborough staff, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto staff and consultants to
design modifications to the small barriers to fish passage located at Lawrence Avenue. A
public meeting was held on Tuesday, February 12, 1997 where all attending were in full
support of the mitigation of the weirs through the creation of rocky ramps. The work
entails removing sections of two sheet pipe weirs upstream of Lawrence Avenue which are
presently impeding fish passage. The design also includes the stategic placement of river
run stone to create structures which will provide for fish passage and improve terrestrial
habitat.
RATIONALE
At present fish cannot pass through this area. The removal of these barriers will open
approximately 2 kilometers of stream habitat. The target species in this area is migratory
trout and salmon, white sucker, common creek chub and other resident species.
0474 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The construction of the rocky weirs will take place during October. Scouts will participate
in a planting at the site on October 25, 1997. In addition, approximately 100 scouts, in
the surrounding areas, will participate marking storm drains as part of the community
awareness efforts to develop a sense of stewardship amongst Centennial Creek Watershed
residents.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project will be cost shared as follows:
City of Scarborough $13,000
Metro RAP $13,000
Environment Canada's Great Lakes Clean Up $10,000
Fund Friends of the Environment
TOTAL $36,000
Report prepared by:
Adele Freeman, Ext. 238 & Jim Tucker, Ext. 247
For information contact:
Jim Tucker, Ext. 247
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0475
RES. #0110/97 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Terms of Reference - Second Term
Approval of the Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council 1998-2001.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Terms of Reference including
the membership for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council as set out in the report dated
October 14, 1997 be approved;
THAT the local municipalities of Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham and the Regional
Municipality of York be requested to appoint one municipal council member to the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council as early as possible in 1998;
THAT the new City of Toronto be requested to appoint representatives to the Don Council
based on community councils, that have interest in the Don watershed as early as possible
in 1998;
THA T the municipalities be requested to appoint staff liaisons as early as possible in 1998;
THA T applications be requested from the Don watershed community by December 15,
1997;
THAT other groups, as identified in the Terms of Reference be requested to appoint
members and alternates as early as possible in 1998;
THA T 8 report be submitted to the Authority identifying the proposed membership including
the Authority member for formal approval by the Authority in January 1998;
THAT all the members of the first Don Watershed Regeneration Council, its chair Mark
Wilson and the chairs of its subcommittees be thanked for their substantial contributions
over the past three years;
AND FURTHER THAT the present elected Chair, Mr. Mark Wilson, be appointed the interim
chair of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council until a new chair is elected or appointed
in early 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1994 the Authority adopted RestlA224/94 establishing the goals, membership,
organization and Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Since
that time the members have accomplished a great deal. Members have led efforts to
develop the Don Watershed Report Card. have developed a variety of communication
materials, piloted an outcome based watershed education program for grade 7 students,
developed a Volunteer Policy which has been adopted by the Authority, supported the
efforts of local groups to regenerate the Don, appeared before municipal councils in support
of the signing of the Don Accord and assisted in fundraising. Don Council members are
regularly sought to represent the Don community on committees The members truly
provide a vital linkage back to the local communities and ensure the individual watershed
approach required to ensure that efforts address the multiple concerns of watershed health.
0476 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
RATIONALE
The term for the first Don Watershed Regeneration Council expires in November of 1997.
A number of changes have been made to reflect the experience and achievements of the
past three years. These changes are outlined as follows:
Members of the present Don Council have suggested that the number of
watershed residents be increased to 1 5 from 10 and that the definition of
watershed resident be expanded to include persons who own and/or manage
businesses within the watershed. This change has been incorporated.
Additional members have been added to include the Ministry of Natural
Resources, Environment Canada and the Urban Development Industry
following the Humber Task Force approach.
The committee structure has been altered to assist in the implementation of
"Turning the Corner - the Don Watershed Report Card".
There has been concern expressed by municipal councillors who often have
experienced difficulty in maintaining their level of involvement due to meeting
conflicts. The Terms of Reference include a provision whereby municipal
councillors will be requested to assist in developing an effective
communication strategy to ensure their involvement while recognizing their
time commitments in their own municipalities. This will be further assisted
by the provision for the appointment of staff liaison persons.
The change in the governance of Metropolitan Toronto requires some
flexibility in the Terms of Reference with respect to municipal appointments
from the new City of Toronto. MTRCA staff will work with the appropriate
persons to identify the best approach to the appointments from the new city.
It is anticipated that these changes will assist the committee by increasing the number of
persons that can undertake specific initiatives and enhance representation and
communications within the watershed.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The opportunity for community participation on the Don Council will be advertised in local
newspapers. One information meeting will be scheduled for the end of November to
provide an overview of the goals of the Don Council and to answer questions of persons
interested in applying.
For information contact:
Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0477
Attachment # 1
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
- 1998 - 2001
GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, ORGANIZATION AND
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
October, 1997
theDon
--=-=--
0478 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #2
- 2
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
GOALS, MEMBERSHIP, ORGANIZATION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.0 ~
The goals of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are to protect and regenerate the Don
watershed and, more specifically, to assist the Authority, other agencies, and the public:
~ with the implementation of the Don Watershed Task Force's report, .Forty Steps
to a New Don';
ii) in the implementation 01 the Recommendations 01 the Metro Toronto and Region
Remedial Action Plan contained In 'Clean Waters, Clear Choices:
Recommendations for Action' as they pertain to the Don watershed; and,
Hi) in the implementation 01 the actions required to address the targets
identified in Turning the Corner. The Don Watershed Report Card.
2.0 WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
2.1 The Watershed CounCil shall consist 01 approximately 33 members including:
. the Chair of the AuthOrity or other Authority member;
. one member and alternate from each 01 the regional and local municipalities
within the Region of York:
Regional Municipality of York
Town 01 Richmond HIli
City 01 Vaughan
Town of Markham:
. councillors representing the New City 01 Toronto based on community councils or
other basis of representation as determined in consultation with appropriate
officials of the New City early in 1998 (estimated at 6 positions based on
representatives from community councilS);
. fifteen watershed residents:
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0479
Attachment #3 .
3
-
. one representative and alternate from each of the following groups which have a
specific interest in the Don:
The Task Force to Bring Back the Don, City of Toronto
Friends of the Don East York
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Urban Development Institute
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
In the absence of the appointed member. the alternate will have full voting
privileges.
2.2 Aooointment of Municloal Reoresentatives
Within York Region the local and regional Don watershed municipal councils will be
requested. by the Authority. to appoint one of their members as a member of the
Watershed Council.
Within the new City of Toronto the Authority will request the City to appoint members of
council as noted in 2.1.
2.3 Selection of Communttv MembershlO
Applications for membership will be requested from persons resident within the
watershed. or who own/manage businesses within the watershed. A committee of three
persons comprised of 2 members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board and a
member of senior staff will select 15 persons to recommend as appointments to the
Watershed Council. This selection will take Into consideration the following:
. demonstrated interest in the watershed/community;
. willingness of the applicant to meet the potential time and work commitments;
. geographical representation of the watershed;
. professional expertise. and/or knowledge of the watershed in any area which
would assist in the implementation tasks.
2.4 Term of Aooointment
Appointments will generally be COinCident with the three year term of municipal
counctnors elTective on confirmation by the Authority in January of 1998 until November
15. 2001. ResignatIons may be filled by the AuthOrity on the recommendation of a
selection commIttee as provided In 2.3.
0480 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
~tachment #4
4
-
2.5 Attendance and Effort
Members will be required to attend on a regular basis all Watershed Council meetings.
Members will contribute actively to the work of the Council, prepare effectively for and
participate in at least one working committee.
Municipal councillors will be requested to assist in developing an effective
communication strategy to ensure their involvement in the Council while recognizing
their time commitments within their own municipalities.
Each community member will confirm in writing each year his/her continuing
commitment to the work of the Don Council. These statements will be reviewed by the
selection committee noted in 2.3 Community Membership. Members unable to fulfil this
commitment will be replaced on an annual basis.
2.6 Selection of Chair and Vice Chair of the Watershed Council
The chair and vice chair will be elected by the Watershed CounCil from amongst its
members. The Authority may appoint an interim chair until such time that an election can
take place. The chair and vice chair will also be ex-officio members of all working
committees.
2.7 Aaencv Staff liaison
Each municipality within the Region of York will be requested to designate a staff liaison
for the Don Council from an appropriate department. Within the new City of Toronto, staff
liaisons will be requested from the departments that have direct responsibilities for open
space, environmental planning and operations. These staff will be invited to all meetings
and may wish to join specific working committees. Annually, a separate meeting/forum
will be held to share information on Don Watershed plans underway, regeneration
activities carried out directly by municipalities and to ensure on-going liaison with
appropriate departments.
2.8 Workina Committees
The Watershed Council will undertake its work through the active involvement of its
members on at least one committee.
These working committees, during1hellrst year. win be structured around the themes of
Caring for Water, Caring for Nature, Community Awareness and Stewardship.
Working committees will be dissolved when their work is substantially complete and new
committees struck to deal with specific Implementation items as determined by the
Watershed Council and communicated to the Authority in half-yearly reports.
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0481
Attachment #5
5
-
Smaller committees can be added for specific projects but the Watershed Council will
generally be limited to 5 active/standing committees at anyone time. This will ensure the
necessary focus and effort required while serving to limit, to a reasonable level, the
demands on the Watershed CounCil members and staff of the Authority and other
agencies.
2.8.1 Committee Membership and Associate Watershed Council Members
The Watershed Council committee members will enlist the assistance from others
interested in actively giVing of their time and talents to the protection and
regeneration of the watershed. Additional committee members will also be
recruited from federal, provincial, regional and local agencies. These persons will
be appointed as 'associate' Watershed Council members by the Watershed
Council upon recommendation of the working committees. ASSOCiate members
are not required to be residents of the watershed. Associate members are
welcome and encouraged to attend all Watershed Council meetings and
participate at the discretion of the Watershed CounCil chair during committee
reports and at other times as appropriate.
2.8.2 Committee Chair
The chair of each committee will be a Watershed Council member. The chairs will
be responsible for addressing and implementing the Terms of Reference and
reporting to the Watershed Council on a regular basis.
2.8.3 Terms of Reference for Working Committees
Initial Terms of Reference will be developed by Authority staff for consideration by
the Watershed Council prior to its first meeting. Terms of Reference will be
developed and approved by the Watershed Council for each committee
established.
2.8.4 Work Plans
The committees will develop annual work plans. These work plans will contain
resource plans reqUired to support the proposed actiVities based on the Terms of
Reference.
2.8.5 Resources
-Funding may-tJe avaJlal:l1e for projects and activities of working committees based
on approved work plans and available Authority funding. Working committee
members are encouraged to secure other resources and partnerships for
Watershed Council projects and activities whenever pOSSible. In-kind or other
support for projects and actiVities will be welcome from business, industries, other
government agencies and private foundations, educational institutions and others
in accordance With MTRCA policies. All in-kind or other support will be
coordinated With and through the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto.
0482 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #6
6
-
2.9 Reoortina Relationshio
The Don Watershed Council will be considered as a subcommittee of the Watershed
Management Advisory Board. The Watershed Council chair will report on a semi-annual
basis on projects and progress. Annual work plans will be developed and submitted
prior to the end of the first quarter of each year.
The Watershed Council is not a formal commenting body; Authority staff will advise the
Watershed Council of Authority projects being planned or undertaken within the Don
watershed and of major planning initiatives or projects of others where the Authority may
be a commenting or permitting body.
The Watershed Council may provide comments or other information for the consideration
of staff and the Authority. On a project or application specifiC basiS the Authority or
Authority staff may request comment by the Watershed Council. These comments will
be provided or sought within the time frame necessary to maintain the Authority's service
delivery standards.
2.10 The Work of the Watershed Council
The Watershed Council shall:
. initiate and recommend to the Authority and others regeneration and stewardship
projects and actiVities in consultation with the local and regional municipalities
Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan and other watershed stakeholders that will
lead to the realization of the vision for the Don and implement the Forty Steps and
targets established in Turning the Corner - The Don Watershed Report Card;
. act as the Don watershed advocate in large projects that cross municipal
boundaries and support major proJects advocated by others which will regenerate
the Don;
. provide a forum for watershed communication;
. continue to promote the Don Accord (Step 31) to municipal councils, agencies,
businesses, community organizations and others throughout the watershed.
. support local community groups;
. in conjunction with the MTRCA and others, host technical forums leading to
improvements in planning and practice, lhroughout the watershed;
. inform watershed communities about regeneration through public meetings,
publications, displays, and cultural events;
. develop the second Don Watershed Report scheduled for publication in 2001;
. consult and involve individuals, interest groups, communities, business. industry
and government agencies in the realization of the vision for the Don watershed;
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0483
Attachment #7
7
-
. assist in gaining financial and in kind resources;
. adhere to the basic principles of sound ecosystem management that recognizes
the interrelationship between cultural heritage, physical, biological and economic
processes, and the integration of conservation, restoration and economic
activities necessary for the health of the watershed;
3.0 AUTHORITY SUPPORT
The Authority will provide staff support for the Watershed Council, including technical project
support and community outreach, based on available funding and on a work plan developed by
the Watershed Council and approved by the Authority.
Subject to available funding, the staff secretariat will include:
. Don Watershed Specialist
. Don Watershed Secretarial Assistance
. Technical Support Staff
The Don Council and its Working Committees will otherwise strive to be self-sufficient in
achieving their goals.
From time to time, the assistance of additional MTRCA staff may be required on a project specific
basis. Provision of such assistance will be determined when a project plan is completed by either
the Don Council or a working committee. and approved by the MTRCA's Director of Watershed
Management.
The project plan will clearly identify membership requirements, including MTRCA staff, Don
Council members and auxiliary members. The project plan will also identify expectations of the
member's responsibilities, time commitment and project funding availability and allotment.
4.0 COMPENSATION OF WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERS
At regular Watershed Council meetings, and working committee meetings, members will be
eligible for travel expenses according to Authority policy. Associate members of working
committees are also eligible for travel expenses where these are not covered by their agency.
5.0 RULES"'OF'CONDtJC1'
The Don Council will adhere to the MTRCA's Rules of Conduct, PoliCies and Procedures.
0484 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #8
~"< A
DON WATERSHED REGENERATlON COUNCIL
PROPOSED COMMITTEE S'mUCTURE
1998 . 2001
STANDING COMMITTEES
1. Caring for Water
- Monitoring Program Review and Recommendations
. Headwaters Stormwater Opportunities Study
- Metro Wet Weather Flow Study
. CSO Elimination Advocacy Program
Projects: Stormwater Retrofrts
2. Caring for Nature
- Natural Habitat Regeneration Study
- Identification 01 Potential Habitat Regeneration Sites
. Partnership Development for Habitat Regeneration
- Identification 01 Critical Habitat Sites for Protection
Projects: West Don - Vaughan Project
3. Community Awareness and Stewardship
- Don Volunteer Program
- Publications
- Education Program
. Community Mapping Program
. Business Outreach
- Media Campaigns
- Don Accord
- Access Issues
Special Committees
-2000 Rspot1.Card.l:ammittee..1o beJormedJn..Jaouary, J999
Public Opinion Survey
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0485
RES. #0111/97 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting #4/97 and #5/97
The minutes of Meeting #4/97 held August 13, 1997 and Meeting
#5/97 held September 17, 1997 of the Don Watershed Regeneration
Council is provided for information.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed
Regeneration Council, Meeting #4/97 held August 13, 1997 and Meeting #5/97 held
September 17, 1997 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 MForty Steps to a New Donw and to
regenerate the watershed.
For information contact:
Adele Freeman (Ext 238)
RES. #0112/97 - DON WATERSHED BUSINESS OUTREACH
Westminister Creek and Watershed Stewardship
Status report on business outreach activities within the Don
Watershed, particularly:
1. the Westminster Creek Project; and
2. the Watershed Stewardship and Pollution Prevention Project
for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the reports on the Westminster
Creek Project and the Watershed Stewardship and Pollution Prevention Project for Small
and Medium Sized Enterprises be received;
THA T the Authority extend a letter of appreciation to Environment Canada for their support
for the two demonstration projects;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be encouraged to identify additional methods and develop
additional proposals to encourage business participation in watershed stewardship within
the Don. ................................................... CARRIED
0486 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
BACKGROUND
The development of these two demonstration projects originates in objectives contained in
Forty Steps to a New Don to engage the business community in watershed stewardship.
Previous initiatives in this regard include the development of the Don Accord and efforts
associated with the creation of Langstaff EcoPark.
A THE WESTMINSTER CREEK PROJECT
In the fall of 1996, Environment Canada's Pollution Prevention and Abatement Division
provided approximately $35,000.00 of funding to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority to develop and implement the Westminster Creek Pollution
Prevention (P2) Program from December 1996 through June, 1997.
The funding was used to provide pollution prevention and administrative staff, as well as
printing and postage costs, to effect business outreach to approximately 500 businesses
located in the Westminster Creek watershed, a tributary of the West Don River that flows
through the Langstaff business area and provides the base flow for the Keffer Marsh, the
key feature of Langstaff EcoPark.
The goal of the Westminster Creek Project was to encourage the Westminster Creek
business community to become active participants in the regeneration of the Don River and
to provide them with the information and tools they need to take part in pollution
prevention.
An extensive communications strategy, consisting of mailings, posters, personal visits,
faxes, and telephone calls inviting the community to a series of activities ranging from tree
plantings to community clean-ups and from marsh tours to free workshops in pollution
prevention, focused on three aspects of business operations:
. lot management - improving storm water quality through
environmentally responsible management of a business'
exterior premises;
. community action - encouraging business participation in
activities that will foster a sense of watershed stewardship,
including tree plantings, clean ups, and marsh tours; and
. environmental management/toxic use reduction - providing
businesses with the information and tools they need to adopt
- - an interna1 environmental management system that includes
pollution prevention and toxic use reduction.
Results of the Project included the following:
. a high local profile was established for the Keffer Marsh, the
Westminster Creek Project, the Langstaff EcoPark Steering
Committee, and the MTRCA;
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0487
. over 2000 kilograms of waste was picked up in two local
clean-ups involving about 15 members of the public;
. spring tree plantings, conducted in conjunction with other
EcoPark activities, attracted 120 people and resulted in 1,000
trees and shrubs being planted;
. nineteen people from 3 companies participated in marsh tours;
. 500 copies of the Westminster Creek Action Kit were
distributed to the local business community; and,
. 17 individuals from local businesses participated in pollution
prevention workshop.
In addition, experience gained during the Westminster Creek Project allowed the MTRCA
and Environment Canada to develop a follow-up project, entitled Watershed Stewardship
and Pollution Prevention for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises.
B WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
PROJECT FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES
The second demonstration project, also valued at approximately $35,000.00 over a six
month period, from July to December, 1997, seeks to apply the experiences and
recommendations of the Westminster Creek Project, as follows:
. the MTRCA to host a workshop of Pollution Prevention Co-
ordinators to discuss the specific challenge of marketing
Pollution prevention (P2) to Small and Medium Sized
Enterprises (SMEs);
. the MTRCA to develop an eight page tabloid, based on the
Westminster Creek Action Kit. for distribution to approximately
10,000 businesses in the Don Watershed;
. the MTRCA to develop a P2 workshop specifically for SME's.
The goals of the Watershed Stewardship and P2 Project are to help the MTRCA develop a
position on business involvement in Stage III RAP; distribute 10,000 copies of the
Watershed Stewardship tabloid; am:l-to have 1-% of"1he targeted audience, or 100
businesses, attend one of a series of P2 workshops to be held in November.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The final report for the contract for the Westminster Creek Project was submitted on July
16. Work on the second contract, the Watershed Stewardship and Pollution Prevention
Project, is proceeding, with the tabloid due out in early November, the pollution prevention
workshops to be held toward the end on November, and the final report due December 19,
1997.
0488 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
FINANCIAL DETAILS
These two projects have received funding of approximately $70,000.00 from Environment
Canada's Pollution Prevention and Abatement Division, with the MTRCA providing core in
kind support for office space, communications, and administrative support. In addition, we
have received $4,000.00 from Consumers Gas for the printing of the 8 page tabloid.
Report prepared by:
Andrew McCammon, Ext. 307 & Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
For information contact:
Andrew McCammon, Ext. 307
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0489
RES. #0113/97 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Appointments of representatives from the new City of Toronto to the
Humber Watershed Alliance.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the new City of Toronto be
requested to appoint representatives to the Humber Watershed Alliance as early as possible
in 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #4/97, the Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance
were approved. Membership included representatives from the three regional and twelve
local municipalities as well as business associations, interest groups, residents and other
agencies.
Staff sent letters requesting the municipalities to appoint one elected representative and
one staff alternate to the Alliance scheduled to meet for the first time on October 21,
1997. Eight municipalities have since nominated their representatives. It was understood
at the time that the governance of Metropolitan Toronto would require some flexibility with
respect to the municipal appointments from the new City of Toronto. However, it was also
important to initiate the work of the Alliance without further delay.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
MTRCA staff to consult with appropriate persons to identify the best approach to obtaining
appointments from the new City of Toronto who have an interest in protecting, restoring
and celebrating the Humber River Watershed.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, ext. 211
0490 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 October 24, 1997
RES. #0114/97 - ROUGE PARK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
A Recommended Organizational and Financial Model for the New
Rouge Park Alliance. To endorse the report entitled: "A
Recommended Organizational and Financial Model for the New Rouge
Park Alliance".
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Board endorse the report
entitled: "A Recommended Organizational and financial Model for the New Rouge Park
Alliance" ;
AND FURTHER THAT MTRCA staff be directed to discuss the details of the
recommendations in the report with the Province of Ontario.
AMENDMENT
RES. #0115/97
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Lorna Bissell
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to prepare a
further report outlining the basis that staff is endorsing the report entitled "A
Recommended Organizational and Financial Model for the New Rouge Park Alliance".
THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In April of 1995, the Province of Ontario launched the Rouge Park. The Province provided
guidance for the Rouge Park Alliance through the Rouge Park Management Structure and
Funding report. This report outlined an organization to manage the Rouge Park and support
a funding formula. The term for this arrangement was for three years ending on March 31,
1998. The report also recommended a review of the management structure and funding at
the end of the three year period with a report to go to the Province prior to March 31 ,
1998 proposing the long term management structure and funding for the Rouge Park.
In March of 1997, the Rouge Park Alliance hired the Lura Group to carry out an in-depth
review of the current management and funding for the Rouge Park. The attached report is
a result of an extensive public and internal review of the Rouge Park Alliance Management
Structure and funding.
On September 17, 1997 LURA Group held a working session with the Rouge Park Alliance
members to discuss options and recommendations contained in the report. The following
recommendations were drafted from the working session:
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0491
1. THA T the Rouge Park Alliance advise the Province of Ontario that having
completed a major review of the Organizational Structure required to protect
the Rouge Park and the Rouge Watershed in the future, the Alliance is
recommending to the Province that the Rouge Park Watershed Alliance
should continue as the coordinating body, with a strong Provincial role,
which can be exercised through the Conservation Authorities Act, an
amended Provincial Parks Act or a new Rouge Park Act;
AND FURTHER THAT the Alliance agrees that within the existing legislative
framework the Conservation Authorities Act is the preferred mechanism to
support the Alliance;
2. THA T the preferred funding formula for the future of the Rouge Park Alliance
be 1/3 Federal, 1/3 Provincial and 1/3 municipal (based on the MTRCA
formula) and that MTRCA be directed to seek funding support for 1998 on
that basis, and that the MTRCA be requested to seek the municipal
contribution through the Authority's budget process on the basis that the
municipalities will be requested to increase the funding support to the
Authority to allow the Alliance to continue.
At the regular Rouge Park Alliance meeting held after the Working Session on September
17, 1997, the following resolutions were passed:
MOTION Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Res. #115/97 Seconded by: Calvin White
THA T the Rouge Park Alliance advise the Province of Ontario
that having completed a major review of the Organizational
Structure required to protect the Rouge Park and the Rouge
Watershed in the future, the Alliance is recommending to the
Province that the Rouge Park Watershed Alliance should
continue as the coordinating body, with a strong Provincial
role, which can be exercised through the Conservation
Authorities Act, an amended Provincial Parks Act or a new
Rouge Park Act.
AND FURTHER THAT the Alliance agrees that within the
existing legislative framework the Conservation Authorities Act
is the preferred mechanism to support the Alliance.
AMENDMENT Moved by: Tom Melymuk
Res. #119/97 Seconded by: Nestor Chornobay
THA T the second part of Res. #115/97 be replaced with the
following:
AND FURTHER THAT the Alliance recommends that an
amendment to the Provincial Parks Act is the preferred
mechanism with the MTRCA as the lead agency.
0492 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION (Res. #115/97) AS AMENDED WAS . . . . . . CARRIED
MOTION Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Res. #120/97 Seconded by: Frank Faubert
THAT the preferred funding formula for the future of the
Rouge Park Alliance be 1/3 Federal, 1/3 Provincial and 1/3
municipal (based on the MTRCA formula) and that MTRCA be
directed to seek funding support for 1998 on that basis, and
that the MTRCA be requested to seek the municipal
contribution through the Authority's budget process on the
basis that the municipalities will be requested to increase the
funding support to the Authority to allow the Alliance to
continue.
CARRIED
For information contact:
Gord Weeden (416-287-6843)
Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0493
October 24, 1997
Attachment #1
. -
A Recommended Organizational and
Financial Model for the
New Rouge Park Alliance
--- - -- _. -
October 1997
Rouge Park Alliance Organizational Review Sub-Committee
0494 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #2
~-
Repon prep:ued by LURA Group on bdJalf of the Rouge Park
.Alli:uJa: Organiz:lrionaJ 5truc:turl! R~ew 5ub-Committee
LURA Group
3 Church Street, SUite 400
Toronto,Oncno
MSE 1M2
. A Reccmmenaea Organnoonalana Flnenaal Moae/ /or tile New Rouge Pari< Altanee Oetoa" 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0495
Attachment #3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cecul1ve Surnmarv
LO Background......................................................................................................................................................:
1.1 The OrgaruZ:lOonaJ Re"ew Process. ....................... .................................................................................. .~
12 nus R.eport............................................................................................................................................... ...... ..
2.0 The Effectiveness of the Alliance T 0 Dale.......................................................................................... S
2.1 Plan Impiemenol1on............................................................................................................. .... . .............. .....;
.,., Orgar=l1onaJ S[IU= .......................... .................. ............................................................................. .. 5
23 Funrimg and rmancal .-\dmuust[;leon..........._._....._.._..._._.._..................................................6
24 CandUSJOll -
-------....- .
3.0 The Need for, :md Annbules of, a Saong Alliance ..---.--..---.....-............................R
3.1 V 1SJOll... '-- ------......_.......8
3.2 Mz1date. - -__..._.8
3.3 The CUSlOr1'leG ...._......_..._................................................._.............._........_............................................. ()
Table 1: Rouge P-uk Customers ................................................................................................ ........ . ..... q
3.4 The Skills/ AttnbulCS :-.Jeeded to do the Job...........__..__..__.........._................................................ ill
35 The Plulosoplues md V:l!ues to :\pproach the job ..-.___............._.._.............................................. lli
3.6 PQwetS ~eeded .............................................................................................................................................. 1 (I
3.7 Conduslon..........................._........................................................................................................................ 11
4.0 A Proposed Organizational:md Financial Model for the New Alliance............................... 1:
4.1 Ker Sua:ess F=rs of the New .~ce ......................._........................................................................ 1:
4.2 OrgaruzanonaJ Gwddmes for the New Alli:mce................__........__..::::........................................... 13
4.3 Pcncpies and Opeons for OpeceonaJ FundUlg..........._......._........................................................14
Table 2: FundingOpeons for the Rouge Park .~ua1 Oper.llll1gCoSts _ 1998............14
5.0 The Preferred De1i~ Mechanism for the New Alliance ....--........-.....................................16
5.1 Process and ~ms for Idenefymg the &commended DeUvery Opeon ............................ . 16
5.2 A1~ DeiJvery Mech:uusms to Co-orrl1na~ Implemenooon of the Rouge Park PI:lllS....... . 16
5.3 Candida~ A1=~ Delivery ~lecharusms ............................................................................................... 1 i
5.4 Deaslon CO=a............................................................................................................................................... 13
55 Evaluaeon of .-\It=l:Ir!: DelIvery .\1ech:uusms .......................... ............................................................ 18
5.6 SI.lJ1'lI'I1:IlY :\n:1lvslS ................ ........................................................................................................ ..... ....................... 29
6.0 CODclusioD.....................................................................................................................................................31
Bibhogcphy
Apperufu: A Rouge Parle .-\lh:ince Orgar=oon:1l S[IU=
Apperufu: B Proposed Org:uuzaeon:ll S[IU= for the ~ew :\IlJ:lllce
Apperufu: C Geneoc Opecnng Costs for the :-Jew :\lll:lllce
Appcnchx 0 Modd .\femorandum of Cnderscnding for P:lr01ers of the New .-\lh:ince
A Recommenaed Org~nrz'oon'l ,nO ;:::m.nQ~ Moa.., for m. New Rouge Park AllI.nc:. Octo"er 1997 III
0496 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Rouge 1'3Ek :\lliance "''':IS roanec :,:ncer lile JUSplCes or the 1'rovvu:e or Onemo UI 1~l<l5. Ir .;omen".., o.
parme:s lIlCiuding nelghboWlflg muruclp:ulCes. :he :\lelIOpoiiCln TeronID :wi Re!;1on Lunser\":Joen .~unllm[';. :11,
:'lelIOpohCUl Toronto Zoo. :he 1'ro\'Vlce 'Jr Oneno Jnd Sa\'!! the Rouge Y:illev .sYStem inc.. .1 non-!-'u\'t'cul\..nr
cozen-based orgaruzaoon wilo had led :he ,5 ye:lr c:unp:ugn to roan the p:uk.
The role or the .o\lliance is ID acr :IS :an JO\'OC:lle for the Rouge P2dt. :wi to proVIde le:adelslup and gwcbnce tIJ P:w.:
Pamea :wi odlas c:mymg aut unpiemenraaon :wi opea.aons. CMr the past twO yeazs, the .~ has rOcu:sed
on compleong Pam Plans :IS weI1 :IS c:o-ordin:1ong and f.1ci1icmng the implemencuion ofPlanso ~lt P\;UlS
!Dr the Pm: area south of 5.mes ha\'!! been c:cmple=i. while Plans !Dr the tqpcn nonn of 5.mes .\venue .\R:
sc:heduIed !Dr c:ompIelion this ye:ar. As these Plans 3ft: nez c:cmpIelion. dle Alliance will fixus moa: exduslveiy on
ensucng dw the P:uk's \'15101\ and goais Ja: upheld.. :wi th:l[ the Plans 3ft: unpiemented.
In laundung the .o\lliance :wi :eanang :he Pad.:., both the Prowu:e or Onl2DO and the FedeaI Go\'!!D'Imenr
conmbulai $10 million IJ1 C1pu:a1 funds to somul~ the cononued planning and unplemenemon of 1':10;; PI:ulS.
The opecmon COSIS of the .~:ue S:!35.000 annu:lIho. :\IongWlththe CCMlrdin:u1on funCDon. the :\I1iam:e runs
evenlS :wi commuruc:uians progcuns :Iom lIS at1ic:e :I[ V:ill~ Halla.
Iruually, It was anllCip:ued dw apecoons COSIS would be covered duough ICVleS iiom mWUop:1lilies \IIun an
eqwvaIent shaa: conDibua:d ~ OnCIDO. 1rus:1pp!03Ch w:lS unsua:essful.:wi COSlS have been covea:d pcm:mi~
&om the provu1CI2l and ~ pl:anl'llllg :u1d C1pu:1I conmbuoans.
Organizational Review Process
Upon es13blislunalt of the --\IlW1Ce. :he Pro\'Vlce recogruzed that :l l'I!Vlew or the otg:llUZ:loanal and tin:ulcl:1I
Sll\lC:lUa: of the olpUZ3l1on dWlflg:ts thud ye:u or opecoons woulcl enable the Pt'OVUlce to :lSsess whether the
P:uk's VlSIOI\ and goals _ beU1g prc=:ed. JIld ",-nether the 1'\:u'15 were beIIlg unplemented effecovely
.0\11 Org:uuz:mon:li 5tI\ICt\,\R: RevIew 5ub-CJlTV'IlIrtee "''':IS esClbhshed to condua the l'I!Vlew U'I 199i. ch:un:d by rhe
.o\Ili:Ince's 01:ur ~fr. Ron Omsoe. TIle l'C\'CVoO "''':IS to be uu:lus.\'!! or ..\I1i:Jnce membeJ:s :111d clmmwlI~.
sl2kehoJdas :wi ID the almt poSSible. consensus '~":IS to be =ched on the pn:feaed org:u=n:1l :IIIU tinam:1:11
SllUCl1m! ID be unplemenled for the future.
LUR.\ Consulong Group IJ1 TalOnID w:lS n:clned by the :\Iliance to i:Ic:ilica: the sub-comnuaee's n:V1ew pltX:Cis.
A three phase process was esClblished to.
e l'I!Vlew the effecaveness of the ClDSDI'Ig otg:llUZ:lDon;
e ldenoiy and evall.I2le poa:na:li otg:llUZ:lDon :u1d iundulg apDOllS; :u1d
e recouuu.,ud along-lm'n susl3ll1:lble sau= :wi iundulg rnech:uusm for the org:uuz:1oon.
IV A Recommenaea C"9.n:.oan., .na F.n.na., Maa", tor me N_ Rauge P.", AIII.nce OcraD.' 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0497
Attachment #5
2.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ALLIANCE
The effec:ll~-eness of the elDSang ar;:u=Don \\":IS e\-:UU;lll!d wider three C:llegoDes: pl:lll unpiemenClDOn;
otg:UUZ:lDonaI Stn1=; JIld :UnciU1g :lno :uuncci ,ldnuruslr.lDOIl. Genec11\'. the .~ance Stn1= l~ wllrKuI).:
effi:co~-eiy U1 puawt or ilS m:lllO:lll!. ."..-e::lS Ullleed unpro\'ement wiuch lu~-e beenldenDlied ulciude:
Priority ScaiDg ~ow Nt Jll unde~cnciing or' the Park's ecologlC:al :ltIxibuteS ;wi COIlWDOIlS IS .1\~ULlbir.
J/1 :Jggte5sl\'e ::pproJci'l ro pnonty selling III pl:lll unpiemencDOIl needs to be tUUllWt"C.
Local Expcnisc Ir IS orne :0 broJden the b:lSe or expertISe. dr.1w1ng on the knowledge or park users ,uld
lac:II SCl.ia:i10Idets;
Decisio...Makiag AI1i:nz opeaaona1 puxedwes need ID be daaDed and CDmmlIIlICaIr:d ID all membets
III older ID mpmve erTecnveness and efliciency of decision-making;
Sab-Commi_ .'\ s~ which sae:unlines and inlepll5 die WOEk of ezisang sub-ccmmiaees would
f.Ic1j12~ the ....Ili:uu:e's fu= 'I11IOdc; and
FUIIdiDg .\ saong. susC1lnJble ::nd eqwClble funding foanuia wiuc:h COmrtUlS partners lU me !':Iri.:
is neczssarr.
3.0 THE NEED FOR. AND A TTRIBUTES OF, A STRONG ALLIANCE
The Rouge P:Idl: Management Plans concun J VlSIOI1 ror me P:Idl: :IS:
1M ~ P.,,;, aii/ ;" II sptIWl'pW o/'IJIIlr:.mliing IIQUITI1/f- .wi dU.mr ~ htnItJgt III IJII un-.
twrJl RIJl'n& fJ'Dl11'I'Ii fZ1IIi f.-uimrg QJ JII emsysum III .~. fVmrtm oaitiJier ai1/ carr III h~ UJh
tJJtlUllllnllllllllllfs tf tht pone. T<<.rxri 1IiIJ be II ~ ftr uan fZ1IIi tht inmum spiriL
To erlSUft: lhar this vwon IS upheld. ..\IIiance mernbea ;wi c:ommuruty stakeholders agreed dutthere IS a discrete.
umque role :uui func:aon for a dechc:lIed arg:uuz:1DOIl U\ the furwe. The org:uuzaaon's panClp:ll manO:lIe wW ~ tll:
e ccmplere the P!:lns;
e erlSUft: orgaruz:mona1 capability ID :mplement the Plans;
e aVl!lSl!e:uui co-ordinale unplemenCDOIl or the PIJllS:
e erlSUft: a solid financi3I Plan:
e mCllller sua:ess and unprove me PIJllS;
e remam a strong. informed ;wi re:ISOlled le:lder ;wi Jd~'OC1te for the he:Ulh, biodiversity JIm 1I11egcty lIr me
Rouge P:uk; and
e ensure a b2Ianced peapectn-e IS m:unCJned OIl J .....:llelshed ae.
It is =:agniud d12l e:Jd1 .-\Ili3nce ;nnner =es the responsibility or mplemenang P:Idl: PlJllS Wllhul thell'
bcundaaes :uui juasdiaJonaI JUthcn[\' HDWe\'e:. ,uasdicaDllS =g :Ilene.. or 11\ CDnlunctlOll With others, would
not ptawIe the necessary co-ordiruDOIl JIld oveaeer fwlCtlOll wiuc:h will make cercwl th:Jr the Park's Vl:illJn
beccmes ceality.
Through leViewing the skills and Jtmbu~ necessalY ID c:ury our the rnand:e of the atg:IIliz:Ition Jnd the wuque
powas needed ID uphold and proJeCt :he P:uk's \'ISIOI1. It was unaI1II1'lDUSly agreed NC
17.r i1 Q _ ftr tlII _. ;-wn~nQItd. IIoI1I/Ini1td:!Doutd "'J'W::aamr III ~ Dill :ht ",1IIVilIIe
IIIlmIl1Y III pmur:.wi 1IfJhoId :ht.;orit.'r IUlDJI.
nus Otg:UUZ:lDOll IS hea::uTer :erem:d :0 .lS :tie ~ .e\Io' . \l1ullce
A Rocommen_ OtgomZloonM onll FrnonceI MOIle/tc, me New Roug. Po". Aaon~.. OC!OIJ.' 1997 v
0498 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97
October 24, 1 997
Attachment #6
4.0 A PROPOSED ORGANIZA TIONAL AND FINANCIAL MODEL FOR
THE NEW ALLIANCE
Wilh ~t on lhe need for :lo dedsClred org:uuzaoon to conanue to oversee Jnd CO-c.lroul;ltr :lit'
mpiernenClDll[l at the Rouge ?:1Ik ?1:lllS. :he foUowlllg org:uuz:monai :wi iin:ll1caal gwdelult:~ haw il..::I1
established for the Sew :\lliance.
Organizational Guidelines
~ tIDti FUIJt:liDD
. To uphold the ~ goveaung Stl1lCllft! and opecuing amdillD05 for !he New AIlianl:e idemuied duuu~
the org:mizazional ~ process.
Qi....--cc .. ..-
. The emang .o\lliance pmneahsp ~ill be esp:anded and saenglhened in lhe New .o\lliance;
. .-\ga1oes and OtgaJUZ:lDOIlS w1uch linanc:Il1y support lhe .-\lli:Inc.e will h:l.ve :l m:IlOaty memberslup posmun;
and
. The StNCOlle will ccmpasc :l man:agement boW. :111 em:urive ccmnun=. and speci21ized :lond sae:uniined sub-
ccmnum:es. "This sau= will be suppiemena:d by twO adVISOry comnum:es composed at commwuty .uld
techruc:Ii apeas.
.N:l:DUDabi1il)' tIQ(/ A--_;/.,,7;I)' ID me Publit:
. Sm:ngthened zepomng and ccmmwury en~t s02/C&les will be developed. and irnplemenred.
D<<:mDD mUiDg.
. The ~ew .o\I1iance wiIll112ll1r:un decslOn-making :wlhoary ~ lhe allacaaon of bolh opeCloan:1l :II1d CIplt:1l
funds, propertY xqwsirion. plan implemencmon. plan 1Il=t'~on and uses telating to publicly held 1:u1ds;
. The New .o\lliaru:e will proVIde :niluena:1l adVICe to deaslOn-111:lkeIS telaang to pavazy held 1:u1ds; :lnd
. .'\ dispu~resoluaon med1:uusm will be crc:m:d to te50lve cont1icts wlIlg out of lhe deoslon-malang proc~s.
Guidelines for Providing Operational Funding
A suscunable foanula for levymg funding IS necessary to proVIde cenainty to the :\lliance's opecouns. :\l1i;ulct:
membea and comrnuf\Ity srakeholclers Jgree that obl2llUJ1g iinanci:Ii conaibuoons &om para1etS IS lhe must
appropaam way to ensure :10 long-tean comnutmem to the lI11plemencmon ofP:u:k PI:lllS. ConsldeCloon was g\\'en
to levyIIlg opeaaonaI fUnds for lhe :-.iew .o\lliance &om:
. IlIaI!:lShed municip2liries;
. w:umhed ~aes and lhe goveaunent of Oncma; and
. IlIaI!:lShed rm.auapa1iaes. the govemment of OnClDO and lhe government of Canada.
Ualizing d1e provm medwusrn of the MerropoliCln Toronto and Region Conservaaon .'\iJthoaty's funding
brnub. opeanona1 fUnds for the New .4J1i3ruz wiI1 be levied Iicm ~ rnurucip:lliries (one-rturd), lhe
lS"........_t of Onraao (one-rturd) and lhe govemment of C:an:ada (one-lhild). Please see lhe followu1g CIble for
detai1s.
.. A RIIC"""",,III1.a OtgallZU111111J alia FtIl.llallJ Maallllor rn. N_ RDUg. Pane AIIi.IICI, OCrDa., '997
Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0499
October 24, 1997
Attachment #7
r
FUDdiag Fannula for Rouge P:ulcAlliauce Auual Oper:ariag CaslS -1997
I MuaicipaJity I DE.-\' a'a I FAIR SHARE FORMUI.A " S
.\diala I 0.00576"'. I , ,
Dwilam I :'61493a" I :.1<1:;
Tomato I -01"4-9a, I 58.9:.:
. ..;.:).) a
~oao I 0.00814% I
Pcc1 I 10.28166% 8.623 I
Yom I 16.83493% 14.120 I
Sub-TocaI r 100% . .- ~ . -,":-"," 83.872 I
Muaiciplll Share I 83.87:! I
PnmaciaI Share I 83.87: I
Fedcnl Share I 83.871 I
Tow Opcraaag CoSIS I ::51.615 I
(i) atnlC.\'1 ~...- _. iaanula III11ed ID OPPO-" '*"'1IIllnlclplII ahont oi cola.
5.0 THE PREFERRED DEliVERY MECHANISM FOR THE NEW ALLIANCE
Th1= ~ of allm1alive delivery rnech:IIlIsms. represenllng :I IDa! of ezglu deUvery opaons. were e\".uuared.
These were:
CATEGORY I INDEPENDENT AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATION
OptiOD 1 NOD-Profit OrganizatioD
IncorpoClm: the ~ew :\Ihmce :IS :I non-profit org:uuz:1aon.
OptiOD 2 Voluntary Pumership
Opeam: the Sew :\IIi:Jnce:lS :I voluncuy, partnetslup org:uuz:1aon (sr,llus
quo).
CATEGORY II UNit THE NEW ALUANCE \VITH A LEAD PARTNER
OptiOD J Fedcr.aJ GCM:rnmeDt Lead
Esablish lhe Rouge P:uX :IS :I Saaonal P:uX 2nd deleg:ue ovec1ll man:lgetl:ll
n!SponsabililY ID lhe New Allimte.
OptiOD 4 . PnMacial GovenameDr Lead
Esablish lhe Rouge P:uX :IS a ProVUlCai P:uX and delegam: ovec1ll managerial
responsibililY ID the :-Jew .-\IIimce lhrough a New Regulaaon to lhe PmunauJ
Paniu A.:
OptiOD S PnMaciaJ GovernmeDt Lead
EsClbhsh lhe Rouge P:lrk :IS :I Pro\'UlcQ! P:ark :lnd deleg'Jte 1l\'er.illl11:1I1:1"oenai
n:sponslblii,,' to me ~ew :\II.Q1lce duough :Ill .-\mendmem to me Pf'Dl:nalJi
Pariu ,-l.:.
A Ra_ed O'VanaallOll., aflfl ""'ano., MOGel fo, ma N_ Rouga Pant Aliann. Oaooa,1997 VII
0500 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #8
OpaoD 6 ProviDcial GavenuneDe Lead
Cre:1u= :1 Roll!, Pn .-1.: wiucil de1egare5 O\'c:C:IiI ~n:1l respOllliliJUIl\. 1< I lilt"
~ew ..lJli:w:e.
OpaOD 7 MTRCA Lead
Esabhsh the ~ew :\Ilianc:e wlder the :WSplC:es or the :-'lerropOhtlll 70nllllll .UlLl
RegIon (:onse[\":looll .-\uthonry under the PrrnUllZlJi CfJfUm'tlllDn .-lll/lJtJfla~..
.-1.1.
CATEGORY III DEVOLUTION TO LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
OpcioD 8 MuaicipAI Lc:2d
Devolve aver:ill managem1 teSponsibility 10 die loCIl mwliap:liioes.
Based on die I11:IIldm: and func:aon Or !he New .-\lli2nce, a number of dc:cision allz:aa _ developed 10 JSlillil Ul
identifying a pD!fa=i delivecy medwusm.
DECISION CRITERIA FOR SELEcnNG DEliVERY MECHANISM
'Ihc: !'DOli desirable c:hanccc:ristics ior the organization to OftISC:C: the implemencation of the Rouge P:ark
P1aDs arc: dial ie muse be: both 2uconomous 2nd fin2n~i:lllv sust:linable. The foUowing 12 decision crieeria
suppan dIcse desiJed c:hanctc:ristics:
1. Is the: maadaa: of the: t:llldidaa: argamzaaao c:ompalible with the tOle of the .o\11iaace.
1. Can the goal aad maadaa: or the .o\11iaace be de1ivemi 8e:ably. efficiently :lIId effec:ovely?
3. Does the: candichae ocgaaazaalHl have a waa:nbed-wide penpective?
4. Can the: opaao ptO'Irlde 3ppropaaae orguuzaaoDaI focus?
5. Does the otgall1Zaoon bave suffiCient esperase :md ability?
6- Is the: otgall1ZaooD espeaenc:ed with panaenbsps?
7. Would the orgamzaDOD be accouacable. accessible :and would It iuI1y IDvolve the public,
8. Would the otgall1ZaaaD ptO'Irlde 6a:lllCl:U aUlOnomy :and susc1iaability to the .o\11illDce.
9. Would deClsloo-malwlg autOnomy be ptOVlded to the .o\11iance?
10. Is the aadidaa: wallang to lake on die mandate :and role?
11. Would the otgall1ZaaoD proV1de the necessary proiile?
11. What an: me asks assoClaled WIth thas org:uuzaaon.
The ev:duanon teSulled in the .delaiiOOOIl of three Clluiid:1a: de1ivety OpOOllS which met :ill or me c:nn:l'I:I..
however did so with disanaly diffm:nt :1anbuteS :lnd ISSUes.
The ligule below is a visual iIlusa:mon of the n:sullS produced when die CIIlciid:1u:s are ev:du:lled :ig:lIIllit Ihe 11
decision ai=ia (ple:ase see the colour<Oded legend Ilat :0 the 6guce for :llist of die decslOIl COtetl:l). The lTlOlil
&vouabIe ~ have the CI!lest b:us. ..\s IS cle:lr &om die figure. the three Clluiid:lles w1uch c:ome out ahe:1li
-= MmC.'\, New ~ Pari: Aa, :and :\rnendrnent 10 the PrrJwr=l Ptris Aa.
III1i A R.coffIfNno.o Org.nz.oon.'.no F.n.na.' MfJo" IfJr rn. N.w Roug. ".11< AIII.nce. OCIDa.r '997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0501
Attachment #9
Evaluation of Alternate Delivery Mechanisms
~ aRisa
3S C Fnlfile
. Vt.tlngness
30 . OIcIS__"..lWlg alllOnomy
25 a F.lanc81_nomy ana sUSlallaDlllly
20 .Aeeauntllllle. aee.sille. puIllIc
. ExI*WlC. w ilh ...-."...
15 . Ex.... MIl BIly
10 I:JOrv_~1ocus
lJ~wide
5 . Flex_. effllC1lVe delivery
0 . Mlnaale
i. I .~ ~s~.. ~ c .
U ~
.'8 ..... L.] ].:,1 ...- a: .
i1i: -. U i l3-
~ -3 = ~~ & ~~1
o !5 . Ii ::l --!!
0
~z ...- 2:!2~ c:: !
.
Z :I
.. ..
. - --- ---
s.... ~ F.,.,O of. --";,,.;.. ---- - -. - of' dw-.P J. 0......._.__ _........... ..... __ ~;,..
..... of' ...,. J (0-- -....,~.... F.... ---.,-'~J. n."",....,_.. __....",.." u _.. j"
.... _.fit- --. ....-p, oj. .aff-.",;..",,; 'Il-II rPJ-.1N -_...... _ tIN ~ tri_.
.'\ssUllllrlg lhar 311 idcmicli funding foanuJ:I will be used to lin:u1ce opecaons wulcr cu:h modcI (1/3 mwUCIp;U.
1/3 pmvmaal :wi 1/3 fr:dccU). !hen the .\lli:w:c must choose the most dcsued mech:uusm or combulaaoll lIf
mcchaIUsms based on the foUOWUlg disllnctlOIlS:
MTRCA I NEW ROUGE P.4RKACT AMENDMENT TO TIlE
PROVINCIAL PARKS ACT
. cmllDg Orpuz8l1llD widl . cnshanes lhe pro~oan of lhe . amcadiag process IS preceden!
comparible IIUIII!ae pam IR leg&SlaDOD semag
. cmliDg wu:abed proacclioD . rcqw= .denoic:Jlioa of pm . proVlDaal pm SClDd..uds ,,'oulLl
c.ompaaa1t boUlllbDes bodl saudi :md nonh wr
. provm md aa:epable Nadiag of Sa=e1es ..\venue . IIDccn:aary ~g:udWg me
&lllllula md levy mccbmIsm. . Ubiner :spproval ami IcglSlaove m:cpoveness of die govemmcu!
Idyiag OD aegolimd COIIaibuoons omeClble dcpcad,'lD! OD poliricl ID Ibis apoOD
. sus_ popular. coIIaboaove. will . Ias cIec.isIOA.lII8kiDg aUlDAllm~ ID
local pamcabip asodcI . \l/OuId IIUIII!ae lUadiag wuiI die -^IIiaace dI:m wilh me omer
. aD be implaDallIid quicIdy cqwnleDt mctbodolagy as nro aplions
. wilIiag MmC... modd . provides a 111gb pro6le
. lI90Ids duplicaooa . =a=s lhe need ID dis!Ulgwsh
roles belWecn :.rrn.c... :md lhe
:\lli=lce ~~g w~=nhed
R:spon.,bdioe5
AReca_II Olflena.oon. .nll Fin.no., MOll.. lor rne N_ Rouge P.", AlNnc:e. Omaer 1997 11
0502 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #10
RECOMMENDA nON
The Rouge Puk.-\Iliance be foam1ized under the ~rrn.c. \'$ ~[strl1CtUl'e. subJect to the ),rrn.c..l,
ac:epllllg the rnandaIe 3IId apet3lIIlgprocedwes ldennbed 01:Secnons 3.5 and .'\ppenchx B. TIle ~ew :\l1&111J:t"<
ertecnveness IS oveaeeing the unpiemenC1ll0l1 orI':u:k Pl:lllS will be eva\uall!d 3IId ltlOIutOred on :Ill onguUl~ b'L<I'
and will conllllue to consider 3IId teY'lew the need for the p:uk to be enslmned Ullegl5lanon :IS Cm:umsC01J:C:"
dicC1lI:.
'';IIp- ,:;..... .~~ ....._.. "o-
r ..-:.;. .':":l~' ...:... ..
";"1~.
.- -
A R__ O'll.nZ.lIaIIeI.,,(I Frn.fIO. Model to, Ih. N.., Roug. P.nc AIl.nc.. OCIOII.' 'GG7
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0503
Attachment # 11
A RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL
MODEL FOR THE NEW ROUGE PARK ALliANCE
- '-' -- . ...'" "\.--... - ..... ....-.. .... _...0_.. I'-"C.I .....
'" ..... . :...... ....,. .....~.. .r.............: ........... :...J'...: ..~.. ;_~ .. . -
- . '"
. " ,.
-- - - --- "-.--.---- --- ..- - .. . - --.._- ----.- -
.. . --
A RKIIIIIlIIen_ O'VenaellOll.,"'" Fineno" MOGeIIDr 1/1. N_ Roufle Pe", Menc.. Octoo., 1997
0504 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #12
1.0 BACKGROUND
On March 26. 1990. ~ a Iiiteen \'e:It public c:unp:ugn to save me Rouge \'aIlev from U1:lppropa:lle de\'ei(lpl1l~nr.
the Govemment of Onl2DO announced Its uuem :0 esClbhsh a p:uk Ul the :ue:I or me Rouge Ri\-er \\":1a:rsh~d. III
June 1990. the Pro\'Ulce JPPOUlred .1 muia-st:lkehoider Rouge P:uk .\dVlSOty Comnura:e :0 de\'elllp .,
rec:ommeru:ied padc plan. nus Comnura:e =ed out a four.phase planrung process th:1t Ulduded ell.'teIlSl\'e pubh.:.
JgellC! and UlleEeSt group consulClaon 3lld forwarded Its recommendaaons to the Pro\'Ulce Ul J ui~' 199:.
In 1994, :he ProVU1Ce of OnClDO rele:1Sed a mamgemem plan for me Rouge P:uk (from Like OnClDlI rll ~[t't'b
.-\venue). "The Honour.Jble D:a\'1d CrombIe or me \'t'arm'ront Regenec1tlOl1 TNSt was ;!Skeel b~' the Pm\'ul':t' :/1
t!ICCmItlaUi a rmnagem:nt SllUCtlUe and funding li:unewotk for the Pam. Subsequendy, Ul 1995, the RouS'= P;u:k
AIIiana: was esab1ished by the Pt'OVIIUZ as a voiunary, parm=ship ~ lD oveaee the mpiemel1l:mun ut
the Rouge P:IEk ~t Plan.
The Rouge P2dt .o\11i:Ince h2s brought together 11 pameIS who walk lDWaId the tealizaIion of the P:lEk's VISIon
and Goals. These pameIS an:: :he Ci~ of Sc::uborougil. the Mwuopa1i~ of ~tt'OpoliCll1 Toronto. the ~lett'OpuUtlll
Tot'OnlD and RegIon ConseIv:laon :\uthoa~, the ~iett'O Tot'OnlD Zoo. the ProVU1Ce of Onemo. Save me Ruuge
Valley 5ysran Inc.. Dwham RegIon.. and :he Towns of ~ Pickmng. Richmond Hill and ~l11tchun:h-
SlDWiVille.
17J1: OrigiD8J ~Wission and Roll: of chI: AJ/Una
In the 1995 Rouge P:lEk Management Saucnm: and Funding Report. .-\11ianIz teSponsibiliaes ulCiucle:
. ensuang:he impleml!lll2lion of:he Rouge P:lEk plan south of S=es .-\venue;
. developing and ensuang implemencu:ion of a Rouge P:uk plan nom of S=es Aven~ :D1d
. develapmg a s~ for s~ af:he walCl:Shed.
In addiaon. the mission SClIeS that the role of the :\Ili:1nce:
...MJJ be fIJ t1tZ lit IZII ~/ar rht RmtJr Pani:. and fIJ prowU ~ <Wi guiUna fIJ Pari: PrIUI61 <JNi
otixn ~l tIIIl ~ and uptnJDIIN_17Jt CmmaJ .__:IJiIIti lht A1Iianaj ..uJ htJl.e pnm.u:'l
~ far ___. ~l. ~ rht oIH1ffiiIIIII1I uf UJiJmJetr ;J<fUC!i' .wi !i.tu1Pl IUW
~. ~ anti rhtgmemi.DIIiJii:.
Man2pDt!lJt and Funding
The.~ is dw1ed by Mr. Ran Omsae. foanetl~. wnn the ~lirusuy ofNaa.u:al Resawces. It IS m:uuged hy ~1r.
Gord Weeden, Geneal Manager la;ho is suppom by a sma11 safE GeneraIly,:he :\lli:uu:e seeks to uvetSt:e ;utd
~ the impIemenClllOl\ of the P:lEk Plan. It meets on a regular basIS and m:Ikes dec1s101lS regarding me
pianrung process, plan impIemen12aon.. and aIlcx:mon of iin:ana:II teSOUlCeS. nus Ulvolves wldeacutding ;uld
respecung the roles and teSponslbiliaes of pannea Ul the delivery of their vaDOUS mplemencmoll functlO1lS.
dawu1g on slalls available Ul parlI'= alpl=aons. relymg on pameIS lD ccmmwu= their act1V1aes, .Ind
(llDV1ding balanced direction lD pro~ :he P:lEk's Ul=lS. P:amea an: ldentilied to 1e:1d pro1ectS aatd cmy
lixward vaaous ~ lD lheu' Counals or Boards oiDuectccs.
As part of the W~t R.egeneaaon TNSt'S process U1 1995. It was c!elmn1ned th:1t 50% of opecuing CUSlS for
:he Rouge Pm .o\Ilianc:e would be proVIded b~ the pIOVUlce. 3lld 50% by mWllClpaiiaes - the R.eg1Ullal
MWlIClpa1iaes of Dwh:un. York. Peel and ~Ie:ropohCll1 Toronto. md the Townslups of ~no aald :\diala.
Tasoronaa _ based an dle ~lTRC.\'s d1scOWllCd c:<1u:lhzed .ISsessmellt process. The Pro\'Ulce OfOIll:1I10 ;uld rhe
Feder:ll Govemment e:u:h conrnbured 510 rruiholl U1 c:lplral funds to samulaa: me conanued pl;UU1UI~ ;Uld
2 A R.c:amm.noe" Otgenuaanel en" An.nael MOOel farr". N.w Rouge Peril AlHinc:.. Oc:raa., 1997
,
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0505
Attachment #13
unpiemem3aon of P:1tk P13IlS. :>om duecang where ~e-.r respecu\'e funding commnmems 11CCli.hng 5:0 lluUllIlI
wouid be uaia.ed.
~hi1e :ius iilndIng roanula was recommended., mosr mUlUclp:li pannea ha\'e. tor v:mous re:1Sons. nor conmilured
thell' :IilllClllOns. In re:l!i~'. the Pro\'Ulce Iw .:omnbured 50", or' tile .\lli:uu:e's 5235.000 ;IIUlual opet:lang ~ll~n;.
wnit the babnc:e cOlT1lllg :rom ,meresr on :he t'eaer:1i .:onmbuaon. Decslons relaang 1C the Ji)oc:mOll lIr' :hc:~..
iunds teSr ~,th the .-\lliance.
1.1 The Organizational Review Process
One of ML Cmmbse's .ecolIgl~ons was that a l'e\'Iew of the management suuctule and funding of the Rouge
P:u:k.o\IIi:n:e be c::amed OUt duang itS thim ycr of opecuionsl. The a:view proc:zss was ID be impmi:Il. lI1C!usive.
and designed ID delm1lllle: the ~ of the cum:nt management sauczure; the ~ for adiusrmems; :he
need for legislation ID ensua: Padt pma:aon; and a p~ long-lmn funding fi:2rnewodt. A sulxcmrruaee of
the .o\Ili:nz, the OzpUzanonal Sauawe RevIew Sub-Comrrura (ORSC). was established ID conduct the ~'lew.
In ~ of 1997, the LURA Consuiang Group was m:uned to design and implement a f.u:iljclled. COUabllt:lOVe
process ID 2SSlSr the ORSC. the .-\lliance and the CommUlUty U1 compleang the l'e\'Iew.
The rew:w was guided by me rbUOWUlg purpose:
TD .zmJJ.ta oJ rJinJ ;_ IftUII' oj :he tJt!J11fl::mmW jlnliUln JNi /~ ~ UMh ruuilr :II
,a...._. i_ jlJr oJ .Dtrf"umt j1U1l1UJlJD1I mJ6!1'IR :hill ~ :hi __ l11IIi mDommtlll oj AliUm..r
ptnun. iIr aGJ fit ~ IItIIi ~ 1JIf1!X1"-
-- 'n - - - ..--
The comnurment and endoaement of both .-\lliance PamIaS and ccmmwuty sClkcholdea:s to the oua:ome of the
Revtew is key ID the sua:ess of this naaave. .~rdingiy, the revaew proc:=s was designed to be Besible. il'et:love.
and responsive to the needs or the ~IS. It rook place Ul ahft:e phases:
Phase I (Marr:b - April 1997)
Dumtg Phase 1, the effec:aveness or tile elDSang ozgaruz:1oon was leVlewed, ISSUes and oppomuunes were
idemuied. and p:lrtlcipanlS wm: engaged. .\c:aVlaes conducted Ul dus Phase Ulciuded:
· aaellClllOll and COnsulClrion WIth ."Jliance P:UTJletS on me process to be foUowed;
. Ul-<lepth discussaan Wlm .o\lliance P:UTJletS on VISIon. mand:ue. desared altDbuteS or a suscllnable 1TtII~l[
and funding sauc:tUle., and opponuruaes and obsClCies;
· CClI1llT1III1Ia and an Inla:lCtlve WOtkshop Wlm Rouge PaEk sClkeholdea and communities to infoan mem of
the leYlew, opponwuaes for Ulvolvement. md 1C solicit eady Ulpur; and
· development of a progress report.
Phase n (May -June 1997)
Duang Phase n. pamopanlS wm: brou~r togemer to elCIIt1U1e polr:l1a:U arganazarional and funding opoons tor me
ful11re. Aamaes c:cnducmd In thas Phase u1dudt:d:
· development of a c:onase discusslOll paper wiuch presenlM a Cll'lge of organazaoonal ;II1d funding ('poons tbr
consKleanon., and provided a fr:Imework lor e\':IIuaaon of the \"3naus opoons;
. a worlang Session WIth ."Jliance panners 1C explore ::nd .dellarY preretred sponsoa for me Park's 1TtII1:lgemea1l
saucrure and fundin~ mc
A Recammenaea Orgemz:ellOnlll ena Fonenael MOfJel fa, rll. lVe., Roug. Pe'" Altenee. OcroOe,1997 3
0506 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment # 14
· convaung:l second wodahop Ul\'Oi\'U1g ulleresred sC1kcholdea :II1d commwuty members to n:cel\'e' ulpur .:nd
cIin:cuon on me pEeteaed Opllons.
Phase III (JuJ.v - September 1997)
Dwmg Phase m. agreement W2S sought on J long-lean. susClll1able SlNCNIe Jnd fundulg mecll;llU:i1ll :"1'
Ovt:aeeU1g me Plan unplemelll3ll0n. .~\"Il1es conducted Ul dus Ph:JSe lIlCiuded:
· conllllwng discusslOllS wllh :\lliance P:trlItea to select :uul iine-lUI1e me pEereaed SlIUctUn: .uui :UIILIUI!=
mechanls~ :uuI
· ~ of Ibis 6na\ report.
1.2 This Report - .' .
This repon ccnains a sumrnaty :ma\yslS or the resem:h. consultlllons, wodahops :uuI p1:UUlUlg SesSIOllS held
dllcughour the review process. Funher deCliis CIrl be obained through rmewtllg the b-JCkgrowul repuns
c:ompleu:d dwing me rmew process.
This report is organized in iive sec:uons. FalloWVlg me backgroWld :II1d Ulacduction to me EeVlew process. ::=UII
20 rmews the effeam:ness or the .o\Ili2nce ID ~ Section 3.0 describes the need for. :Uld ;umbuteS or: .1 smlll~
Alliance. Secacn 4.0 desaibes an argaruzaaonal :uuI linzaa1 model for me New :\Iliance. :II1d Secaon 5.0 puts
forwaai me ~feaed delivcy rn:c:hantSm for a suscunable Rouge P:uk ~ F'tnally. Section 6.U concul1s
the conclusions of the Review process.
4 A Reeomme"oeo Off}."UDOII" ."0 "'''.''0'' Moo" to, me N_ Rouge P.". AIa."ce. OCIDOe, 799 7
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0507
Attachment #15
2.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ALLIANCE TO DA TE
:\ kev Ob,ec:tl\'I: or Ph:lse I of the Re\,ew was lO wldetSCIIld :uld Identin' the \,ews of .~iallce memb~r.< .UIU
c~ty stakeholders on me erTeca\'l:Iless the Rouge P:uk Alliance. in Mu:lang the effecn\'l!I1eS$ "r Tilt:
.~ liS 3ClIVlaes were sep:u:um 11110 three componenrs: Plan IItl?lemencaon.. org:u=aon:li structure. ,IIIU
funding. PetSpecaves on e::ICh of these componenrs are discussed here.
2./ Plan Implementation
Whar works wr:Il
. '.:-!.~: .. ~... . "
p,,- twi ~. Under the gwdance of the .o\Ilance., pannas have been aaively implemenang the Rouge P:1rk
Management Pbn. Pbns and pmpns have bem dt:veIoprd (~ The Rouge P3Ik Veget2Iion M3nagmlrnr Plall.
The Namr:d and Cuil1ll:ll Heaage Progcun. and inili:uion of the Rouge P3Ik Nanh ~r Plan): aees h:l\'I:
been pllll'l~ Signs have been paslat :I a:W syslml h:Is been esClb1ished; and :I. newslem:r has been cn::lled. In
addition., sever:li community-based prolea:s focused onll1lptDvmg the hl::l.lth of the waa:ahed have been compi.:rec
by .-\Iliaru:e pamer:s (~ Lillie Rouge lU:smcuion Projea).
The co-ordinanon funaion IS now wodang well.. :uld deaslOllS le!aang lO Plan II1lplemencaon are bell1g IlWe
mole efficendy. The .-\Ilimce will Ee:ICh :I. mileslDl1l! wlln the c:cmpleaon of the Rouge P:1ril: :-.ionh ~bnagernl:m
Pbn. apecai in 1997.
..
Whar could IN: improvr:d
A rUM ftr A4lIm. Due m the lime ir lOOk m g:un an undezsanding of the P:k's :uaibum5 :IIld ecologtc::li
ccndilions, the process of iden~ stcqes :uld :aians for P:Idt prou:cuon and enhanc:emenr has been slow.
.0\11 aggr;essivl: :IflPtD3d1m paODty semng :n the fua.ue would :JSSlSr the Alliance 111 system:lac::illl1 acl11ew1g PI:UI
goals.
22 Organizational Structure
Within the :\Iliance's organiz:uion:li sauaure. eleven :\Iliance ~ and the .~i:u1ce 0=1 Opet:lte '""rh rile
support of eleven sub<omnu~ and four Rouge P:1tk SCItT (ple:lSe see :\ppendix 1).
Whar wodcs wr:Il
Up/xJIIiin" rht VurinL .-\Ilimce members and COl1'1l1Ulluty sClkeholdels gendy :I.p th:u the Padc's V"1S1011. ('.o:lIs.
and Objeaives have been lXlnSislaldy upheld, and :Wr wodring through the initi:ll :!-ycr scut-up phase. the
Alliance has made Ee:I! progress duang Irs !turd ye:ar or apecmon. Improvemenrs U1 process have been made III :I
number of = including: infoanaaon shaang and tinana:li ll:InSpa1'l:IlC and decision-m:liang.
P-mips twi PJDp&.lhe .voWntary paaneahip SUUCW!: CD which me .o\llimc:e is. based IS recognIZed hy borh
Allimc:e membea 2nd c:cmmuniry sl2keholdea u one of !he organizaDon's gtemSr sump. The people involved
in the .~ bring divase, muhi~plin:uy skill sers to the deasion-making table, :I.Ild are considered '\-:liued
users W1d1in the olpt1izaaon. These 1I1dJ\'1du:lis ;Use displ:lY :I. lugh level of commllmem to protecnn~ rhell
c:ornmon U1=e5t in the Rouge P:uk. ;1 fxr which hu fostered the development ot ausr :IIld respecr Jnlt1I1~ rile
people U1\'OI\'l:d.
A Recommen"e" Orge",ze_" an" FInanCIal Mo"e, lor lIIe New Rou9. Pa", Alienee. OCfllller 1997 5
.
0508 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #16
A (!"almtxti FIJDlt. The w:ltetShed-wlce rOcus. IS JllOmer or rhe :\IIi:Jnce's strengths. TIlls rOcus gl\'es jll.:.ll .1"':1>11 ,11-
makers the oppo=ry ro ulIluence :he rn:lnagemem or' a local resource and Jlso .1ddressc:s rhe 1Ic:t'l1 rr, :\.1\'..
compaable management Str.1feg1es mrougnaut me w:uershed.
What could be improved
I"rilllurnm. Sam Alliance members and commwu[\' srakehoiders would like ro see :Ill arg:uuzaaon wiuch ". IIllll"
Ulduslve or Padt use!S. and :hose ",'ho have loci knowledge :II1d expemse. CUlIendy mere IS unh' Oil" nOIl-
govcnmenr org:uuz:man represented U1 me p:utnersiup. DC1WlIlg our me expemse or commwu[\' ~.tt1Ups.
voIun~. pam users and omer knowiedple peopie IS J d1:JlJenge Wlm me emang sauctUl'l!.
~ If lW:r. Lxk of undeal2llding ezlSlS about what a parmer is, what a parmer does. and who a p2EtIler
should be. This VIeW is reDeem by some sCliW10ldelS who are W1CIe:Il' abour who conU'Ois actiVIty III me P:1ri.:. .\S
~ becwse of me mulli-t.lftCIli"""l:Ji pannasiup. cmBias em :mse what paana:s smve lD m:uch meu-
juasdiaional rnandaII!s with the gD2ls and ob,ecuws ccnasned in Padt Plans. .
D_ .~. While mprovanerlIs h:I~-e been made. there are ch:IIlenges :ISSOC:lII:d with :\lIiance decl:illlll-
malang. ..\ sllllCtUftd. sunple. and tcUlSparent appm:Id1lD deaslOn-malang could help Ul en5UDng Nt dO:l:illlll:i
acx:uz:ueIy reBea members opuuons and beiiea.
I~. Wim respect lD opeanon:li ISSues. :he .'\I1i:uu:r:'s sub-comnum:e5 are :111 effective way or dI:1WIIlg flur
subsClllaal apemse. PamcparllS III these comnut= h:lve ~ their ame and energy ro develOplllg srraa:gll:s
and providing :ldvu:e ID the :\lIiance. While largely effecuve., mere IS a need ro improve me commwUc:laons Jnd
develop processes ID ensure ina:ganon at aoss<Utang ISSues. 1'he review process also revealed a concel:n mar
there are \DO many sub<omnu~.
2.3 Funding and Rnancial Administration
What works well
'Fi1uwzIJ/ .~1ItIrL Due lD :he Ul.kmd support of .'\I1iance p:umers. .'\I1.iance rmrugemeslt h:Is e:nsured rhar
operaaonal COSIS for the .o\IIiance office are cOllSlSlendy w1der budget The tinance comnunee's role III ;1dvIS1I1~
.o\IIi:uu:e membeIS is key ro me CUlIa1r sound tinanaal management In :Jdd.iaon. SetVlCe5 proVIded by the:
Waa:rfront Regenecmcn T NSt ro ludsoously 1I1vesr me fedet:ll CIp1C1i fund are welcomed by the :\lIiance.
What could be irnprovr:d
J7Jr FIIIIIiUtJ FI1mDIiA. A susraanable and re1aable funding formula IS as mpon:lllt as a sllong Jud ertec..-uve
oqpruz:monal SllllCllJl'e. The fundang formula recommended Ul me Waa:dionr RegenecLaon TNSr report IS lIut
working effecuvay bec:wse Ir IS nor banding on the Pannen. 'iX/hale there :are muruapa1 p:annea which conaibul'e
subsClllaa11y an a:ans of implemalang progcms :and proleclS. all muruapal parmers benefit from me cD-Ordinaaun.
plarvung and projea iUnaions proVIded by :he ."Jla:aru:r: "111m the support of Fedet:II and Provinoal funds. TIle:
urm:a1.ized ezpea:uicn of muruapaI ccnmbuDOllS has I2ISed quesaons relaang ID the effecuveness at the :\lIiance
pmnersh.ip.
Quesaons h:lve been CllSed reg;mi.ing ",tlo .hould make me nnanClal deosians. p:lrtlcuI:uiy relaang ro oper:anl1~
CDSIS :II1d the disbuaement of funds for spec:a1 prolec:5. Some p:utners feel saongly Nr only mose whu cUllmburt'
financally ro me :\IIi:Jnce should be ennded ro \'01e on = relaang ro me dismbuaon or funds. TIus l:U~C~ :11..
quesaon of how the non-go\'er:nmelu Secl'Or .:::l1l1lrlue:nce declSlOn-m:ikIng. Oe:ui.... partners be1ie\'e rhat "noh' dll1'C
who conmbule (either rinanccl1v or ul-k1!uil silouid be: represellred ;lr me declSloll-m:ikIng c.ble:.
5 A ReeD,",",,""''' 0"'.""110". ."" ""."a. MD"" lOr lne New Rouge P.", A.."c.. OcrDll.r '99 1
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0509
Attachment #17
The lack of:l foana1.Iega1 enaty has been seen b~' some to have :1ffeam the effioes~' or lIS upet"olnuns. \,\'Irilc,ur
slgJUI'Ig authoaty. the .~ IS unable to :u:qwre ur hold property bec:wse It IS wlable to enter Ulto .:umr.u:rs.
:\dnurusll2DCln of the Alliance's tinances IS c:urrendy pro\'Ided by the :.rrn.CA.
2.4 Conclusion
The .~ P3mleatup has gener:illy been ettecn\'e Ul co-oniinanng :uu:I ovetSeeulg the unplemenr,lDun or' :il..
Rouge P2Ik ~t Plan :uu:I 3SS00:ued fi.uuilng :JI'Id linanoa1 constdecnons. The Plan has been l'l",ulSi:ueU
illlD acnon on a number of francs, :uu:I mpmvema1cs Ul the o~ SlNCDlle of the Alliance illus= rhe
Pmnas' ongoing ccrnmianent lD maIang this 1llfcana1 aa:mganent achieve ics rnandaIE. FOCUSIIlg effons Ul thuse
mas where .AIIizu:e m:mbeIs and ccmmunity sl2RhoIclas have idenrified cnganizarional and financi:d challen~
wou1d c:cnrribul2: posiliV'ely lD lhl: ef&:am:ncss of the .o\Iliana:. .. .- - . . ~.. .... .. .
.- - ..' . ..... - . -"- --
A RlICOIIIIMnlMd O'VanaallOll., and FinallCJ., Moo., /0, /II. N_ Roug. Pa". Ahnc.. Oc:lllll'" 11/117 7
0510 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #18
3.0 THE NEED FOR, AND A TTRIBUTES OF, A STRONG
ALLIANCE
\~idl d1e benefit of [WO ::e:L.~ of "\lli:1nce opecnng expenence upon wiuch 10 retlect. :\lliance membeno .UILl
commlllU~ stakeholdea tumeci dleU' redecn\'e er"funs roN.-aro 10 deslgJUng :I NlUre 10 meer rhe N.IU!-'l" 1'.11:1;'"
needs.
3.1 Vision
The Rouge P2Ik Management Plan concuns :I visIOn fur die Park:
n. &.tr PIri 8iIJ J;, a 1fJtIMl P'- f1j l7"'w-rdinJ NIlIInJJ.fta/MIrs awJ tJj.,. QJiIMm/ htriIagr U,11II -.",.
nni ~ j11DIIIZ6i awJ ~ as 1111 tz:aS.JStIm /II ptIpdIIIg. HlII1Iatr IItIiIi1i4r 8iIJ caJl III iJarmmg N1h
.. tulIItnli __ '.!..txri. T<< ptri "iij be a IIIIIIDItl1y fir NII1IIr awJ .. ~ .spiIiL
Alliance nanbea revlSlla:i thar \'lS10I1 U1 1996. :wi ag:wl duong this reYlew process. E:II:h = me VislClIl :$
revtewed. it IS ccruim1m :wi saenglhened. .\ he:lldly ecosyslml, :I sanctII:IlY fur die human spmt. a place ur'
~ and leaaun~ and :I sacng c:crnrnurury ccmrnsanent 10 mplemmtlDOn remain :IS die cemreplece uf me
Rouge Padc \;S\Ol1. To m:lIlV pamep:lIl1S III :he re\"Iew process. die Rouge P:uk could be "r..an:ui:1's ~uesr
success smry U1 henage pro=on U1 :11\ urban setting."
3.2 Mandate
With .-\Ili:n:e m:rnbea and cornrnUl1lry scakeholdets clemonsa:anng continued SUppeR for die VISIon idennfied in
die Rouge P2Ik Man2gem:nt Plan.. pamopanlS U1 die reYIeW process focused on clesaibing die "job" that needs 10
be done in md.el' to ensua: that die P:u:k Plans ~onh :lnd Saudi) :ue effi:cavely unpIernenm :wi die Rouge Park
VISion 1S:dUevM. .-\I1iancc:wi comrnurury sClkeholdea agteed lh:u !here IS :I disaele. wuque role :lnd tUncnun
for :I dedic::m:d org:uuz::mon U1 die Nture. The org:u=non's paneple m:uu:lall! will be 10:
. hold, pttlll!Ct. :wi cmy die P:u:k \'lSlon;
· compIelI! die Park ~t Plans ~onh :lnd Soudl or Sreeles :\\'erlue;
· ensua: sa:lll!glC in~on :wi :rnplernenClnon of~onh :lnd Soudl P:u::k ~bnagemem Pl:1ns;
. set paoaDes for:u:aon;
· ensure :I wm:ahed peapecnve IS mall'u:uned;
· conduct commurury eduCUlon :wi :lw:uateSs progr:ams resuJ:IIly-.
. bwld and muntlll'l pannealups;
. fosll!r public SUppeR and involvemem;
. ensure :Il:COlInabWry to ClXp2yetS (e.g. WldI :utnU:JI .SCIlI! or die W:llI!lSheci" report);
. oveaee m:adreang and promoaons Ul die P:uk;
· ItIOI1IlDr.l11l:ISure. and conanually reYlew die success of die Plans;
· meet anpng pi2nning needs;
. ensure cxpuzarional apabwry to mpIement die Plans;
. applUZIIe and h:uness loaI knowledge. ezpeaence :utd poa:nna1;
. ensure secure/susaimble funding:and ser pDODDes for spending;
. ensua: Rouge P:u::k Plans :ue InCCrpoc\l~d UIIO mwuclp:il Offioal Plans and lOnulg by-I:lws; :lnd
· m:unClin:l balance between die Ul=1S of :he Rouge Parle :lnd me needs/intrreslS of me partner.; \vhu$e cn..
opeaaon upon wIuch die ?:uk's successtUi opeClDon depends.
a A RecalftlMnaeo C'Vanzaaona, and FlnanoM MoO., /0, ma Naw Roug. Peril. Alllane.. Oeroo., '997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0511
Attachment # 19
In swnm:u'I',:he fu= mandaa: IS to:
. complete the Plans;
. ensure Otg:UUZ3DOnal c::Ip3biliN to unpiemem rhe 1'!::I1:1;
. oversee :uu:I co-ortiinate mplemenClDon ot' the Pl::l1s:
. ensure :1 solid finanaai plan;
. molUICr success and unpro~-e the !-'lans;
. :ml3UI a SlI'Ong, :niOaned :uu:I :e:ISOned !e:IOer ma JdvOClre ror the he:llth. blodivctSllY :uld UI~onl\' ,r' ~II"
Rouge P3rlc; and
. ensua: a balanced peapecave IS I1'WI1cuneci on:1 ~=hed sae.
3.3 The Customers - .. - - ,-.
The Rouge P:u:k sem!S a number of diffelmt CUSlDl1lea wilh a number of different needs. , .'\I1iaIu:e manbea :!:lid
ccmmUlU~ stakeholdea idallj,6ed :1 group of CUS\Cf11eCl so 1.:uu:I so diveIse Ih2t it waS'~ Ih2t me Rouge
PaIk serves all at' SOClC~. Es:ampies or CUSlDl1lea. along ""Ih Ihete :1Ss.......-lneeds. :Ippe:Ir Ul Table l.
Table L Rouge P2rk CusmlDt:rS -
1
I
Educal'On
Dava~ laadowneft .
eco-I'OUDSIS .
Naave cllllUDuairY .
mlmlalioaal em
.o\ztiSIS
Poliacaas
. UDsdlcllODS U1volved . -
3CadelDlc commUDUV
n!creaaoDulS (6shcaDaa. lI'aOllen'
schoolchildn!D
Semon . -~
Sara aad mUDa .
eral Duhlic .
De'" Canadiaas .
fumre .
. ..
1'0 dte Pull: .
Pro"1Dcial aad Federal .
endaa n!d soecies .
volUD~er commUDIrY .
A RlIComm.noeo 0'genIZ811011. 8nd F-neno. Moo.. lOr Ine New Rouge P.n< .lIII.nce. Ocrooer 1997 9
0512 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #20
3.4 The SkIlls and Attributes Needed To Do The Job
Wim agreement that mere IS a lob willch needs to be done., :\lli:uu:e manbea and commwun' ,:r.u';t'I1I.idt'l':'
,denaiied the skills :II'Id =bUla 'iIoiuch are reqwred to do dle lob. TIleY are to:
· be success ocented. wlln a posID\'e :ncNae;
. be a sacng ie:1der;
· be a sacng commurucucr:
· be a CZI!2IIVe problem salver iabihry to dunk oUlSlde the box);
· be a saazegu: \'ISIOIWY':
. be l5IIlS 0Dal~
· be ~ (wim Nndas.goveollnent);
· be a amsensus-builde/diplomanc: ncgori:ucr;
· be 6nanciaIly teSpOIlSible;
· be commiam to unplememing me Puk vision;
· have speaa1ized knowledge of ec:osys=/:Ibility to =s knowledge;
· have mgaruzaaonal c:apabUity; and
· haVl: proven ability.
3.5 The Philosophies and Values To Approach the Job
AIliana: membeIs and community sClkeholdea deV1:loped me roIlowing list of philosophies and \":Iiues whidl ;Ire
a:quired in order to meet the needs of the Rouge Padt
· act in the best lrllel'eSt of me Puk:lS :1 whole (mdudes fish, wildlife. pl:lIllS. hwnans);
· haVl: a pas5101l for place;
. ~ W1m Ulaegtlty;
· be responsIVe to CIlSIDI1lelS' needs;
· SIDVl: to do me best job possibleicominu:il improvement;
· be business-like in aperaaon;
· be open. =sible., and demoa:mc:; and
. SlDve for undeaanding.
3.6 The Powers Needed
F'ma1Iy. .-\I1i3nce rnembea and commwuty sClkeholdea considered me powm needed by me encry(ies) cespunsihle
for the Rouge P:uk. The encty (or encces):
· needs to be =lPzed as the panapa1 encty responsible for OYelSeeUlg and co-ocdinaang me mplemenClcun
ofR.ouge Padt Mamgement Plans;
· does not need !he ability to acquire l:and p" sr, however It should haVl: !he 3bility to enswe that land is :u:qwred;
· needs to have conlJOl 0V1:r ann&I3I.budgeang fix ~ pwposes; and
· needs !he ability to act as aus~ of me fuods held in ausl
10 A R.comm.nll.1I Oll1anz""on., anll Finana., MOllel for III. N_ Roug. Park AI1N1nc.. Ocroo., 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0513
Attachment #21
3.7 Conclusion
It IS recogruzed dw each .-\1liarn:e p:mner CI1'Des !he responsibility of unpIemenling P:uk Plans \\'lmUI :ill"U'
boundmes and jwisdicDonal :wmocty. However.:u:ung alone. Ot 11\ ccnlunctlOll Wlm olhea. would not pm\'tdl"
!he necessazy co-oRlinanon and ovetSeer funcuon wtuch will m:1ke cerl3in d1:u: me Pzk's \'ISIOIl becumes rf"J.hty
lhmugh revIeWing !he skills and amibua:s neces~ to c::IaY out !he mandate of !he otg:ll1lZ:1oan. Jnd me wU'!Ul"
powers needed to uphold and proteCt dle P:u:k's \'1Sion. it was W1:JI1U1lOUSly agreed me
17Jaor is II -' fw till _. ~bas.J. IMt.IIInheJf-- rnpti~ lJJ l2IPry DId rm mana-
--:J lJJ ptIJIIa fIIIIi IIfJDDItl rht pri'J &isiIm.
This orgmiz3Iian is hrsaflr:r =fen'ed tD 3S die 'New AIIi3ni::e.-'. ....-. ... -
- --. .- .. -- .... ; . ............ ....
-
- .. .. -. -- -- - .. -
A R__ 0'11._.lIOII" .ntl Fin.ncg/ Mati. la, III. N.w Roug. P.", .u.nc.. OClllll.' 1991 II
0514 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #22
4.0 A PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL
MODEL FOR THE NEW ALLIANCE
Wi!h ~t on !he need :or J dedac::red org:u1lZ:lDOn ro conDllue ro o\'etsee Jnd CI',"-lrO.ul:ll.. :11.-
unplernemaDon or the Rouge ?:lrii: Plans. !he Org:1lllZ:1Don:Ii review process IdenDfied a nwnber or [acror.< ;'e': r<'
!he success of !he New Alliance. ir :Uso gener:l[ed J number or' prereqwslle oper:1Dng gwdeiul~. saucrur.1l .:h.ull.'l:>
and funding medwusrns wiuch Jre necess;uo.' Ir :he :-';ew :\lli:lnce IS ro successri.lIh' dell\'er lIS m:uldare. TIll>
secaon iocuses fiat on !he key success f.u:tclS. md !hen moves on to discuss Org:uuz:1Doll:ll gwdeiu1C:s .all.: m"
6nanaai e1ernenlS reqwmi. For der:llis on !he proposed 01pl1lZ:lllOn:Ii model. ple:15e rerer to :\ppendu: 3.
4./ Key Success Factors of the New Alliance
A number of inbrnaricn sowxz:s were urilized lD de=nune the lXma key lD the suca:ss of the New.-\11i:1nce. :\
management san of .O\IIianCZ rnernbets and :Ii~ W2S condllCled. and wodlShops were held wi!h !he :\lI.i:lnce
and cornmuruty staRhoJdea dUXlnS'lIoiuch i.;cv su=s f:1clDlS for the new orgaruz:uwn were .denaned. .\ number
of public lI1a=st otg:ll1lZ:ltlCln models \IIere Jiso m,ewed for etTecaveness. Desired cl=ctmsncs or rhe :--:..w
:\Iliance 1I1dude:
PIZIt1III'JDrps =.. P:lm1elSiups :and people :U\'e cOl1Sasrendy been Jdenaiied :IS Ulregci to me Rouge j'lJrk's
success. ~tunClU1Ulg comrnwuClDon. co-opecmon. and co-ordinaaon :IlT1Ong
slalr.eholdea :\I1Q CUSlDlT1elS (e.g.volunleelS. p:u:k scaff, po1iDaans.l:uuio\llnelS. and me
public) is :I key success f.u:tcr for the New :\lI.iance. Saong COrnrnllmelllS item P:lrll\etS
need lD be roan:ilized.
WQknhei.~ In Older to oper:1le 111 !he best lI1a=slS of the Rouge P:uk. !he New :\lI.i:uu:e will need ro
have :I WZlI:C5hed peapecnvc. Wi!h the P:u:k Plans eslher completed or nClDl1g
cornpleDon. :he :bcus will exp:utd tOW:Ia:!s SleW:lrdshJp wllnll\ !he en\UC w.lrershed.
& JDaut4 IWi lIfIing. lhe New :\Ihance needs :0 h:I\'e !he arne. tcSOwces, m:uu:l:1le, :and desuc to fOcus on
and uphold !he besr UltereslS or the Rouge P:uk.
~1Wi~. lhe ~ew :\Ilimte needs to h:1\'e. or be able to :access. !he slalls necess:uy to co-ordinare
the anpiernenClDon or me Rouge P:u:k ~l:1n:1gcrnes\[ Plans.
~. lhe New .'\Iliancc: must be :accounC1bJe to !he public tbr pl:uuung, DpeClDOIl:ll. and me
6nancal deaslons wtuch It 11l:Ikes.
~ lII1I4iNlb!& lhe New ..\I.h:lnce must be rinanc::lil~ susClln:lble over !he 100lg-remt.
Prr# IWi ~ lhe ~ew :\lhmce musr be :able to c= and uphold :I prolileiimage tbr me Rouge
P.
12 A RN;..""".noeO Olf}annoonM anD FlnenoM MODel fo, lIIe N_ Rouge Pall( Alliance OClfloe, 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0515
Attachment #23
4.2 Organizational Guidelines Of The New Alliance
M:mcbte and Funcaon
· The:-.iew :\Iliance wW coruizm :JI1d Jdopr the I1'tIIlci:lle. t,.tlVeallng SlIUctUre. :me! opeclIng condillons 1d~llnrit:l.l
through the otg:J/1lZ:lllonai l'e\'1ew process.
Gowrem:m~
. .-\ ~bnagemenr Baarci wiuch czpands :me! strengthcns the ClaSlII1g :\Iliance parmeaiup will be t:SClbIL~ilc:d.
Manbczsiup an the ~t .Bom11111i1 redccr :1 brood ~ of Ul~lS. In pamcuIar. land ownctSiup.
w:u=hcd-wide imm:sa of non-govanment orgaruzaaons. and prcmncial and fedeza1 goveaunent UltereslS
neat 1D be secured in the parm=hJp. Proposed ~ is pn:sermd in Appendiz .~ . -
· Agencies and org:anizazicns which &nanciaIly suppon die New::.Alliance will have a majcxity membcahip
posiDOll an the Management Board. Sponsoang or in-kind 5UppOmng :JgenCies will have mulOn~.
tepleSenl2tion. Discussions WIth .-\Ili3nce membezs and communaty sl2Rhoidas IrlIiic::1m th:ar up to 5uo,o C It
the ~t Boani poslllons could be held by 0Ig3nIZaIIans who do not proVide lln:lnCl:li suppon:.
However. those conrribulll1g funds s~cd the irnpc:m3nce of "pay for say" and the need for an:ana:al
3CCCunClbility to cap:lyec; through mwucp:al member Ocg:uuzabons and go\'CIIU'lleI1rs.
. In addition to the ~~t BoW. :he ~ew :\Iliance will have :Ul Em:ubve Comnurree :and spec:alized :lnd
srr=nlincd sub<omma=es wiuch rixus on pian compIebOll. EelabOllSlUps. finance, :and mOnitODng and
enIuanon. - --.--.- - -- -- . - -..-..
· The core StrUClUre of the ~ew :\Iliance will be supponm by tII10 :advisory commi=es: one technical review
and one ammunity :1dv1sory comnuaee. .-\ppernhx.-\ provades further :adVIce regarding the ozg:uuz:abon:al :uld
opa:monal StrucrlJIe.
Accounr:mility and Accessibility to the Public
· Sl1'eI'Ig1hencd public accounClbility mech:uuslllS will be put Ul pl:lce.
. .-\nnual progress repo=g and paoaay semng :Cb\'1bes will be enaenchcd Ul the opet':1bon:al lI:unework.
. Srakehalder and public en~t sa:urgaes 1I.'IiI be slrengthened through the dC\'Clopmenr of commwuC"JnOIlS
and repornng slJ2legles.
Dt:cision-tDJIking
· The New .o\IIiance will maanl2lr1 deasaon-m:aIClng :esponslbility over the aII0CU1011 or both opet':1l1011:11 :Uld
apil31 funds, property acqwslllCll1. pl:ln unpiemellClbon. plan Ul~l and uses relating to publicly held
1ands within the P2Ik 1D ensua: that die Plans' VISIOI1 :II1d Goals are :adhem11D.
· The inBuenli:l1 advisory funaion dw die .1JIiance cumndy has over pDvaZy held lands :and wateES Wldllll :uld
adjacent 1D the Padc and the Rouge watashcd will be l11aUllawd and respeclCd by :uea deaslall-m:akCES.
. .-\ dispute resoluban mecharusm wW be =ted !'O pro\'lde "leave tOr :IppC:aI" reg:uding ~ew :\Ili:ulce dCCISIUIlS
The mecharusm CII1 be deil\'Cred lhrouSIl :he ~ew .>JIl:JI1Ce. :he pro\'Ulce :!lid i or lhrough uldepencienr
faciliClllon. The selected meciUIlISm/Ol'g::llIZa:lOll, U1QI\'ldu:1l shouid be .~le to the parnes UI me dlspure
A Recamtrle/laea O'Va/l,uoo/la, a/l(1 F...a/loM lIIoa..lO, III. ",... Rouge Pa", Abnc.. Octoo., 1997 13
0516 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #24
4.3 Principles and Options for Operational Funding
P= :uui eommwuty sClkchoidea dellber.1tea on a number of opaons to secure susl:llnable opet:laonal .us:llill>';
for me ~ew .~e. Five gusciing pnnelpies were used :0 selecr from she opaons:
. she need for mwuop:li Rouge ?:u:k P=etS ro conmbule through ;1 f.ur and el:!wcble mecn:llusm ::. nIt'
opeaaons budget of me :-'=ew .-\lhanee;
. she need to secure she eomnuD''llem of me provUlee and me fedet:ll govemment throu~ rin:Jllcl:I! .:unmbum Ill;
to opeaaons;
. she need to recogruze she m-kind conaibuaon of W21etShed-wrde sakd10lder groups;
. she need to mamnize she buying power of e::ach doIbr conaibuad; and
. she need mr a lCIlistic, aa:epable :uui implemerll:able mec:h3nism for levying operations fuziding.
Given she unique rWUIe of the pmnaship. :Jnd the local, proviru:i:d and li:dea1 in~ in she Rouge P:u:k and she
Rouge wmtShed, the proven mecharusm of she Mrn.c.-\'s Jismllllllli If{'III/i~ amsJ1IIfIIlf~ was u.~ed as ;1 basIS
mr c::Ilcu1aang the polmaal conmbunons for e:I.Ch parmer IDm shree allmlaDve funding seen:mos.
The shree sczmrios for levymg Iin3ncai conaibuaons tbr the New Alliance's opeauons budget are:
. l~ wa=shed muruopa1iaes oniy;
. levysng~ed l'lUIIUCpa1iaes. WIsh Mv percent conmbuaon acm she Gavemment of OnCltlO; ;lnd
. levymg wa=shed murucip2li1ies. WIsh one-lhud conmbuaon &om e:Id1 of she Gavemment of OnCIDa. "lnd rhe
Government of Canada.
The annua1 apeming budget mr she .o\I1iance Ul 1997 6sc::sl ye:sr W2S esarna=!. at $235.000. :\ ciec1iled bEe:1kdoIa.'l
of eslirTlmd apeaung COSts for 1998 IS lIlducied Ul .-\ppendiz B "GeneDc: Opearing Costs mr she New :\lliance".
W1u1e dus budget h2s yet to be approved by she .o\lli2nce. doUat conaibutions &om patD'letS have been based on me
annWli esamaa: for e:u:h of the options Ul T able ~ The Intent IS to have she Alliance's opet:1Dons self-suffiCient
Wlm she nest 10 ye:us.
Tablc2. Fuadiag Oplioas for Rou~ PukA1liaace Amaual Oper.uiag Costs -1998
Municipality I DEA.; ~'. I Oplion I" S I Oplion 2'" S I Oplion Ji' S
:\diala 0.00576% I 71 51 10
Dwham ~61493% 3.290 I 2.193 4.386
Tomato 70.25459% 88.386 58.824 117.847
Maao 0.00814% 10 7 14
Peel 10.:8166". 12.935 8.623 17.247
Yom 16.83493". !t.179 14.1:?O !8.239
Su~ ToaI 100"/. 125.807 Bun 167.743
Mamic:ipaI Shale 12.5.807 83.872 167.743
Prowinc:iaI Share 125.808 83.872 83.872
Feder:II Share - 83.871 -
T oeal Opcr.acinlJ CoSlS 251.615 251.615 !51.615
Co) Mi'R.C.\', G,lCounlCd ecN&i.zed U"IUne'lIllonnU...1 uMd 10 ~portlcm chI' InulUclpai ai'are or CDIU.
j.) OpQOn lmwotvt'1 SO/SO COil "'anile Drr'WrC'n ,nunlClDalllleS and the prowlnce
tUl~' Opun': a".oM. cftftt'.... c='u u\.&nlle O""'H'lIlnUIIICloahbrt. ~nO the orovlllclai and learrai ;:ovrrlllllC'IIU
(", OpDOn J InYOJVel.:' ] contnOubQlI :ratn .nuIIICIDalILlel. and I ] tr'D'ln the provUlCC.
14 A Recommenaea O....nz.aan. .na Fm.na. Moaello, rne New Roug. Pari! AIII.nce. Ocrooe, r997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0517
Attachment #25
The ClSe for aD equitable funding lormul:a
For :ul: Opllon to be consKieted :'.1vou.":Ibh" 0" :\lh:u\ce: mc:mbc:rs. thc:rc: must be: :I ClSe: rn:uie: tor cunmhur-.I1l.:
Q\-er :he: past cic:c::Ide. but most rec:e:lllh" w\cer :he gwd:w:e :ItId co-otdin:lllon of the .~.lliance. mWllclp-.1Imes han'
been conaibuang slgniiiend: to the :mpiement:1l1on of the Rouge P:uk Pl:ll\S. For ex:unple. :he :-'-1wuclpa.i!t\. "f
~letropoliCUl TorontO call1nbured St:Ltt .md ptOleclS \":I!ued :It 5650.000 to the development of the a::uis plan. .lnd
led the rievelopmentofthe \'egeCllon piJ."1 for me: .>jhallce: the Town oO'larkh:un conmbuted :lpptOxun:lleh' 5115
nuIlian :ItId seaif' hows to the de\'eiopment of the Rouge P:uk Santi PI:ul: :uld the :-.ITRC..\,. suppiied all :ill;U1Cl:U
and :uinurusa:m\"e suppott.
Just as \'3iue IS delivered from partnersi'llp org:uuz:1l1ons to the :\llianc:e. \'3iue :Ilso lI::lI'IStea frcm the ..\llianc:e tll
Alliance paanas. For es:unple, the :\lliance conmbuted $180.000 lD the Municipality of MerropoliCUl TotOntO U\
suppott ofrrail rmnagemenr and main~ in the Rouge Pm; !he AIIiance amtribua!d $210,000 to the Town
of M2rkham 111 suppott of the Town's etToas :II: Toogood Porut :IIld the Alliance c:ompl~ a cultw:1l heacge
invenlDty and rnanaganem pbn ac:zs.sible lD all municipalities. The Provindal and FedeI2l ~lrs :1\so
benefit :icm panicipaIion in the .-\lliance. Through judicious :lpplicuian of the: cpiCll fund, coupled Wlln me
ammbullOrlS of murucp2I govcnmenlS. the oblectlws :IIld U1m:n:srs of sensor levels of gtlveaunem are mer Cllst
e1Iecuveiy.
The c:o-otdirwion and oveaeeu1g tOie plaved bv :he: .~ cona:ibu~ subsCUlli:llly to the :u:hie:vement of P:u:k
goals :uld effecuvdy maDT1IZe5 me fund-t:1ISu\g cpacty of each partlt:1panL Through membeatup U\ the ..\1l1allce.
not only en partners access tinanc:l1 support tor etTons dedicated to the Rouge P;u:k. they become part of a le',II11
c:Iedic:uzd lD mpIemenmtg the P:u:k Pl:ll1S 111 a CDIlSlSa:nt. systan:UIC :IIld planned manner (note that upon :\lliallce
acc:ep= of 3ppltlpD3II= prolea proposals. non-.o\lli:uu:e membea on also access tinanci:ll support).. --- --. -
The c:ol1aboazive work of the .-\I1ianc:e effectively m:aimizes the fund-r:lising capacity of each participant. By
teCDgl1IZII1g the benefilS wtuch accrue to each p:u:IIop:1l111g rrwniopaIity. the PtOVII1ci:1l and FedecU GoveaunenlS. a
CDSt-effearve and eqwable :inanaaI model eJlSwe5 th:u: the necessary slllTlulus IS Ul place. AgreemenlS. throul'1'
Memoranda of Undemanding be:tweeI1 the Sew ..\lli:lnce and each Panner m recommended to e1lSute cerr:unry.
.o\ppendis 0 ~ a "model" memor:lndum or wuietsClndll1g.
Additional Funding Mec:haDisms
&lIIt:Due gmer.uiDg opporrumoes must be: cxplomi to :lSSute conmbuang partnelS that the ..\1l1ancc's
oper:LlIOtlS will bec:om: sdf-suffiCIeJ1t 1111111111 me next 10 ye:us. 11115 lTl:lY uldude :1 "Friends" or "SpOIlSorslup"
progt:llTllD provide immedi:Lte COSt reco\-ety OpportUlUlIC:S far CommwuClllOllS effons. ConsKier:lble cnergte:5 will
need lD be: :lpplied lD detelmuung the best' me:hods far genet:llll\g revenues. Widun the tirst ~"e:lr or Opet:lIlOllS ot
the New .o\lliance, a Madrelll\g Pl:ullllll1l1eed to be: de\-eloped wtuch oudu\c:s the pol'enll:1\ far self-sut'ficleJ1L-Y ;uld
!he arne &:Ime widun wtuch It IS mf'\"3ble.
'171e apimJ fi1rKJ should be: m:unCW\ed J1ld enNnc:ed far 1:U1d :U:QWS11l0l1 :lnd ptOVlSI0I1 of park ptOleclS.
.'\pp1ic:1l1Or1S lD the fund from non-go\'emrr,ent. colTllTlW1lty-based Org:uuzaDOIlS IlIIl1 be: :u:rl\'ely e:ncour~ ;u1d
based on the New :\lliance's :lMuaI paocty semng :lCIIVlIlc:s. ConsideCUlOtl should be: gwen to funding
c:orrmuruty-based projects &om a nurumum of 5O~'. of the U1m:n:st genet::lted. The b:Jl:uu:e could be ualized lU
c:cver the fedet2I c:onaibutlOll far opeCIlII1g COSIS.
A cJuzit2bJe eDdowmeDt follDcUOOD could be: c:sClblished to genet:1ll: re\'enue: through commwury-h;lSed
fundr:usUlg effilns. 115 pwpose would be: :0 :und commwlIry-lr.1sed ptOleclS. :uld ptOVlde specci schol~lups ()[
recO!9'UDOtl progr:uns. Just as IlIIth the c-..p,ol :und. ,:ollS,der:lllOll should be: gWellto funding grass tOOlS uunan\'e$
from :I muumum or 50"'. of the :nreresr gener::red.
A Reco""""n.,." OtgamullOll., an., F'nanCla, Mo.,., 10' m. New Rouge Part< AIIIanc.. Ocrolle, 1997 15
0518 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1 997
Attachment #26
5.0 THE PREFERRED DELIVERY MECHANISM FOR THE NEW ALLIANCE
While the uU"oana! .~ h:IS perroaned well dWlng liS pl:uuung mandate. it IS de:1t lh:1t :IS It mo\'e~ [(l!\\';UU
tDWalds ilS tUlUle role. the pltlVUlCe. :he p:mnea. :uui the ='s resKienlS and user groups need to be :lSsured [hat ,I
peananent :uui fotma1 SlIUCt1Jre :IIld dell\'ery mech:uusm IS Ul place to ensure that me P:IIk's \ iSIOIl ;Ul0 ~ I,U,; .:fl"
aclue-.'ed and the Plans mpIemenred.
Based on the mandaIe. :Uncuon. :uu:i f.1ctoa ke~' to the success of the ~ew .-\1li:ulCe. the OEg:lll1Z:l001l;U 'l"\'le\\,
precess fcc:used on Ilien~g :I preferred deli\'ery mech:Irusm for the :autonomous. p:mneahlp-basea. \I.",nersill"d
focused organizaacn. For a2mpie. does It m:ake mote sense for the ~ew .~ to ope= uldepenoemiy. ..I'
would it be more S\IlXZSSful if it opamd with tban:al1y delegmd :authority iicm another argasuzaaon or ieve1 "i
/rPv.......letlt (the.Al1iaru:e ammdy ~ WIder the auspilzs of the Pmvince of Onatio).
The ORSC lDOk the positicn at the outset of the ~ review that the precess should begin With a "dl:lll
sIaII:" and ~tip any :and all opportunities and opoons lD ensure susl3inability of the organization. This section
ezpIores a nwnber of opaons reg;uding how best lD ensure dt:u: the mandaIe of the New :\lli:.ulCe IS dell\'el'ed
successfully. The opaons :Ile then e-.':Iiu:llm :Jg:J111Sr deoslOll cn= :uui a rec:omrnended opoonlS selected.
5.1 Process and Mechanisms for Identifying the Recommended
Delivery Option
In ilS sem:h lD ida1tify delivery opaons. the ORSC tbUowed a sevm-slep process wIuch ua1ized a number ui
ccnsult:lllCl1 and ccmmuaity p1anrung melhods. - -
Step 1 Identi6ed otganizmons which have the capability and skills lD support the srruaure necessary [l)
implement the m:uulale of the New .~
Step 2 llevIeIIII!d acpruz::aaan:d StrlJCNleS wtuch :Ile cum:ndy delivmng similar Set\'1Ce5 Ul the public
irm=st
Step 3 Esplomi the polenD:l! of the three CIlegOries of org:uuz:1oon. Within these three CllegOnes.
seven opaons Wefe identilied which h:Id the polellD:l! to ~. out the m:IIld:1le of the :Sew
.o\1liance.
Step 4 Considered the seven opOOI1S :JS:1111St decision ai= which were de-.'e!oped by the .\1li:.ulce and
c:ommuruty sC1k.eholdea.
Step S Convened cliscusslOlIS With polenD:l! CIItdid:1ll5.
Step 6 Identi6ed a leCOmmended delivery option.
This precess began in Ma1dt 1997:uui was completed in Seplember 1997.
5.2 Alternate Delivery Mechanisms to Co-ordinate Implementation
of the Rouge Park Plans
Thee main ~ c:aa:goties were identiiied dWll1g the consulClaon :uui rese:ll'ch ph:1se of dus proJect.
These ale:
. an independent, :auronomous org:uuz:mon;
. :Ill otg:ll1lZ2DOl1 funcoOllll1g WlrtUII dle :lusplces of a lcd p:mner. :Ind.
. de\'Oluoon of the co-oniuuaon responslbllmes [l) = mWlIclpahaes.
15 A RecamIMnaed O'VenzeDanal end Frneneal Madill for rII. N.w Rauge Pe", AIIIenee. OctaD.' 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0519
Attachment #27
Within these ~Des a number ot unpiemt:nCloon opOOIU wen! ,denahed by Alliance membets and .:un1l11UlIIl\'
sakeholclea. The next [\1;0 secaons cescnbe the: decISion cnten:1 .a.iuch were Kienahed :uu:l applied m e:ach "flnlln
ConcluslOllS aEe then summaazed..
5.3 C~~da~A~mareDewe~Me~~kms
When consJCleang otg:UlZaaonal opaons tor the Sew :\Iliance. the r:eYlew process elClrIllned both e:la:inlll: .U1Ll
potenaal OEg3lllZ3llOllSienab1ing mech:lllISms. TIuee C:llcgones or altmlallve deli~' mech:ullSms. repre,;e:nrull: ..
lDral of eight deli~ opaons, were ev:UU:lled :Jg:WlSr the decISion cnreaa. These were:
CATEGORY I INDEPENDENT AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATION
Oplioa 1 NOD-Profit Orpaizarioa
-. _.....-- -.- JI!'XlrpoQlE~N~~~_~.~lit~____ . _. --
Oplioa 2 V OIUDCUY P:anacrship
Opccre the :-Jew :\I1i:uu:e :IS a VOlUllC11y. p:aaner:stup otg:ll=aon \St1tU:\ ~UUI.
CATEGORY II UNK TIlE NEW AU.lANCE WITII A LEAD PARTNER
Oplioa J Fcdcnl Govcramcac Lead
Est2blish the Rouge P:u:k :IS a Naaonal P:u:k and delegare oveClJllTl:ll~
a:sponsibairy lD the New .o\I1i:Ince.
Oprioa 4 Proviacia1 Govamncat Lead
EsClb1ish the Rouge P:u:k :IS a Provinci:I1 P:u:k and deleg:are oveClJl m:u~
l1!Sponslbairy lD the New :\I1i:uu:e through a New Regu1aaon lD the ~
Ptris Ad.
Oplioa 5 Proviacial Gaveramcat Lead
EsClblish the Rouge P:u:k :IS a Provincial P:u:k and delegate oveClJllTl:ll~'t:n;u
responsibiiity m the :-Jew Alliance through an Amendment m the Pmnlll.ZlJl'
Ptris Ad.
Oprioa 6 Pnmacial GavuamCDt Lead
~ a ~ PIII'Ii: Aa wIuch deleg:ares overall ~ responslblb~' tu the:
New.~
OpIiOD' MTRCA Lead
EsClblish the :-Jew :\Ili:uu:e under the :wspices of the Meaopolitlll T oronro ;1Iu:1
Reglal Consen::lII011 :\uthoDty under the Pnni1ui.aJ ~ AMIJxmrw ..-la.
CATEGORY m . DEVOUmON TO LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
Oplioa 8 . MuaicipaJ Lead
Devolve over:ill rn:utagmal responsibility m the local mWlicipaliaes.
One possible enabling mecharusm w1udl rcrn:uns m be thoroughll' ellplored IS the Grc:llcr T omnm
Semces Board (GTSB). Pending lUrure ?Chac:il developments. me GTSB lTtIy ~S'uze the Park .IS .1
NewCiry :lSSec and ICpresent a Vl:Ible fundul!; source lor the :-,iC\l.' Alliallce.
A RtH:Orrrmemled OtgeruzellOllal ellfl Finenee, MOaello, rne New Rouge Pe". AIIIenee. Ocrolle,1997 Ii
0520 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #28
5.4 Decision Criteria
To select Iicm such a WIde r:Ir1ge or" potenll:ll deil\'ef\' mech:wsms; a number or" deaslOl1s ccreaa were de\'elllp~.
The process uulized lD de~=e aee-oSlon CCtm:l ulduded:
. devdopulg CCteD:1 ar ..\Jliance ana :ommUJU[\' workshops;
. teVlewa\g gwdehnes p~ :,\. me PrtlVUlccl go\'elmT1eIlr far evaI=g :1Irem:lo\'e sef'"1ce deh\'er;
rnech3rusms;
. discussang the advantages and ciJS:IQ\":IIlClges or" prer"e=ci apllons at a commuruty woricshop; and
. anaiysmg s~ r2clD1S Ul the ..\Jl1:lllCe :wi Org:uuz:1I101I3i Stl\1ClUreS Ul other ,uasdJccons \\,m sllllliar
~.
The decsaan a=ria beJow were used Ul ana1ysutg e:u:h of the 7 opllClllS.
DECISION CRI7'ElUA FOR SELEC17NG DEUVERYlVECHA.NISM
The mo.e desirable cbaraceeri.acs (or rhe orpniuaoa co CIftI'Iee die implaaeawioa of rbe Rouge P:uk
PIaaa are rhu ie mu.e be bodl autonomous 3ftd fin3ftci:a.llv susl2inllhll!. The fol1cnriag 12 deci.ioa criteria
.uppon rbese desired c:haracten.acs:
1. Is rhc maDda~ of me CaDdadale orpaazaaoa compaabll! ""m IbI! role of rhc New :\lIiaoce?
~ em me goal aDd maDdale of me ~ew ..\lIiance be delivered Ileziblv. effiaeady lIDd effccllvely?
...
3. Docs rhc c.mdidam: orgm&Z3aoa bave a wala1hed.wlde penpecllve?
4. em rhc opllaa provide appropallm: argm&Z3l1aoallOcus;
S. Docs rhc orgaaazaDaO bave suffiaeot ezpenile md abililY;
6- Is IbI! OrpaazaOOD expI!Denced wim parmenbip'?
7. Would rhc argamzallon be oICcauaClble. accelllble :IIId would ie fully IDvolve me public?
8. Would me orgamzaaon provtde 6nanaal .ulOnomy :IOd suscainabiliry 10 die ~ew :\lIiance?
9. Would deas.aa-maiwlg aUlOnamy be provtded 10 ahe Sew ..\lIiance?
10. Is me aodidale wUling to t:ake on die mandate .uui role;:
11. Would rhc argamzaaao provtde me necellatV prolile;
12- Wbat are die alks assOCIated ...Iah lbal org:uuz.aon;
S.S Evaluation of Candidate Alternate Delivery Mechanisms
In Older lD gauge the fe:Jsibility of e:JCh delsvery opOOll., dus 5eCl0ll ekes a cornprd1ens.Ye look :II: me degTee IV
which e:ICh of the eight delivery Opllons lT1eelS e:JCh of me lWeivt: deaslOl1 CDrm:\.
CATEGORY 1: lNDEPENDENT.-lClTONOMOUS ORGANIZATION
OpriOD 1: Incorpora~ Non-Protir Org:miz:lriOQ
Wim this option. the New AIli:ance would be ulCCrpaall:d under the PrtlYInCIai ~ Aa. nus opoon
provides for a new, cailor-made. lDelly ;1UlDnOmous org:uuz:1l1on. The ~ of me ~ew ..\1li:lIlce would be
adopll:d, and pannea would become di=rs or":he corpaallOll. The ~ew Alliance would have the ability to
enu:r UlIO conaaas. acqwre and hold !and and omer propem-. borrow money and lure sClff. ;\11 funds would he
channelled lhrough and rn:uuged b\' :l1e ':Orpor::Cl;1I Corpoare gtwecl:lnce rules w1uch \Io'Ould have to be mer
UlCiude: et=lIOn or" a Bo:ud or" =1If~oons. ~ulfemellls for rimnccl JCCOwlcilidiry, ulduding repumn~ .uld
audillllg; need ror annual meecnss. .uld ?te?:u'J:lCII lli ":undes or" Incorpaaoon" and/or by.laws Sr:lrul~
openDOnal and omer oeg:uuZ:lllcn:li pmceaures
111 A R.com....ltaefl Oll1'ltUoolt" ,It II F,It.lteM Molle/lor rll. N.w Roug. p,,,, A/Qltc.. Ocrolllf 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0521
Attachment #29
The arg:uuz:man mav :uso choose to seek ch:mcbie SCINS ellner dvough lIS opeciDl1S arg:u=aoll ur :I1mU~~1
esClblislung J ch3ncble :ounci:laan. TIus ....'Quld enable dle olg:llUZ:laon to ISsue CIX receipts ror CUllanoll, 11
money and land.
A.ppJiaoon of Decision Crirezi:l
1. Is die mand:lle or:he cJ/\wd3re Olg:ll'uZ:lDon compaable WldI die role or die ~ew .\Ihance?
1M ~ alii De witJr.",am.
2 Un die goal :wi mandale or die :-Jew .-\Ili:ince be deIivaai 8ezibly. efficendy and effecuvely?
Ycr. Dr OF -' &ani tfDina4tr 8iJJ. a-p _this ~ .' .
3. Does die ClIldid2Ie arganazaaon have a wa1aShciQ.wide pc.sp...b"'; . _ ..,
Ycr. With till ~ <Wi l1nII!,thaIfi &ani. __... iIuItfsts flIIIi penpttz:iw Nil . ~ Ho.-r. rhm
-"'.".i-., "'.~ retJ>>'U'Aigjr___ fJi-!..
4. Un die opaon pro~,de appropaale org:uuz:morW foc:us?
Ycr. '1iir t1J1IlI1tI Nil be ~ lD V. vu-.wi ~
5. Does die org:uuz:mon have surnoem expemse and ability?
Y cr. Dr urpri..:-n alii _lD <It:U :he ~ IIIID' __~. ill ptIfM1'DIJIft:,:mmu.
6. Is die cnganiz:uion ezpeaencm wlIn p:umeahips? --
Ycr.
7. Would die orgaruzaaon be =unable. =sible and would Ir fully Ulvolve die public?
'1iir __ be ~ :i1nRIgiJ V. Botrti'J ~!~.
8. Would die organiz:mon proVIde fin:Jnc:JI ;ulIonomy and susCllll2bility to die :-Jew Alliance? Prrx:etJRfU /Dr
~ fI/1'll/lDNI/fllllli.J jmm ",~ IIfIMid -' lD . --' ~ <I At_In__ ofU~( I1T <III
AIZI1Ifi .nm -'" be ffIrnWi ~I ~ :he~. ~ MIh V. =nlIr! l'!filmtul tJmlIlpenl htJJ IIDl
",.. JIIIZZS1jiJ 0_ tilt p.m :1M1;.-r ~r 11f1m1lIi>>U. IV lII.u l6!J pDiI1m1 tnWf1lllllt1lL ptI1f1I6 argtml!\fJ/ll>>U oWl pw
~ /111 fiwiUr! ..;.n - lmIJI:.JuuIiJiL .~ tJ atilt of _!' lD tilt RlJwNJi>ie aperuru>>u af tiN
1lf!d'Il~ III lhu .:imtJIIof a-!! lD ",~ ~ lhu t1J1IlI1tI hfJ1 tJJfUZIitmblz ruic tIlJfXiJJJetJ 1llth :ht jilllJllaui
.t-n f/v. N,., AJimuz. .-I iM~lZml. .1DIn t1pmlII/IIWi btms .-iJJ IIDl be exptrUtl. iNJNi till p.m ~.
9. Would decslOl\-rmlang :wtOnamy be proVIded to die New ..\lIiance?
Ycr./t iJ etptlIIIJ thol Ul _ &lZIU. Dtvri _lItYI -'" -' lD _ V. ~ af thar ptnIll ""IJ/fj~ hrfm
~ -"'I. f1UItiL
10. Is die c::andidaIe wi11ing lD rake on lhe rn:Ifldaa: and role?
Dr 'fJ/1"1IItJl af v. f1fIiiwjIIJll fJt1'f1fm. :he:r CmwiIr tJIfIi 1lf!d'Il~ -'" be -"y. ThiJ armid :ACt /lmt lD
~
11. Would die orpuzaaon proVIde lhe lIecesS~ prohle?
'1iir tDlllf!d'Il:::.r=m ".""jtJ iJIlu .I ./Jtl~:I'Il.:1DJiie.Jl :he I1IIlJtL utlSZliemiJlz fJI/JIU _id ht ~uzmj :tJ Qtleiop tilt
I1tplz'taDmr'J ~.
A R_ Olf/.lllzallon.. .na Frn.na.. Moa8l1o, rne N_ Rouge Pe... All.nee, OClDlJe,'9fT 19
0522 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #30
11- 'What are the asks 3SSOC13leci wIlh rius C111li11:i:ne~
UtrantIUf!' oaJtS _Vxr =llIr~ ;J1Uj .DfrI!XJII1i .~ :umid Ot .rmpt.nti /D .-pI the ~ .....O'ZUU'1 :lW' .111
~ 11f!IZ1'l:'fJl1ll". TiN ,u,mll :mrti UI ~~ :J :JJ IIt1l al8biim MIlo: J~ .''''!JDH I~'. .=:IlIJ/I,Z...
~ ;7um.lJl1n1Im = QUO 1iI1icnD1l".
Feasibility:
Tnis DfJI1Im ..JJ ~ QII urartlR ",the t1J11I1IIIl11Itrrl DJ~lJl1n1Im :JJ <lSSIUM orm:tIJ rrrpotuibii!J ftr riJt t:tJr!XI'UIlon. Tioe o..di.rro <I'
the orgattL."!JllI1II UJIIIJJ '-' penuru1i ~. for :ht It:goi .wi J'i1uwz41 opmmtm ~; the I1f!IZ1'l:"fJll/JR. Tbt p~:i ::lItJJJ':II~
I1IIJixmzsm has fJ"M1' /D Ot ~ JUr:hu DfJlllm.
OpriOlJ ~ VolWJcuy hrrDeabip orpDiZllriOlJ
Wilh this oplian. die New .-\I1ianc:e wcuId r:cnDnue lD ope:aa: under an infixmal amngantnr. maulCWlUlg lIS
awcnomy and funaicn as a panneahip-based. voIunazy organizaI:ion. AJ it does now, the New Alliance would
tUncaon rhrougb the gcodwill. p:uaop:mon and CDnlDbuoons from lIS parmecs and would not seek foanal. !eg-Ji
Sl2ll.lS for the orgaruz:mon. .-\c:1ngemenlS wilh p:mnecs would 11eI!d to be formalized through ;In .~cmd llf
pameahip agz=mmt
App/iarion ofDedsion CLireDa
1. Is the mandaIIe at \he clnCud:lIe argaruzaaon c:ompaDble Wllh \he role at the New Allianr:e~
Ya.
2- Can lhe goal and rnaruiale of the New AIlianr:e be delivered 8ezibly and effioendy and effi:r:uvely?
W'rIh lht tntIlII1II of Q M~ &.rJ. ;III EJ.mdir.c ~ ;III ~ 11It1IIbmhip ,wi Dlhtr .vijlUlIIImlJ. rbi,'
~ alii '" 1IId.
3. Does the c::andidaIe orpuz::mon h:lve a wmahed-W1de pelSpecDve?
Aijruzmenlr tIIII '" 11IIIIU IiJ ltmt~tiJm this ~ of rlJt AlitztuIt. Hna.tIr.:htn -mJ Ot NJ /_1Ji ~1Ji or jlmsdi.tzo,wi
rrsptzruii;iigjqr ~ phnrrurj.
4. Can lhe option provide appropaau: orpuz::1oon:ll tbcus?
YiIS. Tbt ~_ ..JJ Ot ~ /D rlJt VuifIII."'u. Pori.,wi 11IIRIIi4u of rlJt Pori. Nt1JI A11imra.
5. Does the cxganiz:uion have suffioent espemse and ability?
Tbt DIpIi~ alii __1iJ -= rlJt ctptnur aNi aiJiiriD of ill porwrorgarri~.
6. Is the organiDrion ezperienced with pannemups?
YiIS.
7. Would the organizaDon be :=ounClble, :JCr:eSSlble :rnd would it fUlly involve the public?
r.pr...i -,'abi",. ~ aNi uaN_ of rlJt pubi& UJIIIJJ "'-wL
8. Would the cxganiz:uion pltlYlde 6nanci:aI aumnomy and susainability lD the New AIlianc:e?
Nil. &pn- wh rlJt AIUtuz flI iJ tl41I4~ orpa~ has NJl rraitMi rlJt.ft-uid fIIJ1Pt1ff for DpNIlDRS
~ ill rlJt WtJlInhtti ~ T_II trptm. lNiimlunu un :IX1l iJ ltmtgthtrwi """ tf{1Il/.IJb1e ,ii",din(
jrJmndo IS ~ _g 1luh Q .f)lDlm ~:JJ rm-gpannermmmtUnt1llJ.
20 A Recammen_ OtganzaaDnelant1 FinanOel Maael tar l1Ie N_ Rouge Par/( AllIance. Ocra"er 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0523
Attachment #31
9. Would decslOf1-m:liang :lUtOnomy be pro\..ded to me :-:ew :\Ilianc:e?
Yu.
10. is me C3Ildidm: willing :0 t:Ike on me m:II1a:lte :ItId role?
AliJwz _iNn ;m4 ,w""'-r:: .~ uuiimruJ' ~iJ :he ~ .:tNIlJ'D1Iml 0/ :he t.oiMn~' "'Mtl~'
~ r.1lm.11r r.hu I1fJ1ZIm :u:lllid iJt - iua:mful :111 uptrfllZti auhut tht ruOnr /?; JII =ran~. :..rui,u.,IJtfl'
~::.r=m-
11. WauId !he org:uuz:LDon pro\'lde me necesnry prolile?
Tilr .AIi.atta ~- iu3r Oem ~/Dr 0_ DIIfI.JM'1. Corui1u.d tffaN UiJ nttti lIJ bt moM lIJ /II''''wt ::..
~
12 WIw ~ !he asks as"",;"-i wilhlhis CJndida~
W'1liJDt.fJi'IIII'~.fr~~.NtIII~-"Jf_tllllIIIIIlnIIiII~fJl1ln.
Feasibility:
n. ~ rf this 0!JllI1tr it tIMz il.:rarner tht .~ IIf1/J'fI<<i1 __ '- _ tll1IfIr!!h of tht Alimuz. :mti iJ iJtJ.S tht
J~ iIJ -'J iIllJltl1llia III i1GI mtItl tht -U oj tht Ptri. n. kg ""r-',.,.. III this aptitm it tht IIIIIIlnIIiII Jinatu='fUUln U
:u:IIIiJJ,p tht AiGtIII& To - ~ VI ~ I"!'fXJ'f.-.Dtlrrn6rfDrf1J1t'r1lll1lU l1llll_ _1I1I.tII&alJjid In (mitrto.~
jfmlolf6fi tht 1In1IfIhr rf this I1pl1II1I ;m4 ~/ar:he ~ ~. illlllliw IrII2Il1 p_ this oplllm UI .:D1ftmlllllllm
Ulh otiJr optltItU. i
.
CATEGORY 11: LlNKTHE ALLIANCE WITH A LEAD PARTNER ~
.
OptiOD J: FmenJ Government Le2d (National Park)
~aaonaI puk SlaDlS could be sought for me Rouge P:u:lc. This would involve =aon of a n:u:ion:U patk wlder me
NtIIIDntI/ P:ris At Dnausm:red by me Dep:inment of !he Envuonment. Man:lgement :wmoDty could be proVIded
by !he Fedecd Go~~..nent, or deles:lt~d to !he ~ew .o\Iliance by regulation and through ;111 ;lgreemem ur
memorandum of Wllieaanding between me fedecl goveavnem and me parlIleahip.
Application ofIkc:ision Criteria
1. Is !he mandaa! of lhe c:::IAdid:1~ org:uuz:LllOll comp:mble Wllhme role of me New .~iance?
No. n. P.;u At RlI 0111 oJ detr m. jar NlIlIINIi .:xris. II U rJeiwrJ by P.;u Cw1tJ4 aNi iIIZDIDllilb~ to :he
MittiJw rf tht Em.urmmerz. D~ of rrrptmsiiJiig to " _ i1rf-rIli.DtIn1IIniJip U 1IIJl ~.fPI' thtIJ dJt
IIIrimtIII ~ .,.sibWy JjJJs wh tht -. TlJIt CIIMIU ~ of tht NtIIIDntI/ P.;u PImI it to ulilbiish II11II
ptJrIu ill ~ _. OI/J/JnD U 1IIJl 11M rf tbtn _ SUIIZ thtn I1tr ~ tImz NJIimvJJ.DtITfu /If this f't!!Dn (Brw
~ p,.", Pti& aNi ~ ~ Isimuis).
2. Can !he goal and rnancWIe of the New .~ be del.ivemi tlezibly. effiaendy and effeaively?
N..
J. Does die c::auIid3ze org:ulIz:ltmn h:lve ;I waletShed-W1c1e peapecrive?
No. W1;Uo GtetIl 1-* ~iJtti UIJ6UU .If xtbur thtfttiemi ~s .:JunrDII. :he /tJitmlm~ /tIliiittJJ.u IJ1Ui titK:.'
/JIll tht ~ If ~iJtti.Dmgr:uns ~ ioa./.:JJr..-r.
A Rec~ OlplllZeao"eI e"tl Fo"e"oe, MoO., /D, rile New Rouge Pe", AIIIe"ce. Ocro"e, 1997 21
0524 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #32
~. Un the opl1On pro\'1de :lppropa:1te .o~onal focus?
~IJ.
5. Does the org:uuz:mon ha\'e SUfbCleIU expemse :md :lbi1l~'?
Pariu ~ u iurtJwn :wriJj'.JOr:lJ abiiiries in.Dariu IfIIIII4!!1'IrI t1IIIi srniar. Tlxn u a IW1iJh ~,' ~e ;l-IIillll
tht fttilmi.Dariu 11f!-~ t1IIIi Emrnlff1lmfl CmmitJ III Q aixJit. Hn.acr. n:-stnItlIImfg 0/ tht/ttilmi~lmrmmr !/! :lie
jI41ft aiiJ Sft~!v iimzs rht ~ ~i tht "P"~ IIJ 4Jiu /PI1IDV.Drf!ClIJIIISiJ# IJj ia .tJTiDn~ uruUuss .Jro/S.
6. Is the atpUZmon expeueaced WIth p:mneahIps?
Y u. TOt Fuitn:u 5'1_ has t1II1JIIIfl!!fi t1IIIi sll1n1II4t.erJ .~ l1f1fZ1ti..'"fIl1DnJ In an ifm :0 ;"aid .n,.;.u.'
~~ IIiJidJ __1fI1IIWJi~. IllIGI' ~iII tSttIbishing thtAJUnrz.
7. Would the organiz:mon be :aa:ounClble. accessible and wou1d it fuDy involve the public?
A.ftJ-i pane is 1fUIIIII!!Ii ill --- UJiJ prrszm.i ". ... tht ft6s/aIita
8. Would the oEg2IUZ3Don provide fimncial :WlCllOmy and susaiaability lD the New Alliance?
TM/_mi ~ lKIS.tJfOWitxJ ~ &r1{JIlai.f11Nis IIJ tht AJJ.a fr.tJtIic fJ'IIi<<lS. Illll'!J br llWiJ.Jbie :0 .twDlrIk
sptt:ij& stima. rrsurriJ ",. ~ J-is till Q .l1ff9ta sptrip basis. UIIIitr tht Ptri.r 4d. J'iIu=zai ~ 1UJUio'
be __ in thtjflilmi r-L
9. Would decsion-making 3UlDI10my be proVIded lD the New Alliance?
NIJ. Il-'rJ aa In an a4wwy ~-tr.
10. Is the CII1didaze willing lD cake on the rnand:m! :md role?
DismssiJms IIiJh Pariu ~ _ Uttiitz1IItJ Iixzl it is IItJl tht ~ body trJ _ tht IIUZIIli4u tI1Ili miz IJj tht
-~
11. Would the atgaruz2Don provide the necess:uy proffie?
Y lIr. NaI1J1Nli P:ris arr iJii4! usiiJ/e -' t1lJ%SJiDie IIJ aJi Cznmiimu.
12.. What are the asks :w~ with this CII1did:Ile?
TM ti6sznrj '-' I1f ~. ixJrh dtasuJ".",aking tI1Ili .ftmznaai. on nDllJJZZSSibie IIIIIier this flJJlZDn.
FessibiJjzy:
n.:r uprirm it IItJl jl110Sible Ntirin tht frrs-bIe /--
OptiOlJS 4A IUJd 6: ProvincUJ Government Lad
Tha= oprions Wele identiiied invclving the Prowu:e as the lead pamer.
OptiOlJS 4 IUJd S: Co-ordin:lIing the ImpJement:ltion of the Pi:lns through II Nt!W
llegubtion or Amf!:IJdment to the Provincial P:uks Acr
Rcsponsibi\ity fer the Rouge P:uk could be fU\1y 3Ssumed by the Province of Oncuio. With this cpOOl\, the
Pmviace cculd desipa: the Rouge Padt as :l Provinc:i:ll P3Ik \Wier the ~ Ptris At. The OI1ClDIl
Govemment would leCOgnaze and deline1le park boW1dazres (as they are esClb\ished). and provide the :I.1Uusrry 1Ir"
NazuEaI ~ WIth the :wthoaty m COIllto1 :IIu:I regula.te :ICIIVIoes 111 the pa&:k. The 1eg1SIa.ool1 proVIdes a set or"
discrete sClllcbtds go\'eaung :1CtIVlnes .Ind strUctUres wuhan the pa.rk boWld:mes. These sCllld:uds t:1ke precedence'
over loca.1 rtIUIlIopal by-I:lws :IIld the Rouge P:uk 1'1:1115.
22 A Recommeno.., O'V_nUDIln., _no ,"n_na. Mooel fo, l1Ie New Rouge Pa'" Alliance. OCloDe, 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0525
Attachment #33
."J1hough authaaty ro rn:mage Pro\'lI1Cl:U P:Irks lr.Id111on:li1y EeSlS 'lo1th the ~!iruslrY ot ~atuel Re$outCe:l. :har
3lIlhoDry cau1d be delega~ ro the ~ew ."Jliance eIther through a new reguIaaon or an :unendmenr ro me ?ff)III/.~
Pm Aa. The:unendment opaon 'lo"Ould recogJUZe the P:IIk :IS :1 proWlClai asset and recogJUZe me ~ew .1Jham:~
:IS a spea:d pu1pOse body.
One panapa1 difference between me IWO opaons re5lS Ul me dep to wIuch management ot me Rouge Park h\'
the :-Jew .-\lliance IS enaenched III ProvmCl:li legsslaaon. C:eaang:1 regulaaan wuIer the m/.llltld P.mi:s .-I..: \\iuch
delegms mmagement 3lIthoaty :0 me ~ew .\Iliance IS an e:lSler :wi qwcker process then :unending Ihe .-1.1 III
achiev1: the same goal. ."Jmougi1 me :unendment process ekes longer. It cau1d W:U\"e \-:mous opet'.Iaunal
s13lldazds and mus proVIde me ~ew .-\lliance wlm me plarulUlg :wi operaaanal flenbiliry reqwred ro meet rhe
umque ~ and chacIcu:r of the Rouge P:arK. Comparable ilexibiliry is less likdy wim me regulaaon opaon. If a
IlI:IIV a:gubIicn under the .AIr delegmd management aulholiry lD !he New AIliarxz. !he sandalds sapu1md III me
.AIr (which do not necessanly ccaespond ro the needs of the P:IIk) wou1d drive P2rk Plan unplemenClaon.
AppJiation oftbeD<<ision cmm.
l. Is the rnandale of me CIIlCiid:ue org:uuz:uion compatible W1m the role of me New .-\Ili:uu:e?
TlJr 1NIIIIia af the Minuzty ojNIIIIInIi Raar.r= is ~ ~ I1IIIi J1'*l.~ heiJJ.tJffJWIIiIJi ptri WI. TiM i.Jntis
iIIINifizd ill the ~ Pani: p_ (NaniJ .wi SfJIIIh) '- Q _ ~ of IJwJ ~. Pubii& WI o>>uIIi i~
iMNijizIi :wi prrn.taed ~. :UU .:nlJQlt fZIUi mllll1lZ{Nll !:wis I11IIid be fD!l'l:'!fl oW" :Jmt as lmsu :utiJ ::.witJ71-71trl'
_ etIlI1r1i inrtJ. This ~ -uJ be usttifor btniJ the ~ ,wi ~ opiIIIN.
2 Can the goal and ~ of me New .-\lli:uu:e be.delivered Bexibly :wi efficiendy and eftec:u\'ely?
A _ rr.gtJ4rirm IIIIIi8 the .o,."i1rti4/ P~ A<f :MJMiJJ '- the Nelli AJS.. ai1h ii8a1IJi .tx/IIof!Tr. If tJII ilIMIfIimtnJ IMU
fJC1I1i. IItIft flIIII11IImg -"i be ~ for the Nelli A1EiIn&
3. Does me c:sndid:ue org:uuz:mon h2ve :1 wa~hed-W1de peapecuve?
WJ.1t this is NIt :he .~ j_ of .:",rintitJi .tJII'iu, the ~ .mJiJ _mOtiIJIt this ~ ~ OJ
tIIIIJxJrig ~ the Nelli AlUNz. en _id 1II:tIi ~ be IIlA:m ~ mstmI ri1al the ..-riJtQ /tm1tiiazmt MiJi ~ fiN ,\ofTRC-l
(Ill ~ IIIIIi8 tht Cf11L~'r.l1MII A',u-~ .3<fJ is NIt d~.
~. Can me opaon proVIde :sppropna~ org:uuz:monal focus?
Jmvr.gh dmgf1Dmr oj m~ .llJUxm~ ~ :he .\iDII AUUzna. :lit OIJ!RII::zrwMi....o.:w oj :hu optzDn :J6uid i~
~
5. Does me acganizaaon h2ve suffiCIent expertISe and abUIty?
Ycr. i'fDrm=J.DiJIiu tit mtD--' rll'JW the1M1rl4/or thtv ~ .wi.~~. Tinu"!,h ~cIllDn of
IIIIlIIII!P"f1 ~ ~ the .\itlll AlIkmtz. irxui lU1IIniJetj ~ e:xpttfUt o>>,JJ t-!J he rJI1ZUtti. A.. IWh the
FttiemJ ~tIIL :he MZ\"R U III the.:J1DlZSS of ~ng ,wi .ioaor'JI~g. DttiiDJwj e:xpttfUt U iermnn,( diffiuil :0
-jar- pto/tas.
6. Is the arganiz:lllon espeaenced W1m p:umetSlups?
Yilt. Otlkltit1 P.rir _ t1IIluf! stUmg~ uIh IomJ otgfZllZ~.
7. Would the orpnizaaon be =WlClbIe. =sible and would It fully awolve the public?
nr PIri IIJfJII!J be ~ iIIl1IIIIJffimra ai1h the;m-11WtS .wi.tm1I<<DIs idmsijitti IIIIIi8 the Pm,,"..:Ji p.",,"-' .l.t. In
the am of t11Il111IwimtIIL puDU lJ/JZJunloJi,,'iry lMJIIid be msimnetJ lhrvugh the NtIII A1/kma's mantiuJL
A R_na.d OffJa",zauun.. ana F,nllnca, Moae, lor me New Rouge PII,. AlIance Octoue, '997 :3
0526 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #34
8, Would the atll:3lUZ3Don DtO\"lcie tinancl:li JUlOnomv :wi sustamabWl\' 10 the :-.ic:w .~e?
p",wu:uzt Park <In Jitf!v J~ f:.' :lJt .~mIUlC,:li ~lmrmmL Raeor.w ~E DfJI1I>>U _ UetIlE pl1f11lt1i :0 fJIillr:
11IIZXU1I1II1I aJIl tlIIIl~. Whui zIJt .::mluta has ,DltU:Duwi ~ 17If1JX1'f tD zIJt c.:.rarrE AI/Mna 111 uJtJO"" Of ,.:p;:;J.
t1Ni upm1ll1I1U d4i1arr. :l :s :miiA:z:. = :: 'MJuitJ i't .::~ tD fuiIJ j1lllli the ,....t1V Ai!iana tD riJt =.'\2111 ncus,,:-' :0 ,:0 :/!,'
,tN. A .:DSt'SDarut!.jlDf1iin!./omrllJ.2 :uJuiJ Me!J' :0 Dt f!1tmtaD 111 zIJt QIllfMDrU"'XZSJ.
9. Would decslon-malang JUlOnomy be ptO\'IOed 10 die :-.ic:w ..lJlianc:e?
As wh f~ .Dt1Iiu. icsum'm~E J1IIi1on:; :uJIIitJ << 'fISted t1I Q .\1DIuur. 117hzii:he iz!pit.m.ott .::mww :or :....:
art1lID1I of atiwmy Q1IIU1IllkU lD lflr .;.iua 011 .::.:mc .oQmuusl1UDJm. 1IIZIhtr the rrg,lIi4tDty dNm!!. nor ri1t t1mrntimml :JDII.d
ptrJUJi4for ri1t dmntJ ~ ,,1Iim C<:?iiaJt; :u1llrti lhm"!J1 the ~pnxm.
10. Is the C3Ildidam wi11ing II) aIre on the rnandm: and role? .. ...
WI.U ~ an potirit.c. :hi ~ zUszsvm rrsts:wh. ptf1I1iwiI1J ~ nr ~~l h.u rxtDIJZl.r
'-' hoIt1itrtI ill . _1IIIIi 1IrIfJtis :0 << _1htIl dJr V,.1IIIIi dJr pis ill dJr &...!r Pri Phtu an lIfJhriJ lhnniyJ <J
IIISI~ dU.J ---. nr fJIDIIi- rper ~-l dJr ~ I{ . AJ&a;, IIIIIi rMm rht ~ in
~ us ~ In atitiizum. :l iNu ;." fuiIJ ntp}1IIIfUM 0/ dJr .A1Gmra aNi ill JX'f1'I'I. 17.- _ :0 ,Jr oJ
..... nl'l/IrE poiIimJ I1IIII1IriImmJ :0 :Jir Ptri. W'zlhzir lhI aIm1Il ~ ~ pnxm .wi drwiMJztm 0'-
rrsptmsiiii.a.u lD oIhr.-. .nt1/ZII1I of" sptJIZ4i.~ botiy tIU!J _ Dr rht ~'1 ~ opamz. ..-l:i.wz
'P!' tIU!J <<.tJnftnr4 if. prrnvra ::;n << I1SDIIrIi IhtIlrht Pri Phtu .uJ ___ tD 1M ~
11. Would the atpUzaDon ptO\'lde me necess~ ptOlile?
Y cr. PmwrtiI1i.Dt1Iiu an xiri.J rmI!."l::ti.
12 What :uc the !isks a,c.",.,..rw1 WIth this ~
Dismmtms ~ rht ~ ixM wii.t:r1utJ :hal .:111 ____ tD . Aa 'MJIIiJ _ prm.rM jor . rxNtt . OJ
11II1111rtImy. !imi IDIUIIJi or srf ~ MsimJ ~ AJIm. _ilrn aNi . ~ nr &.gr P:ri fZI"jJ _
~~ 1lJ rht _~ ml1Ni4u o/P.rir 01llllliA. At KIJ. Jhrn is ~ tisle r.JSJOtiIIl6i wh
. ~ D/fJ'Ult1U ~:o W.DemfJDD'I of Jtna~ i1tnwimw 1m thtv Ws.
Feasibility:
~ zIJt &.gr Pri :wirr :hr p..".,,=l D .:rO----' ..J '! 11I<<lS :0 _ . the ~ .nlDUI ~ rhmugh zIJt trUDlJ .Df'/IC'W.
A rrgr.'- -w tht P1Mr1fl14l p",,",-, ..J,,!:S..DlUlli.mtl N:naII.r j;'" the IIIfU!W .~ .-J o4UIW DiJuiJ .iJ.Iwm:: tiN
&...!r Pori. lrurrmrti ~ 1m :hr .::mlU'.a /or lm,rxnE.11111Nl11i RJ!:!X1'f 'MJMiJJ .Jim Or JrI1/6J (~ ~( zIJt . ~f
iIf'l-uzllDlUllJi .;,;m i<<:aJ dcsimr.mMln n.- 0_ zIJt P .rtC'; ,iiNwi4i trI'/IIImS). HoKlV. rht _mll1ll!V .wi rhr AJ./Uma h.M
~ tht1J :he pm_ ht1s" ~ 'llIi :tJ .:J~ .wi ~ lD pnnuI6 UI ~ rhr 1_ oj zIJt P.ri P'-r. An _rndin(
pt'lI<<tl. :JiJilt ~ Q"""'11I 0_ U _ ruzJJi1ir:JJa zIJt ~.-.
OptiOD 6: Esmb/isbing:l Ro~ P:u:k Jf:magemenr Btnrd under:l Ro~ P:uk Act
A speci:al pwpose body muid be escablished under provmcal leglSIaDon WIth delegated :wdloaty from me
I~cl"nl~ II) the New .o\I1imce through me Minastry or ~aD.II::Il Resowa:s. Such legaslaaon would desc:tlbe die
mandaD: of the New AIliancz, ilS powea :wi dUDes. lIS gcvm12nCe SIl\lCl1ll'e (lI1Ciuding:1 Board ofOuec1Dcs). and
possibly how the New AI1iance would be funded
Two cznpIes of how dus opDon could work ~ :he SI. UwImc:e PJdcs ComnusslOI1 JIld :he :-.ii~.l !'arlG
Comnussaon. The 51. l.:1wrence PJrks ('..ommrsslon SLPc. .5 J Schedule I JgfISIc? or die ptOVU1Clal goveaunem.
and IS c:onanued through Juthonty of :he S:. uP."!:t pJTIU c-mwum.-t:. L:nder dus leg&51JDon. me Sll'C IS .\
cctpOr:lDO/1 WIth =Dan:u fJclhnes UI ~he .~I ~wrence RWJ:r r..omdor. ..\s J Schedule I Jgel\cy, rhe ::u"C's
prognm an: funded through J COmbUIJDOn or ;:ro\'U\CIJl :r:Jl\Sler paymellls ;md revenues gerlet".lled mrTIu~:;h lIS
24 A Rec""""enaea On;anUDo".. a"CI Fntano., MOClel 10, me N_ Rouge Pan< Alliance. Octalle, 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0527
Attachment #35
a=uons. The .5U'C IS run b~:l 3-15 member ba:ud wtuch rqxms to the ~liruster or Econanuc De\'eillprnelll.
TCIde and T ounsm.
The :-iiagara P2dls Col1'lmlSSlon (:'.1'c, IS :1 5cheduie II opet:lang agcn~' =a:d by the Niagam Pani:s .-1.:. .~.s.\
Schedule II JgClC!, :he ~l'C IS compielch' funded itom te\-enUe5 genena:d by mett progoms. wtudl ~1t:i\ld..
opeauon of pada. :ltll':IClIons. tustonc sues. :l harucu1lUC1l school and other public semces 111 the Siag:u'.l R,,"er
Comdor. The ~C IS run b:- :l 1::.member bo:ud wtuch :lisa repons to me ),firuster or EconoltUc De\"elupmem.
T ade and Tounsm
Under :I. Rmtgr pft Aa. the ~ew :\lh:U1ce \I."Ould be relaa\'ei~' aulDnomoUS. W1m tin:d =owll:lbdilY rll rhe
Province. 1his opacn wou1d foana1ize the proVU1C3i lIla=5t III the :Ilea.
. . - .--:-.--....-- -.--- .. ....... .-- --..
Appliarion of rb~ Dt:cisi0tJ Crirm.
1. Is the mandaIe of the c:andidal2: org:aniz:uion axnpaable with the role of the New AlIi2nce? ~
Yu. 17Jr IIIIIIIIiDa rfthr New.A1Una -uJ De ~ ill ~
2 Can me goal and tnand:Il2: of the ~ew .-\I1iance be deliftftli flezibly. efliaendy and efrecavelyr
Yu. TDis..ili hI.__ b;t:iJt,~ s-r; UIilbishttj ~ the ~ -
3. Does the c:::auIid:ue arpruz:ulon have :I. W2IelShed-W1de perspecave?
Pt1Tt1tll'1iJip in the New.A1Una :umid IWli :D bt f1Tl1l!lheMi /Tom :iJt ~ AJIimIa lIJ _ 1h1Jl ~ lW/m0etj...w
~uptmiMi.
- -.-. -- -- - -
4. Can the option provide :approp= o~ focus?
Yu.
5. Does the orgaruzaaon have sufficenr aperuse and :ability?
Ycr. 17Jr N,.,AIUM a11I_lIJ QQ:U1:iJt o:ptnl# aNi ai:UIzes ~"iu.D(Jnm,."'F"~'
6. Is the organiz:1rian erpecenced W1m p:umerships?
Yu, ~ txpenma:Wh:iJt oa.r::lJrl A!!.=na.
7. Would the OlpIUZaDon be =owll:lble. =slble :1I1d would Ir full~ 1Il\"Olve me public?
Yu, tiJis.-JJ hi ._Ded ~ lilt 11fX'".J::IJIrdi.~ of rht NtIIIAJi.w%:r i~ &arrL
8. Would the organiz:mon provule rin:lI1l:cl aulDl10my and susr:unability lD the New .'\lli3nce?
17Jr ~ aJJ prmni1e ~fMllliiJr1J'a",,~ JNi fPr!1IIIr !J"W'I UI rht New AlUM lIJ ~ <111 elflliJJJhl4 ponztPI
if the ~ l1IIZr. FituItraDi.JM/lJllDll!' JJMid tr1Z :Wh rht ;VtIII AlUM if tiJis IIGl' pmaiiJetJ in rht .!.mtm.
9. Would decsion-making aut'Ol1Omy be proVided lD me Sew Alliance?
Ycr. nu aJJ hi (J pnsmDed U/ rht ~1Jl:/JIr. filnMrcr. -far t1fJINtJi of rht i~ &anfr dIWimu ",UIJ rut
UIJJ the MittirtlrifNillIInli &-au.
10. Is !he r::andidaa: willing to cake an the m:uul:1~ and role?
ApI. thiJ tltsiriiJtr ffSU aiJh rht pnmNJai CJiJiNL IY.d.ain rht aIIfW .:imIIU of "'-.fir~ ~ rtnitIIIN. thr
ptrnINZ aJJ also dcM :JJ stPt. /1111 ~ !iJuJi ~!y lIJ _ :ht flll1llr of thr RoM!, pft aNi dti_ :ht mtJlllillk of tilt
-X-~.~ II JJMid bt .AJs:.rr:i :AJ::ht L.-Lamr DDIIi:J hi uphtid .wi thr P<ri PItw U1IfJiemmsoL
11. Would d1e org:u=aon pro\'lde :he ::ec~S:lrf pro rile;
Yu.
A RKOIIII7IeIlG.a Orv.IIIUaonM .na Frn.noM Moa.'~' :.'. N.w Roug. ;>.'" ....nc.. OCIOD., 1997 ~
0528 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #36
1:. ~hat :m: :he asks :lSsocaleCi \I.'un ~ cndid:ll'e?
17M iiiuiiJotxj ~i lht PYD_ .=ng ~ .::urptm ~" ~~linn tJJt _.fuum :s qlllll :iI/I.~ :\QIIlUJt~.i.:1 IIn QUItt'
~ _1IIll4D& :l U ~ :ikIl :iJt.s "fJIlD" JUJuitJ Dr .DUrsueQ ~ lIJt PYDUIIa lI/ onur llJ ,murt :/It il/IUII.''''<
fll1J/1r JOr tiJt Pane.
Feasibility:
Thir I1pllI1II :unJJ ",~ ixnh :ht ""lZIU:I!?"tfll stma:tn ,;mj :iNJimtiUr!,JDnnUJa .IOr tiJt Nt1V A_a. Tht slmlgth ~/' II!:" Opl:OIl
is :hat :l t1IlmI&iJu V. prrnvr=' :tmnIt UI :IN -. CIJI!Iinnurg tht .DrOnlUZlJi l1IIInSlZ" tiJlI .::zIt. :mm ",um ~f lIJt jgZQ' ~, Ntd
Jm-!v ()t' ~ olhtr f1!!"'ZB JUJuitJ su oJ ./mtUmL F:oniJtr UI~ _id ".,; llJ Dr.DUmiefi nganii,,!, the iiuiiiJOOtl rI/ :11t
~ llJ tsIIJbiIh " _ spetzDi.~ Dotiy ___ ~ C_ V. Q6PfIIl JftI/lI'iIrmg tllIIl.Iliu rf lht PYDuna lUll) Jl.(
per. Do.rir -' ...usitJN. . ficsiDII .-iJ Dr ""r!!I i1fIIIIti ... " _iJr " _ _ rf aOdJ u 1IiJetiJr . ,u .mti
fi-timr of lht r61fIIIi~ t11IIiJJ Dr srneti ~ 011 oziDir!, ~
OptiOD 7: EsmbJisbing II sped:U purpose, lIuraaomoUB parrnersbip orpDization
within the tlusplQ:s of the MeaopoJian Toronto IUld lUgion
Conservation Authority
The Meacpolil2l1 T 0tCIl1D RegIon ConselV2D011 :\ulhcmty (Mrnc. -\) IS esl3blished under me ProVU1ClaI
Crnuzmmon ~ Aa. Its m:IIlci:lu: :s 10 conserve. proD:Ct :wi enhance !he c:casysu:m \VUillll lIS \Varershed.
Widlln dlIs Nbcc.!he ~c.-\ has escblished .speci:1l committees" under lIS rules of conduct 10 address specIfic:
issues or ~hic 31e3S WIthin lIS IWlSdiclIOIl. While !he .,$Jlianc:e does not f.1II wllNn the "speca:ll comrrum:e"
SCIIUS (SIllCe It was =u:d by the Pro~'IIlCl! :uui h2s no l'epOl'lIIlg or =unability tequuernenlS 10 the agency) lIS
pDnapal businesses au: highly compatible WIth those af!he Ml1tCA. With the :ippronl of !he Boa1d ofD~n --
of the Mrn.c.\. the New .o\1liaruz cx)u!d aaach ID and enh:Ina: !he MIltc.\'s ~ The MI'Rc. -\ has proVIded
6rwu:i2l 3nd aaxlUnDng 5el'V\ce5 :Jiong WIth espemse 10 !he .o\Ilianc:e ior !he past twO ycus. 'Ibis would conllnue
ID be provided. Reccgnirion or the :WlOnOl11OUS nalJ.\Ie of the New.-\Ili:Jnce by the Mrn.c.-\ would be inherem Ul
this Opllon.
AppJit:::ltion ofDec:ision Czirem
1. Is the ~ of the c::tndid:lu: org:lniz:lllOll comp:lllble WIth the role of the ~ew Alliance?
Yu.
:!. Un the goa13nd rn:IIUbu: af:he :-Jew .-\1li:Jru:e be del.veml 8exibl~:II1d effioendy :II1d effeClwely?
Yu. rhrrmJPlht tSttJDiIhmml oj <J . \~l &trti.
3. Does !he Clndidau: org;u=lIon h:t~'e :1 w:au:ahed-W1de pelSpc:clIve?
Yu.
4. Un !he option proVIde :IppfOpD:1U: org:u=aon;al focus?
Yu. F_ /II1II ;. ~ lhn1II!,iJ tht ~ of l1li _.~ DiIs"Q ticntJn.",Ui".~ '-ni ~<<tIj <J
~ Jo-IIirhUt :ht MTRC.-4 _i1rWA
S. Does the cxpUzarion have suffictenr expemse :uui abiliry?
Yu.
6. Is the orpnizaaon e~enced wun p:ulllenhtps=
Y u. Tht. \fiRC.-4 iJIII u1i1biUhtJi .~tnixp-b,mJi wizum:v .'fV1I1II1lZ<<I il1" ~1h rIJt Don .wi HJIIIIM- IIW61htriJ. .'i rI",t
.\mc.-4 tmd hoidin!,l;Jn "'1111~ una" .rllI"...t I;v oJn:J "',",Jo.::tJi:l:tI. .\rTRC-l.mo;,tJI II 1Il/",M- ~f _1IIOrWldll .,
agrremmlI :w}, pm'Q/l .:zNi ;:1111;.; ,a1//r .'rg.m:~N :tJ sn- :mflZS. .itiJzrr smu'tI. or .:JnmQt ..'lJ1II1 mlll/lI:'fmenl
11f1!X1'U'1'IlU.
25 A Recommenoea Cr;anuoon., ana Flllancal Moa'" /or me New Rouge Pane Alliance. OClooe, 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Ma~agement Advisory Board #8/97 0529
Attachment #37
- Would the cxg:uuz:1l1on be :lCCOWlC101c:. .:c:CesSlbIe :wi would I[ fully II1vol\'e the pubbc~
,.
TiN J~ &am :uJMi4 u:.miiJh qpmmng .wi I!J'lI'fZIf!, p1'DIZIiMnJ /() t1Uftn tbtJl ill .f)imtfll,!~. .:xNAl' ,imlD(lmtJ::
JNi tit:liSIIIt,.,,,,,CIf!, IS I1JZ1zmr.IDl4. ..:.JZmiJie rJlfQ INIJlSI~.
8. Would the Org:uuz:1l1on pro\1de ::I1:1I1Cl:11 JUlOnom~' :wi suscunabiliry 10 the :-;ew Alliance~
TiN M1XC~ -"i htU lIJt ".spoIUZi.lii~, fIJ ~'I" :iJt .VDlI AJUna'J UfXrrJ/II1tIIJ/f1lllliing. Thcsr]imrJs lU1uiJJ lit p",mit,;
/() the .'v~l &ani .JIlIi :JJflT ~II ~rJ1Iid Ut .idmnuwj :Jmmgh the BMni's imtigum:v P""r.J1. BII/I~l
fIIimaswnu ..Jd _ lIJt rZf'P"'Wl ~(:ile .\I7RC-I. III the n~l tJxJl the .'vl1XCA expmmas ~ 1It!!1UiJ/lII~ :lit
itIfJ IWh ~.DtIf1Ierr:n .:JaT""'::IIJJT. :he :Jti,~ of 1IlU::ng the _ m<<Dtznums/iIr G_ TonmfIJ .-l1l'.:J."
__ tISRl_ _:he G_ TDtflllfIJ Senuu &ani siJouid be ~ tma tJxJl.iJmtm IS /It .Diua.
9. Would dec:isicn-makin :WlDl1Omy be provided lD the New .A11i::nz? .." - ~. ..
YIr. 17Je M7EC4 f7JIIitj be ~ fIJ pnniM tlIIIi _ tit:Iisimr---,.11IIII1tttIIIIy /() the.~ &.mi. Thir
aJJ be ptrJtii6J ~ II . _ _ ..tiII11f of ~ ~ . -..ig -1If{JIGIlIi tht1l ''ltt. fa,..rppetJ!' of
~ 4 tltIisitJIu is IIIIIIi.e ~ ~ till imptIni& :hinJ.txl1t.J----. .. .
10. ts the c::uuiidaD: willing 10 cia: an the n1:lnd:llr: :wi role?
Ycr.. .tiJel1pp,,_iojthe .'vI7RC.-t &.mi ofDinaDn.
11. Would the orgaruz:mon provide :he necess~ profile?
Yu. Thin fIn JrIIfIe ~,r:mDiems ""uinm!. III :he /DftI1IIIIIrI!1.from 1\o1TRC-I aaisiJicr _ a deaJde~. A,,':Wi.:lN
.\o1TRC-I is IDIISiJientj ~ Jome fIJ De .:~ n-:snMS <111 ~ /() be 1l'STJiwJ o_:une. :hmu!/J UIIfJ""III1,
~_iNntJsrti ~
- - ... - -_._-
12. What are the asks ~-; WIth this c:::InCiicbIr:?
W'ab the .::mistJ tIxzl till ~Ie. fiwjilf!, .'mmJiJ alii be tS74bisht.tJ 0/ the .Dt/IfIIm. this is the ItrRrt risle upliI1tt ~'
nur-iIf!, the~ ~~. a4ie.~ riJt If/tJJt ~jorthejulmr.
Feasibility:
17Je M1RCA ~ bar.~ :D .Jl14iJ :he SnII AlUuz xlhUr lIS lI/IIbrr1/4 ~ 0_ <III <<[lIilIJbil j~
jumrMJD IS U14bisixtJ. the ,\f1'XC-l xii __ ~llIJJ1DIU :uJh ill memw ~ :JJ ~ the 11fJm1lII1tI11INiDI.~. TIJI.I
aJJ be tJtiJiewJ ~ A!J1ii 1. 1998 _ /he ~ of /he :umnl Al!imra etpIN. TiN ,'VI7RC-I &ani 1U1MIJJ _ /() entiom :he
~ -f- of the orgtzfIl::mmr. Tiu i1fJlIDII.fJnJwies jor the use of.." DJlpng. J"VfIm ~finIlJin!!-uI.L prouJu
.for the mtISl nJ!1iti .. ~# /r'Q1UUIIJIr .:rrx= :IIIi -VI .i:lpimDtm aNi o~ betMDt llWJ ory,_~ Illlh siIIIihr
~.
CATEGORY m: IkvoJurion to LoaJ .\funicipaJjri~
Oprion 8: IkvoJurion to Loc:U .WunicipaJjries
The fi.n:1ion of ovmeealg 3nd co-orthn:ll1ng the unpIemenClDon of the Rouge P:uk Managemen[ Pl:IIlS could be
lDIlSimed lD the vmous munacpa1ioes 111 the Rouge Waaeahed. .0\11 "New A1liance-like" adVISOry CXllTIrtIItIr:e ur
seael3mt ccuId be set up lD advl5e 3nd :WlSt mWllcpalioes with dus c:o-oniinaoon funcaon.
A RKtlIfItM"_ Org_aDO"" alIa ""'a"Cla' Moa."or :"a ""a" RoulJa Pa", Allia"ea OCfODar ,gg7 27
0530 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #38
.4ppJiacion of Decision Cdtr:t:ia
1. Is d1e mandate or the cndidate ors:u=Don compaDble WIth the role or d1e :-.lew :\lli:ulce?
AIIII ~ .m rupmuziJie.lOr zmpimmtWUlJII oj &m,gr.Dt1Tie Jm1!/fI1'U'.flffJjftU tJIIQ' mtJllllDltJ&r ~I' :.JIII':' ,IlINIl
_,MUJiiazmr. Tin o&mziI trll4.JM' mlllUiau o/rhI f1t?d1IZ:'flUllII U IIDlIUIiiII rhtvamm/ mml/Wle.
1- Can d1e goal :u1d m:u1d:lle or the :illi:u1Ce be deli\'ered t1exJbl~, erDcend~:md effecD\'e1~?
.'vIJllwplliirit.r:wuid"'; 1IJ esraiJiish aJr <IIiWoty ..."",nrzrzee JimiiDrill memiJrnhip 1IJ the =zvr.g.-uJimra :o,rtrlmi.: :'!!''',
1IJ. ~ o/oiJ ofriN i.mtir::uhill riJc Rou~ Pane .\~ PImu.
3. Does lbe candidaIe acganazaaon h2ve 2 w:ueahed-wide perspecrive?
NIL T1is III1IIIJ 1M ptrIIit/MJ ~ 1l1IIIIiri.-.J t1IiWwy___
4. Un the optian pmvide 3ppl'O!Xi:aIe organiz:uiona1 ttx:usi>
T1is I11IIitJ 1M prrtriMJ ~ riM ~ of II ~,.",... ..... .- t1IiWwy tIIIII6IiIr& 1-IDHt.r.
~ Wh tht MTRC4 trlie ami flDU1llJ1ll1#1111tJ rM4.'bzz ~ rJis 7IIf4lniJttJ.
5. Does the cnganiz:aDon have sudiaem espemse :wi ability?
Dr etptnin rf ~ iUt 2iIJJ.Dtrir ~ ~ ami jJI'I1gf'IZIfl ou-y. Thr m~ OJ
RiIDmmuJ Hi//. Whil#JtIniJSIiJllfftiiM. .\.1triiJam ami ~ aNi the _CigojT_lMJuI4.JiJ neeti:o ill: 1II10U~
;.~ ~ tht ~ Pri.\~ PIam 1IJ _ thIJl tht VLIIim amipUr un mcL
6. Is the etganiz:aaon espenenced WIth p:annerships?
Ycr.
7. Would the ocganizarion be :ux:ounClble, :llXeSSible :wi would ir fully involve with the public?
EIlIiJ ~ it t1IZZ1IIIUi1iJie 1IJ III ~ CmwiJ of ti6uJ rrptaWII!iws.
8. Would the ocganazaaon proVIde fin:Jnaa1 :1utcnOrTlY:wi susClll1ability to the ~ew :\llJ:II\ce?
No. ~,1IIIIII1Jipcl Alimra _Om ~ mbrtmu;gJ ptris DJ1mIllDIU l1I!J!XIff fr /muM 1Whut .r JlINtiIJ.'DIJII.
T1is I11IIitJ 1M expttreti 1IJ a1IUi1uM IIfIi '- ttWmarj uNkr the singie .rxris smrr bang &f1IIkmJJi.Jred "1106 the IIDJ.' .1[':
r-u-L III aJJirrJm. mllllllZfJt11_Om '-!filfium AJUuz "'fJI/Il/ IIfIi P"'JC fllNiing.
9. Would deasion-m:aking :WlDl1omy be proVIded to the ~ew .o\1Iiance?
No. ShoMiiJ IIIIIII1Jipcl pamrt:n uwbirh IlII Pri._ _nrzrzee. tht.ftmmtm MJUItJ be tJliumry onf,'.
10. Is the c::andic:I:ate willing to ake on the mand:ue :wi role?
~ jium tht QInmI.\.fmv fJtI'f1'6 _ iNiimrId :hal timJlWrg the ~ .wi DIm. fiml'tllJII 1IJ tiJt I/t/J'
Cig I11IIitJ _=! ami ltmImiiM dcsiIJtI'lII"c,g ami DJ1mIllDIU. finaer. ,\{dm ,Jim 1lIII,f"'~ the htntjiu :WuiJ
__ 1IJ tht PIri ami 1IJ MIDD III II -W rf the AJImuz. Othtr lIIt111l1ipal fJIJI'fM'J haw SIIf1Pt1'U4 the MTRCA
IIfJIimr ill it/Jl if tht i1umJwJ ~ .;,;m thtJl 0fJ/1/1I/ prmiiks. aJiI6 _g tht &w/ fDi4 rf .znrrujj~ .~" ~f
~ifPtri PIam.
11. Would the orpUzaaon provide the nece5S2rY profile?
W'&tbrMtt II . foau. riM .. SIJIIIh if S,. IIfIi u. ... -u, rf Sr.16s -JJ tIJfJR Wh Sf./JI1"II# itJmlllW IIfIi 1Wh
iiff-u fJIt-titr! ami ptJig tIfJP'f1<<hes.
12. What ~ the asks 3SSOCQred WIth thIS CIIldid:1!e?
lVuh tiluJiMrrtm 1IJ uuiiUJJII~ m"IUa,D1JllIm. jJt ~ltllu.Ji Olmttr .mD fD-ImiillUll/Jll fi'llJ.flIJII Il~JlIiJJ ill :OJ/. Ti'l ~"ml :n
,,;,un m~ :wuid .v"rnilllu ~::tII1~f:",tir :0 the tJptrQ/1IJII oj aJr UIi~uo')' .'D1IImllUt:.. l",icnou.7I.
28 A R.eo.......na.1f Otg,nz,acn" ,nlf F,n,netll Moo., lar rn. N.w Roug. p,,,, AIII,nee. Oeroo., 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0531
Attachment #39
-
FeuibiJir)':
PlII'Ii:s mt1lUJ!?'lnfl .;nQ uptrr:uD1U an Of:t:g r:f.-:::r!': .Jt:::m:; ':~' oJ :'In/!~' ~<~orie .D.:1n1IlrS. HD-. ;ht USlIlfJ.al.~:dJX1St 01 :iJC m1:....
JJIlId r.ol lit rfftall.r:,' dliil.f'f!tJ ~. iJtIOllrr.; ;".'~ .!JJJf:Jlr.o;:.;on ~";'O".Jlil:i;":;:J :0 :JJt ''''II1IlafJQi !nrti.
5.7 Summary Analysis
The exerose oi re\'lewmg :he deil\'er-: ~paOllS ag:wlSt :he decISion carena PIO\-ed that there are a number oi \"lahl~
delivery mech:uusms Jbie to assume me :)\'er:ill responsibility tar the O\'er:ill co-<>ttiin:!aon of the unplernem:mun (Ii
the Rouge Park ~l:inagement Plans.
The 6gIz below is a visual iIlusrraaon of the resuhs produa:d when die r::IIldicIu:s 311! eva1umd against the 12
decislOl1 COteDa Iplease see the colour<oded legend nat lD the Iigwe for a list of die decision ai=ia). The mast
fDouabIe c:andicl:uEs have the tillest bass. .\5 IS de:i1' r%crn the ligwe. die three ~ which CDI1ll! out ;du::ad
aze: MmC:\. ~ew Rmigr Porie Alt., 3I'Id :\rnendrnent lD the ~ PlII'Ii:s ~
Evaluation of Altemale Delivery Mechanisms
~ a~.
~ O~~
. WOng".ss
30 . 0sc:1sicJn.1I'8Icing a_my
25 0 Fiw1c:ralaulDnamy and susta..1dy
. Accountabls. acc.sibls. public
20 a ExDenence w ilIIllannersnips
15 . ExDen.e and abUy
10 0 OrgalllZlIIllnal focus
o Watershed wide
5 . fleXIble. effllCllVe delIVery
o II Mlnaate
I!! a .'1.. -i 'S ~ .s
.0 ... ....... ~ a. 1 a._ .~
~a: .a .n i.:.jj i_~ &~ i ll-
lIi ,. I~ ~~& ~oi!i II _~
~z Woo! ~ .! ~ ~ = :II
A: - A:
S....., ~- F",. 10 of *......... _ ,iN _tiiAl... ..... .- J ,,.,. ~r: u-.,,;, J. D.,,,, tiwi, ~ _ ......... _ _ _f/lud
-.... ofl "'-P j ID_--,__"!' "",j F,__ "''''.0''':1 ...,j nll~fJ). Tho ;,;t- ,iN ,,.,.. * iN_,iN _ u _. I.
..,. - * firm - * ""!/I' 0/* "'},..."......." "I"'''''' ".'Ut" :tIl'tII....an-a III * ~""l-'
AI1iance :tnd cornrnuruty pamcp:uus expectz:d at the outset of dus re\'lew that one opaon would emcrgt: as d=y
pD:feaai The :analysIS however l2Ilks the ~ITRC.-\ and the ~ Pft At as equiv:lient in rhetr ability to deliver
die I!l:IIIC!aD: (duough the =non of 31'1 :\lli:tnce ~Ianagerne\t Board). WIth the :unenc:lrnmt option tilushing a dose
dose bdund. Thus, the :\lliance must consider :he armbures 3I'Id disDnCllOns between the Ro~ PlIic At, the
MrRC.-\. and the .000u1lQQi .D:;nU A.: Jml:ndmem deia\'er:: opaOllS Ul ortier to determine an apJ'lOptl:lte path rfl
iollow.
A Recommenaea Organ.zaoonal .nd ~nanc:., I.feee, ~O' ~."e "Jew ~:1Jr;e i:'arw A.lllance Oeroo.r 7997 ~9
0532 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #40
The C1bie below summanzes !he key dJsDllC:U~)IlS between the rhree opaons.
DlSTINcnONS BE'IWEEN THE PREFERRED DEUVERY OPTIONS
MTRCA I NEW ROUGE PARKACT AMENDMENT TO TIlE
PROVINClAL PARKS ACT i
. c:maag orpllZllDOl1 ....II enshnnes me plOla:DOR of !be pazk . :aDendingplOCess IS p~ceaenr
cODlllllible /JI3IIdae IIIle!llSbaon selllDg ,
c:m~g_laSbed plOla:lIDn reqwres .dcnaliaaon or pam . plOVlllaal p:uks sCllld:uds woui..! i
CllIIIpODeIIr bauadaaes bolb saulb aad aonh of appiy !
. pmwaI aad ac.a:pabIe Daliag SaccIcs A_ue . IIIICCI1:IialV cepdiag !be
IDsmuia aad levy --- . Cabiner 3ppaonl at~" - '-~ess of die govemmeur to
ldymg OIl aqpiaed l:ODlIIbuliaas _able dcpeadmr 011 poIilial will lbisoplioa
. SUlaiDs popular. c:aIIabaaIift, IacaI . would maadae 6mdiag.n1b . lea decisioIHaakiag IIIID11Oa1y lD
pmaeabip modd equavalear mclilodology . Ihe AIIimc:e Ibm .nib lhe allier two
. ClIII be mpiemallal quicldy :..rnc:.\ madd opllOllS J
. wiIIiag . c:n:ms lhe need lD disriDgwsh toIes . pI09Ida:l high plOlile
. aVOIds tfl~lw!l.v- belWeal MI1l.c.\ aad lhe AIIiaacc
~g wmmbed aapaasibiIiries While some .-\lliance members and commwlIty sClJ.zholdca may hold disrina preic:mces tOr one of the tf1n:e
prefemd models. ir IS usefullD consider !he beneblS of incx:llpor:aang bo!h !he ~mc.\ and J pI'OVU1C:1:II upaull
U1ID the susainability p1m for !he .-\lliance org:uUz:uion ~. i~.~ forward ID !h: unpl~ClbOl~_ phase of ilS
pmgam.
30 A Rec_naea O'Venz.DCln., ena "'nenOel Moo., for me New Rouge Pe'" AlIienee. O=oer '997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0533
Attachment #41
6.0 CONCLUSION
:\ progressl\"e 3ppro:lCh neeris to be ::lAen ro the new Org:uuz:lllOn:ll :lnd funding sauctUre . one wnll::h ':::plUrt" 11t'
JtlIIbures orOOm me proven n:lture or":he .\fI1\C:\ Jnd me potenDJi need for a pro\"moai manci:ne :0 <'1I.Uft" ~:Ia:
me pm:'s \151011. goais :JIlli plJllS are upneici JllQ llllpiememed.
.\Iliance membets :JIlli sakehoiden iUshi~" \':1Iue the \"OIW1~'. coUaborao\'e n:lture or me :\llian.:e', "pt'r::nc III,
WluIe grea~ cen:un~ IS besng iougnr . r"rom com arg:u=aon:ll ;wi iinancl:l! suscllnabih~' perspec:I\'''. . :lIt'
cuaenr .-\Il1:InCe aEg:lnlZ:lDOn IS conslde~ to being doulg J good Job or proteClll1g me PaD.. nus beulg rhe c "'er:w
goai, dIe:e IS nor a dear CISe ID be made ror C1iang an :lddioonal slep ID mandaa! the Park's proll!Ctlon :It this an,,:.
However. should the peap1e amund the CIbIe ch:ange, or the political/social/economic aa:umsCll1Cl!S I.O\'e1y
inBuence the New .'\lliance's work Ifl the future. then the ~ Pri Alf option (or the s1ighdy more resmcn~
~ Pariu Alf opaon) should be :IClIvely pwsued ID ensure the pro~ of the Park InID the future.
.. . . '-
The potenaal for the ProWlce to cover the oper;aong COSIS of the ~ew ."JIiancc:., should a pro\'1f1cia1 opoon be
selec=i.. was also considered. DiscusSions W1th the ProV1llCl: and a number of mernbea and sl:lkehllldetS h:I\'e
reveaied d1ar the park WIiI be be~ pl'Orec= Ii mernbea (Ifl pamc:ubr the mW1lOpabOes) have a bnanCl:l.i sClkc: UI
lIS future. Thus.:hete IS no addillOl1:li anancal :JdY:ll1CJge to the proVll1o:d opaon. :-Jegoa:ued agreemenlS between
the PlOV1I1Ce :and the park p:umers would need to be wlden:lken ul a smiiar wa~ :as me ~t11tc...... In f.1ct. iome:
have suggesa:d that munacap:liioes m:lV nor consider pro\'Ulcal am:rt1p1S to 1e\'Y funds Ul :as poSIO\'e a h~ll. as rlle:\'
will if they :ue nego=g W1th the ~rrn.c. "'-
Building on the COnduslOl1S above. ,:nd W1m the suppon: of the anfuan:ll1on conmbua:d by p-.art1Clp;IIllS UI rile
revaew process. ir IS proposed thar the :\lliance pwsue the ~ITRC."" :IS lIS prefeaed delivery mech:uusm. \vlule:
maintaining the real opaon of recxlmuleiIiliing the mplemencmon of a ~ Pri Aa or :In :llllendmel1l ro the:
F'rr11.rnIZ4i Pariu Aa should the Pack's future become W1cc:mD\.
Ir IS teCOI1'Irt1mded d1ar the Sew Rouge Pack :\lliance be foana1azed under the ~t11tc......s n1anagemenr s=ctUre.
subject to the MTRC..... :IO:epllng the m:u1dale :lnd opec.lIng procc:dures ldennfied In Secuons 3.5 and :\ppendlX B
1be:-.:ew .....Iliance.s effecaveness U1 oveaee:ng me unplemencmon of Pad.: PIJIlS wall be evaluaa:d :lnd ltlOlulUred
on an ongoing basIS and wall cononue to consider and n!\'1ew the need far rile p:u:k to be e1uhl1l1ed Ul l<<:gIslanlln ,IS
aa:umsCll1CeS daccm:.
A R.eonurJenCl.CI O'!1.n,U/IOIIM .nCl "'n.no., MOCl.' to, ~". N.w Roug. p.nt All.ne. Oe:oo., ,gg7 31
0534 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Lt.:R.-\ Consulang Group. :\pril. 1997. ~bl1agm1elU Sen ResullS.
~. Lt.:R.-\ Consulang Group. .-\pnl. 1997. Commumty W'orkshop #1 ResullS.
3. Lt.:R.-\ Consulang Group. .-\pnl. 1997 .-\llial1ce \Vorkshop ;;1 ResullS.
~. Lt.:RA Consulang Group. ~!.:\'. 1997. Progress Report #1.
5. Lt.:RA Consulang Group. Mar. 1997. D,scuss,on Paper: Org:uuz:manal and Fundulg Opraolls ri Ir ;h..
Future.
6. LURA Consulting Group. ~far. 1997. .-\lliance \Vorkshop #:! ResullS.
7. LURA ConsulangGroup,)une, 1997. Commwuty' Workshop #2 ResullS.
8. LURA Consulting Group,) u1y, 1997. Park and W:uashed-B2sed OcgaruzaaDl12l Sauc:twe; Selected
Case Studies. -
9. Provw:e ofOncmo, May. 1994. Rouge Park ~r Plan.
10. Province of Oncmo, 1996. Guide lD Preparing a Business Case for AllmWive Service DeJivety.
11. Province of Ontario. .-\pril :9. 1996. M:lnaging Provinci:ll Parks rnrough Partnerships.
12. Rouge Park Alliance, Apnll7. 1996. F:u:aliCllDtS IlOla from lite "ConungTogedter Conference".
13. Wa=ironr R.egenenaon TNSt,.\hrch n, 1995. Rouge Park Managemenr and Funding Report.
a. _e .- . - - --- -.-.. - _. -
A Reco__ DffJennl1On., enf1 Finenoel Nlo"., for me N_ Rouge Pe'" AIIIen~/f, O~roo.r 1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0535
Attachment #43
APPENDIX A
STRUCTURE OF THE ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
City 0' Metro Toronlo Metro Toranlo MunIc.,...., of PnIvRa Reglan 0' Sa". .... Rougt1 To_ 01 T_o' To_o' Town 0'
Scarborough & Region Zoo M.lro Toranlo 0' Durham Valley System Inc. Markham PIckering Richmond Hill Whilchurch-
Con..nrallon Dntarlo Sloullvill.
Aulhortty
- ROUGE PARK AWANCE -
Ran Chrl.t1. (Chairman)
Gard Weeden (Park Manager)
Sue Ru..eIlICammunlcatlon.)
Chanlal Savoie IAdmln. A.sl.lanl)
Pam Fullard (Nalural &Cullural Heritage)
"
- Rouge Park Staff -
Vegetation Scenic Finane. Rea"y Tu Nalural & Roug. Parte Trail. MgmI
Managemenl Henlage Sub Issues Cu"ural MgmI Plan Sub SlruClure,
SubcDrmllll.. Sub ccmrrlIn.. Sub Herilage North Cormllllee & Funding
Commillee Commin.. Sub Sleerlng Sle.nng
Cornnill.e Corrmitt.. Cornnillee
0536 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #44
. APPENDIX 8
Proposed Organiz:uiontJ/ Saucnue
It.s recommended that a sub<ollllDlnee be tanned 10 review :md 6nalize dus proposed org:uuzaoonal ~UUCNn:.
Esl2blished wllh a three month rean. rile sub-commlnee would ,..ork ....th panners 10 resoh.e Issues :II1ei ,,'ouill n:!'l.n
blCk 10 the New .o\lliance lD eadv 1998.
Compont!Dts
e It is proposed that the Core ocgamzaDOna! Sll'Ucture will compase the foIloWlDg companenlS:
a Ezeculive Co_nee
a 17-member Management Board
a Four &me1iaDa! sub<llIIIIIIInees
a PuIly statfed support cm~
e It is also proposed that dus con: arg:uuzanon Sll'UClUre IS supplemenred bl' :ddioona! expenlSe provided
from:
. TecIuucaI AOV1sary' Commanee
. Public .\dvlSary Commsnee
Carr: Saucnue
e A~t ~ campasing of the .o\lliance Owr and che Cha&l'S of each of che four sub<olDmlnees will
let II lhe Jl:RCUlive of lhe oqpllwllian.
1, is J1'fI!>>SItJ IbtilIItis - iM I1fI/J6II111d ~ dH ClCIllIiI& a- jrr" priId of -.J'IIT. IIIIItI II. fill '111m'" iNuu. ~
.JIll' -. dH__ Mil IMIiMud ~ dH M""agtmrIIl s-rt . :iJI_ of DJia III bt dBmtti"td.
e ^ 17 IllClllber Maaagemmt Board of Panners compnslDg tqlresenCloves &om:
. che Mell'OpOliCUl T aronlO :IIId HelPon Consemllion o'\UchODllo'
. lWO tqlreSenl.'Dves from the New Cillo' of ToroDlO (lDcJuding represenClllves from
Scarbarougil Commwury CoWlcil :md die New Cillo' govemmenl)
. olle from che Town afPickeang
. oae from che HelPon of Dumam
. oae from the TowlI of Whirchurch.SlOuffV1lle
. oae from the Town of Mukham
. oae from the Town of Riclunond Hill
. The ProVlDClaI govemment
. The Feder:al Gavemmenl
. The MelrO TaronID Zoo
. Two walErshed-w,de nan-govemmeaCII Org:uuzallons. one of wluch IS Save the
Rouge Vallel' Svsran Inc.
Ocher walEnhed wide lDlEreSIS could be selecred D,o using either a seclOr/lalld ownership ,denIi6c.'lIan
medlocl. or inviliag lion-aligned CItIZens at I~. The ORSC ...u be de1iber:aa.ng che prefem:d mechad.
Should lhc follller mechad be recaauaellded. four members of the Maaagaueat Board could be dr:Iwn from:
. oae tqlreseDCllive from public ulililies such as OaCUlO Hydro
. tqln:sellClDve of 3 warenhed WIde Ialld oWllen; r:alEpal'Crs ass0Cl3Don
. walErshed w,de 3gnculNr:aI ,lIIdlor fore.sav org:uuz3110n
. pllYare seClar corpar:allon With speCIal inrerest 111 the Rouge
. tqlresencaove of ,1 Fint :-':300ns commwulV
Apptn"l1II#IrU III lilt .UfIII"!.",."l BIhmi In III lit ",. ~ lilt ,anuftrti '1'J"m:;';JU'1"S. GtII!.rtrplJu rrprrs'"lJC"''' "..Ii. :0 '"
aIIISIIiIrrd.
A Ra=-- Olp.na.CIOn., .ntl Ananall Moa.. to, Ina New Rouge Pant M.nea, Octolla,,997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0537
Attachment #45
. Four NnCllon:al "'oriw1g sub-conmum:es or T:lSk Forces ",ill be esrablished b!o". 3I1d report 10. rhe
:.IaDagemenr Board. They couid Lndude me roUowLng.
Pbm ClmfJlta.tl S"o-Gvmman: :ius commim:e would have rile overall ~sponsibiliry ror ensunn\l rilal PI.u., .:r.
completed and lDIpiementeQ. ir would ~commend pnonries 10 rhe ~laDagemenr Board. ,denllr,,'
orgamzallon:al capailiiirv ~qw~mena; de\'elop progr:uns; aDd ovenee rile Srr:lteg.c lmplemenf:1l1oll ul pi:ul'
aDd programs.
RMIIlI.IUiJi.DS S".u-a,,: T1w comnum:e would focus on deffiop\Dg. m,wltauung aDd eahaDcu,,:
rdallanslups .nh parmen. sr:li:ebolden. CUSlOmen. cliena. Ir would be ~spanSlble ror ~commellUulll:
madlcrmg. calDDlWl1callOllS aDd promollon:al plaDS and avenec:iDg and deffiopulg educaooaal :md
m=pRf3IiaD pmgams. - -- - .- 4_ ..... . . ..
Fu.-u. S,,~ Reponulg 10 the New .'\lliaDce. this commim:e would develop and IIDplemenr iin:wCl:U
p1aas for the arguuzarioo. CllDceSlt:r:lllDg aD the 10Jear goal.af acbieWlg liaaacial self-sufficiency. :t .~auld
develop budgea. idenri~ aDd implement busmess plaDS aDd develop speasor engagement srrareg.es.
MlI1IIIDmrj tIIIIi ~tl S,,~ The sole ~spaasibiliry of this commim:e .ould be 10 mOWlOr me
achievement of the P1:aas' vision and goals. By oper:ariDg as aD :1liii'S length. mulrisakeholder comaum:e. :Ius
sub-commim:e would have the aUlDnomy it Deeds ID deliver aD impani:al evaluaoOD of New .'\lliance :\Connes
:md eDSlIft: that the New ....Uiaace is accoUDlllble. It would develop aD aDDu:al moDiIDDDg and progress
tq'OniDg process. develop a conriDualllllprovement process. and ensu~ that :IIU1ual ~V1ews an: conducted
for all &eelS of the ~ew .-\1liance's aperarioDs. It would be upoo ~colDDlendarioD or rbis sub-conurum:e :!m
the aeed for addiooaal park proa:ClIOD .ould be idenri6ed (e.g. eaable the Rouge PaIk .-\ct or 311 :\IDendmelll
ID the Pmviaci:al Padrs .-\ct ID come \DID place).
Advisory Commirrea
. Two .'\dvisary Camnum:es could be eSlllblished 10 broadeo the apcruse md kDowledge base of Ibe co~
oqpaazaooo:
. Tecluuca1 .'\dvisory ColNDlrtee. comprised of ~presenraoves from proVUlClal :\lid federnl
depanmenlS md agenCIes
. Public .'\dnsary Conurum:e composed of ~p~senlllllves or implemeormg non.govemmelll
orgamzanons. ratepayen :lSsoc.aoons md omer (aDd OWDer groups.
It IS ~commended thar tlus advisory committee be based OD an "iadusive" memberslup 10 ensun:
that org:uuzaoons or IOdrV1duals who have a c:ooa:ibuoan 10 make can do so.
A Recommen"e" Orv.nzuan., .n" Fm.naM Maltlll tar l1Ie New Rauge P.fI( AIII.nce. Ocraaer 1997
0538 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #46
APPENDIX C
NEW ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
PROPOSED 1998 OPERATING BUDGET
Salanes I I
General :'Iaaager 1 I 57':.-."'1111
I Beaelia I IO.UOIll111
Chaumaa I 2S.oo\.l.UIJ
T Tmftl 5.000.00
Office .'\dmuus_ 1 27.3oo.1l0
Beaelia ~.095.1l0
Public RelaDans Co-oah.aalOr 31.-ll111.lK'
Beaelia ~.8W.lIl'
Taw Salanes 5183.355.00
Op~
Te1epbaDe 12 moD @ 500.00 6.UIJl).lK'
Hear. Fumace Oil 6 IDOD @ $1.500.00 - ., 9.IlOU.UIJ
Hydra 12 moo @ $150.00 1.800.01l
PhotoCOplU Rmtll 12 moo @ S::OO.OO l.-AA.l.UO
Cap&u 12 moo @ $300.00 J.WU.tlI1
08icc Rmal lO.WI).li\.l
OllDkiDg WalU 12 IDOII @ SiO.OO 840.00
CampulaS - Pludwe ~ Camp @ 5l.OOO.oo 8.000.111.1
CampulU Supplies 12 maD (iji :00.00 l.-'IlO.lJl.l
Cauau 12 moD @ 550.00 uUU.UtI
Pasl3gC 12 man @ $100.00 1':UU.UU
Office Supplies 12 maD @ 5100.00 1.:1lO.1111
Paper 12 man @ $"'..00.00 1.8U1J.lH'
Oeaamg of Office 12 man @ $200.00 1.10ll.lJlI
"E" MaaI 12 man lq: 550.00 61J1).UI.I
Taw Opcr.uiDg $51,840.00
TOTAL BUDGET 1235.195.00
A R__ 0'V3'IlUIIDIIM 3M Fmano.. MOD" to, ma N_ Rouge P3'" AlNnca. Oc:roD.,1997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0539
Attachment #47
.
NEW ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
PROPOSED 1998
COMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC RELATIONS & INTERPRETATION
PROGRAM
I I
Rouge Pm Day 1 I ~ .\.111111 "
I
Coanccl1ol1s =,"cwslcm:r I I 3.5\)(11111
Rouge Pm Tni1s BIOCh~ I 3.ooo.uu
Public Ouuudl Pmgnm . Rougemabilc I 8.920.00
TOTAL BUDGET I $16.420.00
NEW ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
PROPOSED 1998
SUMMARY OF OPERATING & PROGRAMS
I
Rouge PuiE OpenllDg Cosa I $235.195.00
Rouge Puk CommWllcaDaas. Public Rdal10DS & I 16.oIlO.l1\J
mlUpn:ral1ol1 Progr:an
I I
TOTAL BUDGET I I 5251.615.00
A Recanwroeno.o Crg.nz.oon. .no Fm.noM Iota"" fo, m. N.w Rallg. P.", AIt.ne.. Oelaa., '997
0540 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #48
- APPENDIX D
ModeJ Memorandum ofUndcrstanding
ROUGE PARKALUANCE:
MODEL FRAMEWORK FOR A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE "PARENT AGENCY" AND INDIVIDUAL ALLIANCE PARTNERS
-DRAFr-
-.
'-
LD INTRODUcnON
"- .- --- ------..-----... --_. - --- . .
L1 Purpose
llIe pwpose of this Mcmar:llldum of liadenCIDdiag.s 10 daafy !be obligaliODS. roles :md respoos.bilioes
betweeD rhe Pwes I'D die MOU: die "P:uaat ~" ;and a Parmer of die
~t Board of die Rougt: P:Ilk .-\Iliaac:e ("'Rouge Pad; Board Parmerj. (T'hr ''fJ-t~'' /Jlll1l1d IN
MTIiC-I .,. tiN Pnalla. B-a PtJtfllM IIIOMId iMiMtil till Cir.1 DjT DrfIIIIQ; TOMU Dj PiWrrIlg, WJ"rm_,J-S t4I1Jfi'~,
,~ _ RidJ_1IIi Hili: RljrOl' of DIritJm: fllilnM jlM"llImII: .\f1tnJ LtJ: S_ th, RilII~ V IJiIIy s..,stlJ1I b/(.: oJ
~ ___ __~1I1i ~"'IIIIM; MTR~:~.&--t; rIIIIi ~jt8J11" Olblr,tIIt""
-*du.-s.)
1.2 Mandate
llIe IIImCIaa: of die Rougl: Pm BoM! is I'D:
. CIlIIlpIe= rhe Pad; Plans:
. auUft: oEpDlDaaaaJ c:apabiliry I'D IIDplement the Plaas:
. ovasee :md c:o-ordiaaa: .mplemenClaon of die Plms;
. amare a solid 6naaaal plan:
. lIIOIIiI'Dr suc:c:ess :md improve me Plans:
. n:maia a SIlOOg, Ulfaaned ""d reasoned leader md ;uivoc:are for die health. bioclivc:n.ry ""d iaa:griry or
rhe Rougl: Pm: md
. auUft: a baIaDc:ed penpec:ave .s ma&DClUled 00 a waa:nbed sc:ale.
U Legislative Authority
""'jIIr'~'-'/~/-c)
llIe IegislaDve audloDry of the Rouge Pm Board is set out ID rhe foUowiag SDNle:
. R.5.0.. 199_ C_. III die evc:ot of my C:OD8ic:t between this Memarnadwn
of UadenClDcliag aad die :above or my SDNII:. die SClNa: prenils.
1.4 TUDe Period
lbis Memonadum of CndenWldulg ..,.u rake effecl on the dare of ia siguaNre by the lead represent.,n\'e of
die "Pareat ..\gencv" :md Rouge P3rk BoM! P:u1IIer. ""d shall c:ananue UI effeC:1 from thaI dale unal :. new
Memor:llldum ofCndenCIDdulg.s 3~ed I'D by the Panses.
A R_ OtgalllZaaonal anti Frnanaal Moo.. ta, rn. N_ Rouge P.ne Aa.nc.. OCfllll.' '997
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0541
Attachment #49
1.5 Processes for RcVlew :and Amendmcnt
TIlls Memormoum or L'nlierst:ulli,ng ...liI be te\'1eweo u!lon the request or the "!'~rent ....~nc\... ,.r RUllI:':
P:am Board l':umer.
The P:uues agree :0 ensure mat t.'1e :,lemOt:lnQUlD oi L'nlierstmciulg tem:wlS cunent :\llO IS re\'1ewed e\'~r..
_ ;-ean.
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBIUTIES
2.1 Role oCmc "Parent Agency"
The .Pllau Apq" is respaasible for:
(a) lnicwiag IIDd appftmDg die opcnllDg eslimala of die Ra_uge Pull: Boud; .'
(b) easUDIIg tbat tbe mauclaa: oi the Rouge P:uk Board is ful6l1ed;
(c) reporllSlg to the Lc!JIsi:lI\1~
(,.,..., ftr i'rfM1IIIIli -'I ~f1V/llalfri) .-
(eI) enhwmg tbe periorm:ulce of tlu: Rouge P:uk BolUd Ch:ur.
(e) COIISulliDg W1tb tbe Chm ...iM:D Slgruiic:.mt De... dim:lIOIU for tbe Rouge P:uk Board :In:
coatl:lDplaa:d or ....bea lIUDaDVeS :In: CIkea to :aacnd :lDY legrslaoaD or regulaDons which ma~' ~ffect
!be IIIIIIIia& of die Bo:ud:
(f) meetiag wilh !be Chm or die Rouge P:uk Board aD ar Ic:lSr a quam:dy basis;
2.2 Role oC Rouge Park Board Parmer
The Rouge Pull: Board is 10 IDdcpcDocot. :WlOllomous deas.oa-malwsg bod". :md will aay our lIS fuaCDODS
IIIdcpcadcady of !be "P:m:at .~.....th .he cscepnon of cl.:'1 a-f. The Board.s responsible for fulli11iog liS
1DIIIdaa: Cd 1.!l. and for caayiag our the duaes :lSs.gned 10 II by the SClNa: refened 10 ID cl. 1.3. I_d Jh1If DJ J,"UIU'I
.u-J fir PrrttUU IIIIdI ~ t-it.1
lodiftliual Rouge Pull: Board P:II'lIIen ....u ...ork COUabor:aDnly to easure dlar !be Board's Dl:uIclaa: IS ful611ed. .wd that
ilS leplaa:d duaes 1ft adue'ICd. (_"Ii fJtIIf of l",tnrtr _I J"" i'rfM1IlIIIi IIr1fil ~ Jr--ie)
The individual Rouge Pull: Board P:umer is responsible Cor:
Ca) appoaaoog a mcmbens) to tlu: .\l:tnllgemcol Board:
(b) easwiag effcca'IC Ii:uson md rwa....ay IDfollllllOaD tla... berweCD tbe Rouge P:uk Board aIId !bell
Cauoa1 or Board:
(c) commuaicaug die policy diftcaons IIDd dcc:uialU of die Rouge Pull: Board 10 dlar CaUDa or
. Boaai. aad ...b&a: appmpall1C. lIICOI'pOftug __ diftctlODS -sad dea3ioos 111 tbar plans. polices.
b1-Jns and plOCedUR:S;
(eI) apprising the Rouge P~tk Board oi plaas. lDIaaaves :lDd acoftoes of !bell CaUDCU or
Board ...bich could :lifectme \'111an or go:tls of the Rouge P:uK ~I:lDagementl'l:lDs; .uld
(e) asSlsoog the '':':In:nt ."~nc'"'' "' .useSSlng ...hether or not rhe Rouge Park Board IS iul611iull: Ir,
_dalC.
A R_nlllH O'VanUlIll/n., anlll Fina_ /lAo"'" to, III. N_ RllIug. Park Allianca. OClllO., 1997
0542 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 October 24, 1997
Attachment #50
2..3 Accountability
(a) The "1'=1 :\genc":" IS accawlClble far :lSseSSlng ...hether the m:IIJdnte of the Rouge
P:ull: Boud is bang Ni6l1ed. .Uld whether lIS legISlated duaes = beulg mel. IItlD"Q.DoITT Of 'tl/W/..
m-I/or PnM_ .udIIlgrS/JIlti j,um",..orleJ
(b) The Rou~ P:ull: Board :IIId ilS UlliiVldu:li p:lrlllen will uodenake to commW1lcate Wllh.
aDd invoi..e commW1llV sClkeholden in lIS pll\lUWlg. policy de\-elopmenl :utd decISIon proce"e,
Speafic:tll... tile Baard will pre!l= :Ill :UIIIu:li repo" documenang progress. ;and U1\.oh"e ((llmnllIllIY
stakeholden ID lIS pnaolV-semng process.
3.0 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
..,. . ",. ..~
(a) Openllllg costs for the Rouge P:ull: Board ue ("""fJ/Ia INuItJ 1m fll'l'IJ fllllliillj
/--"'... - ~ iMiwiIfII"'d ~ _ .......... tit.. ApJNtuIi:t tII tbiJ MOU). The "1'=1
Apcy. DId Iadi..;dual Rouge P:ull: Baud Parmer commit lD hODOV Ibis can-sbu:ing :ur:angemelll
(&Deluded as o'\ppenciix --'I. U1e1uding ful61meDt of IDODer:ary :md iD-kind cODlDbuaons. ier the nme
paiod speciiied in SecaaD 1 of Ibis Memaflllldum of UDdersCIDdiag.
(b) The ChaIr wil1 prepare csamaces of ezpeadiNm for the Rouge P:ull: Baud for
pmeDl:IaaD lD the ":>an:DI .'\gency. for reVte. :IlId approval.
(c) r&DaDaal procedures of the Rouge P:uk Baard sh:tll be &D :lCCOrclaace .,th (mmpilu uoISIIi all "!'PfD,(IIlJ!,
z-idiItut ,,-- of till "P_I A!"'!7'').
(d) ResponsIbility for the maiateD:llJCe of dacumeaClaaD and iDfoDDaliDD lD suppo" ezpeadiNres le$lS
with the Rouge P:ull: Baud.
(e) The Rouge P:ull: Baard will be responsible for deasiODS reganiiag the :tllacaaaD of opernaon:li :unl
apied funds.
(t) MODey iD INSt (murresmp fUJ'OlUIbili!7 tII hi '."lIfttti hm).
4.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Cl-srrs) ";"'111. to ruoa.II1. tiupllUS "J.<ll'liill1. thf M._"IIWIII Bwn/I titasuJlIJ to hi .-".filti J",.. For e.....IIIII!"'. tll<
t1f1JII1III-, of a PnMIIIUli. .\l7XC-I or.t1mIQU Iraar ___ """dJ is ~ to 1IJ1.t1IIIlU tll tIJt displllllll1J'/ iIt
SIIII4bU. D,14Iis "J"'"1. tbt uwU!ishlllflll 0/01 Il1III pmod lor ruoa.II1. tbt tiispllU, oIIIJi thl .IIdill1. or IIO"-;,;,,tiill( lIo1tll" I'IJ
1bt soIM1imt """'" IIIlitrDlljb lbu ~",. <Jim i1tJmI1. JJIf'I.
A R.col'/llfteltGed OtIJ.nrz.lIOn., enll Frneno., MoOel fa, In. N.w Roug. Pe,. Alienc.. OCIOO., 1991
October 24, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #8/97 0543
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :30 a.m. on October 24, 1997, 1997.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary-Treasurer
/pl
~
, the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING #9/97
November 21, 1997 Page D544
Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the
Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, November 21, 1997. The Chair of
the Watershed Management Advisory Board, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at
10:10 a.m.
PRESENT
lIa Bossons ................................................. Member
Lois Griffin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair
Lois Hancey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair, Authority
Jim McMaster ............................................... Member
Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority
Enrico Pistritto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Paul Raina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Bev Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
REGRETS
Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair
Joan King .................................................. Member
Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
RES. #0116/97 - MINUTES
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THA T the Minutes of Meeting #8/97, held October 24, 1997, be received. .... CARRIED
D545 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
DELEGATIONS
(a) Ms. Debbie Korolnek, P. Eng. Manager, Engineering, Water and WasteWater
Branch, York Region, gave an overview regarding the York Region Long Term Water
Supply and York/Durham Trunk Sewer Master Plans.
RES. #D117/97- DELEGA TIONS
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THAT the above delegation from (a) Ms. Debbie Korolnek be received ....... CARRIED
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION
RES. #0118/97 - MTRCA ROLE - METROPOLITAN TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
Role of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(MTRCA) as joint lead agency with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
(WRT) in the implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for
Metropolitan Toronto.
Moved by: Richard O'Brien
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the MTRCA
role in implementing the Metropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan be received;
THA T the Authority formally endorse the Memorandum of Understanding between the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment to
implement the Metro RAP 1997 - 2000;
THA T appropriate officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action may be
required to give effect thereto and the execution of any document;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to provide the Authority with annual work plans
and periodically provide progress reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0546
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 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 Environment Canada and Ministry of 'Environment are the lead agencies.
Under the direction of COA, in 1991, the Metro Toronto and Region RAP Team, a
collaboration of government implementing agencies and members of the public and
supported by advisory groups, prepared and submitted the Stage 1 RAP Report,
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".
In the ten years since the process to develop a Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan
Toronto Region commenced, a great deal of good work has been done to identify problems
and suggest appropriate remedial measures. Many important implementation projects have
been completed or initiated to address critical issues. In particular, projects to deal with
combined sewer outfalls and habitat enhancement have been undertaken by many
municipalities. Some feder~1 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"
recommended 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 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
D547 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
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" .
At the Authority Meeting #5/96 held on June 26, 1996, Resolution #A30/96 was
adopted:
"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 THA T staff be directed to negotiate a suitable Memorandum of
Understanding among the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Environment Canada and
the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOU) and submit the proposed MOU to
the Executive Committee for approval. ,.
Immediately following the direction from the Authority, MTRCA staff met with
representatives of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of the Environment and
Environment Canada. Due to a number of funding issues, Environment Canada was unable
to proceed with signing the Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, the Ministry of
Environment was unable to confirm available funding. In late October, staff was advised
that MOE and DOE would sign the agreement and the entire funding would be available for
expenditure by March 31, 1998. This report is provided to the Watershed Management
Advisory Board instead of the Executive Committee because of the direct connection with
the Board's mandate.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The terms of the MOU provide $250,000. to be shared jointly by the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust and the MTRCA to undertake specific coordination and implementation
activities. In Year 1 of the 3 year agreement the WRT will:
. provide overall coordination of the transition to the new implementation strategy
framework;
. develop and implement a public involvement strategy;
. develop and implement a reporting strategy and format;
. establish the Toronto Bay (sewershed) "round table";
. develop a Toronto Bay Habitat Plan;
. carry out Toronto Bay community projects;
. organize and host a public forum for stakeholders within the Toronto RAP.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0548
The MTRCA in Year 1 will:
. create and coordinate an action focused education/volunteer program;
. focus attention on the critical issues of storm water management;
. develop a watershed monitoring program designed to assess progress;
. coordinate Great Lakes 2000 Clean-up submissions from agencies and others within
the Metro RAP area;
. provide GIS support;
. initiate the Etobicoke/Mimico Watershed Plan including the establishment of an
EtobicokelMimico Task Force;
. establish the Humber Alliance.
The 1997/98 work plan has been initiated immediately to enable much of the full years
work to be accomplished. It is proposed that a formal announcement will be made at an
event to be held November 26, 1997, and that the first public forum will be scheduled for
March 1998.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The funds from this agreement were included in the 1997 MTRCA Business Plan. The
work enables the Authority to address Watershed and Waterfront management issues that
otherwise would not be possible.
Report prepared by:
Adele Freeman Ext. 238
RES. #0119/97 - DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR THE DON WATERSHED REGENERATION
COUNCIL (1998-2000)
Draft Work Plan for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council - 1998
to 2000.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Paul Raina
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the draft Work Plan for the Don
Watershed Regeneration Council be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the new Don Watershed Regeneration Council be requested to
finalize this plan and report back to the Watershed Management Advisory Board.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
D549 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
BACKGROUND
In May of this year, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council published the ground
breaking document, "Turning the Corner - The Don Watershed Report Card". One of the
three stated objectives of this report was to:
- cause further action in regenerating the watershed.
"Turning the Corner" laid the groundwork for achieving this objective by outlining a series
of targets for each of 18 indicators of watershed health that were assessed in the
document. For each indicator, targets were outlined for the years 2000, 2010 and 2030.
In addition, the report card suggested some (but not all) of the actions required to achieve
these targets.
The current Don Council's last meeting is on November 27, 1997. The Don Council has
developed this draft plan in part to assist incoming members in 1998 to carryon with the
implementation of the "Forty Steps to a New Don" and the "Turning the Corner - the Don
Watershed Report Card".
At the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #5/97, held September 17, 1997, the
following Resolution #F47/97 was adopted:
"THA T the draft Don Watershed Regeneration Council Work Plan and Committee
Structure be adopted with revisions as provided;
THA T the Work Plan be presented to the Authority's Watershed Management
Advisory Board for their information and that the Watershed Management Advisory
Board be advised that the Work Plan has been developed specifically to address the
targets identified in "Turning the Corner - the Don Watershed Report Card";"
RA TIONALE
By providing specific targets for the most pressing problems in the watershed, "Turning
the Corner" enables us to focus actions in the most effective areas. The targets allow us
to identify initiatives and projects which will have direct positive impacts on the 18
selected indicators of watershed health.
In "Turning the Corner", the Don Council pledged to: "work with the community and
agencies to continue to implement "Forty Steps to a New Don"; to develop monitoring
programs; to further refine the report card targets as new data becomes available; and to
support the efforts of everyone engaged in activities to regenerate the Don". The attached
draft Work Plan represents the Council's plan to honour that pledge.
It is important to note that while this is a Don Council Work Plan, it outlines initiatives
which require partnerships with public agencies, government bodies, interest groups and
local citizens. This Work Plan is a dynamic document which is subject to change as new
opportunities arise and new community initiatives are proposed.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0550
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The Work Plan will be reviewed by the new Don Council in early 1998. They will report on
a regular basis on any changes or amendments as required.
The Work Plan will be followed until the year 2000 when the next Don Report Card is
scheduled to be published. The 2000 Report Card will set new short term targets for the
Don and a new Work Plan will be devised which will reflect these new targets.
Report prepared by:
Brian Dundas, Ext. 262
For information contact:
Brian Dundas, Ext. 262 and Adele Freeman, Ext. 238
D551 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
Attachment #1 - Don Council
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCil WORK PLAN-1998 _ 2000
DRAFT
NOVEMBER 1997
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0552
Attachment #2 - Don Council
INTROOUCTlON
This document represents the Work Plan for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council for the period 1998 - 2000.
The Work Plan is based on the results of the first Oon Report Card titled, "Turning the Comer - The Don Watershed
Report Card - May 1997-. The priority actions outlined in this document were arrived at by assessing actions needed in
order to meet the short and long term targets for Don Watershed health as outlined in "Turning the Comer".
It is important to note that this Work Plan is dynamic, in the sense that it will be revised and modified as new approaches
to meeting the Report Card targets are accepted. It has been our experience that some actions work and others do not
and, therefore, some initiatives will undoubtedly be dropped and new ones added. While the initiatives and projects
instituted may change, the targets and goals as set out in "Turning ihe Comer" will not. The targets and goals will remain
consistent until the publication of the next report card. For this reason, all Don projects and actions should be assessed
and prioritized based on their potential impacts for achieving the report card's stated targets.
The format for the Work Plan utilizes four categories as follows:
1. Indicator
The indicator of watershed health as presented in "Turning the Comer". 18 such indicators were selected. These are the
most important measures of watershed health. All actions, initiatives and projects must directly impact these indicators.
2. Status
A brief description of the current state of the watershed from the point of the view of the specific indicator. This section
explains why improvement within the indicator category is important.
3. Targets
For most indicators a number of short term and long term targets have been set (in "Turning the Comer). The indicators
themselves are general, but the targets are specific. The targets attempt to qualify and quantify watershed improvements
in specific areas which will have an overall and cumulative impact on the more general indicator.
4. Actions
These are the specific actions which the Council will pursue during the next two years. Some of the actions involve
D553 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97
November 21, 1997
Attachment #3 - Don Council
implementation and some involve advocacy. But in all cases the Oon Council will require partnerships with community
groups, govemments and other agencies in order to achieve the targets.
November 21, 1 997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0554
Attachment #4 - Don Council
1
Don Council Draft Work Plan 1998-2000 - Actions Towards Caring for Water - The River
INDICATOR I STATUS I TARGETS ~ ACTIONS
FLOW PATTERN Due to inaeasing urbanizaIian In order to bring ftows to men .-, The Meuo Wet Weather Flow Study is a key Opportunity to address the pattem
and palling of surf.... which 1ewIa. _ need to manage of flow. The Don Councll/MTRCA should be active at all points over the next
preY1ltlts infiltretion. flow .term_t. by retaining it in panda 2-3 years to ensure aU issues related to stormwater management are
(measured sa IIOiume aI and underground. and aIawIy appropriately addressed. Prolects such as the WilketlMdne Creek Regeneration
_ter) has doubled. releasing it to the rMr sa it would Plan may prOVide useful case studies. The MWWFS Steering Committee should
worsening the ability allhe naturelly . be strongly encouraged to develop a series of pilot projects to test Innovative
river to maintain goad habitat technologies that will provide improved water quantity management In retrofit.
and rivw banks. The overall target for this redevelopment. and infrastructure upgrade scenarios.
indicator IS to return the flows to
the lower more even flows of Advocate lor upstream monitoring to assess the effectiveness of current new
1962. development approaches for flow control in conjunction With other watershed
health oblect1ves.
Encourage munrc1palitles to aVOid use of curbs and gutters in urban
development.
Advocate a stormwater fee based on lot perviousness.
Encourage the retrolit of road runoff.
Encourage street sweeping and mitigation of poor snow dumping practices.
Continue to support site speCific projects to encourage flow management at
source.
Establish additional gauging stations to prOVide ,"formation on upstream flow
patterns relin,"g flow panern ,"dicator if necessary.
WATER aUAUTY - Despite goad efforts, bacteria A high prionty to meke the riwIr The Metro Wet Weather Flow Study is a key element as noted above. The
HUMAN USE lewls remain high. During SWimmable is to eliminete Taylor Massey Creek Subwatershed, may prOVide an excellent opportumty to
reinfell or snow mllll, the Combined Sewer Ovwrtlaws. address wet weather flow Issues. At present the water course is in need of
ccmbined __IS In older Sc::caplng aller your pet Will eIsa major bank protection. CSO overt lows are a malar concern. The Taylor
parts of the watershed back ccntribute to reduang bacteria in Massey Creek is documented as a major source of pollution to the Lower Don
up and spill raw sewage into the river. and should be advocated lor early treatment.
the river.
The 2000 target is for the Educate industry and residentiel communities about impacts of iIIegel dumping and
development of a lunded plan lor encourage BMPs and spills management education.
the virtual elamlnatlon of
combined sewer overflows. Use dye testing lor _t _ather monitoring.
Address non-paint source pollutants (eg. through better sediment ccntrcl practioea
at construction Sites).
D555 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
Attachment #5 - Don Council
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
WATER QUAlITY. Cantaminllnls in fish n.n .... w. nHd to menller to find out The Don Council has established specific monitoring objectiVes. A -:-'::-'-
AQUATIC ddning, which m....,. ~ .xactIy whatlnwrtabr.tes I;'" and program that encompasses all indicator objectives must be negotiated. .~-_~_-
HABITATS loxic chamicals in th. "-' are wh.r.,n th. watershed. Treating and implemented With key agencies. Don Council shouJd provide intenm
daclirung. W. haw not --. slarm_ter befer. It enters the INW reports to all agencies as informalion can be made ava11abJe and interpreted.
an mer.... in th. nurntJ. aI will red~ th. amount aI poIJution
sllnSib.... specl" you would reaching th. ri....r. ReqUirements for monitonng:
.xpect to find in a cleaner Wet weather sampling. regularly scheduled aquatic invertebrate sampling and
urban r;.,.r. The 2000 target IS for the assessment.
enhancement of an effiCient and
effective monltonng system Expand business outreach. promoting Beat Manag.ment Pradicu.
ensunng jurisdictIonal overlaps
are eliminated. AdllOCate lor the full adapllon of madel 5e_r use by-law and inlltll.... federal ':. .
of gCMtmmenl.
STORMWA TER Stormwater management is In 30 years, stormwalar retrofits To complement the Melro Wet Wealher Flow Study (see earlier commentsl.
MANAGEMENT now required lor all new should be ccmplete across the sl",llar undertakrng can be initiated in Ihe Region of York to Identify ~::;C'::,_: .
dawlapments; agencies and watershed. and lot lewl measures management opportunll1es and pnont1es.
ccmmunity groups are should be In place in 75% 01 areas
working 10 retrofit alder urban where practIcal. Complete a detailed study of all opportunities In currently uncontrolled areas.
areas. Slorm_ter IS the lrnked 10 Melro Wel Weather Flow study and Ihe York Region sludy.
number one contributor to The 2000 targets include the
pCXlI' water quality in the river. completion of a study identifYIng A number of projects already underway In the Region of York include Rupert"
all opportunities for stormwater Pond. PIOneer Park, Killian lemar, the West DonlVaughan PrOject and
quantity and quality control In Markham Creek. Implementation should commence on these and/or other
currently uncontrolled areas. Five prOlects.
projects are targeted for deSIgn
and first stages of
implementation.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0556
Attachment #6 - Don Council
3
~ Council Draft Work Plan 1998-2000 - Actions Towards Caring for Nature - Habitats and Wildlife
INDICATOR I STATUS [ TARGETS I ACTIONS ==-
WOODlANDS Matura wcadIanda ara .0 Tan percent c:I mara of the DistinctIVe targets have been identified for each of the four Habitat indicators.
being Iaat. particularly en the wal8tahed anauld be hMllhy Where opportunitieS to address these targets are presented in general they
tabl.lands. Eight percent aI woodlanda. Wa can only do this by should be acted on.
tha wat8lShed is wcadIands. protecting oiating woodlands. and
not including SIrHtlre-.. planting n_lr_ and shrubs. At present there are no tools for the Don to prioritize locations for woodlands
vis a vis wetlands vis a vis meadows. A natunJI heritage study must be
Tha 2000 targats includa; no undertaken to provide guidance on the location and types of habitats that are
present Significant woodlands (OWl' most beneficial to the health of the watershed to ensure key locations (from a
1 hectara) will be last, a\/WI with watershed/regional context} are not lost to other beneficial. but potentially
deYlllapmant; and. targets must be lower prionry habitats - this study can then be combined With the outcomes
eatablishad Ic:I slrll8tlra. and of the Metro Wet Weather Flow Study and similar Region of York studies to
backyard Ire.. promote and define the most beneficial patterns of habitat regeneration.
A parallel study which is required is the Identification of potential locations.
landowners and managers for Woodlands. Wetlands. Meadows. and Riparian
Habitats utilizing GIS based technology. field work..
Review Habitat targets in light of the above specifically to define the
meadowland targets.
Encourage muniCipalities to establish Environment Committees, With local and
grass roots support. and encourage them to listen to thell recommendations.
Continue fundralslng actiVIties far land aCQUISition.
Support and promote mUnicipalities which adhere to OP poliCies to protect
woodlands.
Advocate stringent ravine by-laws.
Urban canopy study within the Don Watershed. Seek a partner such as the
University 01 TorontolLEAF to develop this theme starting In 1999.
Continue to encourage tree plantings in neighbourhoods and educate the
community an the Importance of natural habitats.
D557 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
Attachment #7 - Don Council
-
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
WETLANDS Filling _lIands is Ias 11_ can a... 4 new hectar.. 01 SEE WOODLANDS ABOVE (llaIica)
lICCeptable today, lIf'Id _tIanda a year. .n 30 y_. _ will
_tIands are baing haw 0.5% CClWil'aga 01 the Identify additional ait.. for _lIand aeation and/or enhancement.
regeneratad acroa the watarshad.
wa.rshad, prOlliding habilllt Continue to prama\e the marsh at the Dan's mouth.
and filtering WBIar. Only By 2000 _ shauId aaa1a at least
0.14% of the WBIarahad is 12 new hac:tares of habilllt Engage in and/or support plant propagation prajacts.
weUands. _\lands.
Encourage and held find funding for the design and implementation of current
projacts and ooncapts (eg. snow dump weUand. T odmorden. Burke Brook. lite.)
-.
MEADOWS The amount 01 meadow shifts We nlMld to CCliIac\ more SEE WOODLANDS ABOVE ~talics)
up and dawn. We know informallan. and dlltllrm1ne what a
meadows are essential lor hllalthy ralla of meadow is in an Identify sites WIth long tllrm nd sharttllrm mlladow potential.
butterfly habilllt and ather urban watershed.
reasons, buI_ do not haw S~lpport Meadow plant propagation programs.
enough information to assess 2000 targllls include: Idenllfication
their hllalth. of long term meadow Sites; and, Sat a targat for meadows (should be based on amount 01 lIX1Sting lands and
detllrmlnllthe apnmal rallon of appropnate mix of habitats); WIll need to conduct same r&SlIarch on historic
meadows to wcadlands In the meadows.
watllrshed.
RIPARIAN Only S7% of the Dan's In order to create the ripanan SEE WOODLANDS ABOVE (Italics)
(STREAMSIDE) slraambanks haw riparian habitat n-.saIY to sheltllr Wlldlifll,
HABITAT -..getation. There haw blHln and prCl1llc\ the slrllambe.nk, we Identify all appartUnltillS for riparian planting.
no drama\Jc changes in status nHd more wgetallon aIang thll
or affonta data. nwr. 75% 01 slreambank veglltated 0aW1Iap a program to encouraga golf courses to undllrtake slraambank ~~"'''~-
is thll long tllm1 target.
Encouragll II shift from Irtlll plantings to riparian planting. with technlcal....;"~--
2000 targats includll: idllntitylng all
appartun,ti.. for nparian planting: Ensure that planning fer patantial riparian and maadow situ is done in
and, begin planting. oonlunc\Jon with stormwater managllmant planning, sa that ait.. lIIe allocated '
moat important funclians.
FROGS Frogs indicate \he prllSllf'lC8 of Community membllrs can become Volunteer Frog Monitoring Program launched in 1996.
claan watar and goad inYOlYed in monitoring frogs
linkagllS ecrass the throughout the watllrshlld, and WIIh Complete data base construction, analysis and program refinement.
watershed. While we know thll naw data, _ will be ablll to
_ hew Amarican lalIds, lIStablish frag targels. Stack frogs where nllC8S$ary.
grtllln frogs, spring p..pers
and gray tr..frogs. _ do nof Encouraga and/or provide education on frags.
know enough about thair
status. Fund and support r..earch on urban harptila papulations.
Sat targats for this indicator.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0558
Attachment #8 - Don Council
-s
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS .
FISH Today _ have more Wh.... _ succeed in ImprCMng the Design and Implement fish mitigation pro,ects for the East Don, north of ,
pollulian-lalerant speci.., and wafllf quality and remOlling bamers Lawrence Avenue. Ilnvolve fishing groups in the process I .
'e_r sensitive spec:i.., than to fISh mOll8ment such es _rs, _ .
historically. s.. Waler Quality WIN .. self-sustaining papullltlans Morutor fish barner mitigation proJects. i
- Aquabc Habilal indicator. of redside dace, mallled sculpin,
smellmouth blISS, largemouth bess. Fish Survey at Invertebrate mOl1ltoring sites.
rllUlbow dllr1ers, northern pike, end
rainbow trout in car1IIIn sections of Identify cul""., rehabititabon opportunities. t
the IlYlIr. .
Establish a policy dealing with appropnate fish stocking precbces, .
2000 targets: remOll8 thr.. weirs, i
two at Pottery ROIId end one on the
Eest Dan between Lawrence and
the 407 f
Jon Council Draft Work Plan 1998-2000 - Actions Towards Caring for Community _ People
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
PUBUC 9O'l(, of Dan _tershed In the long 'erm, ewryone in the Expand the level of public support by enhanCing the concept of each
UNDERSTANDING residents surwyed believe watershed should understand end community member's personal connection to the Don, Develop and
AND SUPPORT that the Dan is important and care for the Dan. We would like to Implement speCific Information/approach for cultural communities,
necessary to their community. maintain current lell8ls of support profeSSional groups and associations. Build volunteer network by tying in
25% know what a watershed and increllSe awareness of the With other groups. Develop student volunteer groups (already underway In
is, and 61 % know that problems and solutions. The Dan some schools).
starmweter goes directly into Council Will continue its
the Don. Hawewr, 53% communication and lIOlunteer Strategically use media and other venues to publicize all major and other
incorrectly believe industry is progrlllTlS. strategic events.
the biggest polluter. See the PubliCize maJor issues on an on-going basis.
Starmwaler Management 2000 targets Include: mlllntalning
indicator current le\/8ls 01 public support; and,
3000 peaple will be active lIOlunteelS Enhance structure and lunction of the Don speaker's Bureau.
lor the Dan.
Build on "Informal' networks - use of volunteers.
Develop a Don Video lor release at a strategic pOint.
Promote awareness of Dan issues in plll1nership with the Humber and Rouge
Alliances and ather GT A we'ershed initiati\/8s.
D559 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
Attachment #9 - Don Council
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
ClASSROOM Same ".",."laty sc;haa. vieit The Dan CounCIl's kit, 'Dan Advocacy efforts at the ProvlI'ICial Level ttvough strategic partnerships
EDUCATION the Dan all." far netu,.. art ar Watershed Education Program' is including Conservation Ontario. Continue dialogue with local Boards of
gym. cIau. Seccndary gradually being utiUzed aaau lhI1 Education and expand to GT A governments regarding watershed links .
schaal use of w.terahed watershed. and in time and with new city health .
curricUa is lUleloWl aaau the effort, all children and lMnag_ wiI
watershed. and depends on study the Dan as part of their schaal Continue efforts to encourage use of tha Dan as an outdoor classroom
the teacher. We need mare lite. through the proviSIon of curriculum support matenal for grade 7 ,,!,~..c:~...
dale to..... awrall and expand to other grade levels in co-operation WIth other GTA ....."'0"
education. 2000 large.. include: 12 percent of efforts.
elemenlaty students will haw
dasaas visiting the Dan: and, Refine the indicator measurements. Rrst determine the baseline dele lor :~_
establish a baseline for the number high and hIgh school students wIla WIll take watershed sludi.. at least one
at jUnior high and high schaal sllmester during their school careers.
students lakJng walarshed studi..
RESPONSIBLE USE Many watershed rllSidenls are With the completion of the trail ~oordlnate development and publication of Community Maps With all
AND ENJOYMENT uSing and enJaytng the parks system, Slgnage and mapping, agencies.
system, with 48% of sUMlY watershed residents WIll be able to
respondents \/\Siting the Dan more fully use and appreciate the ReVIew and publish Heritage Inventory. Encourage local heritage groups
at least once .n the last year. Dan wllay system. Multi develop plans to preserve heritage SItes.
Walking and cycling are the stakeholder efforts WIll reduce
mast papular ac\MtillS. conflicts between certain user. and Assist local agencIes by carefully promotlOg and partICipatIng In ':'''__~
Increasing anenlKln is being ather watershed obJectives. multi-stakeholder dialogues to address conflicts and problem uses in the
pllJd to conflicting uses. Don. Identify problem areas and promote development of management
Henlege sites haw been 2000 targets Include: camplete 50% plans for these areas by appropriate agencIes. Actively support these
identified aaasa the of cammu01ly maps: imprOll8 year- initiatives through letters and deputations at municipal counCils.
watershed. round access paints; lacaJ
gClV9mments and their l.ACAC'lI
should dall'lllop culturallhenlega
master plans; local gOll8rnmenls
should idenufy conlliCllng land uses
and dewlap strategies to address.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0560
Attachment #10 - Don Council
7
Don Council Draft Work Plan 1998-2000 - Actions Towards Protect what Is Healthy
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
PROTECTED Before Hurricane Hazlll in 1954. All natural areas WID be prallId8d. Identify eXIsting woodlands. wetlands. and meadow areas that significantly
NATURAl AREAS flood pIIun dell8lopment was This protection will be through contnbute to Don habitat targets that currently are not afforded any
unregulaf8d. Today. most pnvate Q( public ownership WlII1 protection.
WIlley lands are protected. and strict planning and zoning
remaining open spaces in designations. and accaslOl'lally ActIvely partiCIpate in the revIew of policy documents to ensure natural
urban areas are protected as stewardship agrlNlmenls er area protection IS enhanced through appropnate policy legislation, offiCial
parks. Table land natural areas easements. plans etc.
In lI1e headwal8r3 are still
'I\.dnerabte to dewlopment. 2000 targets include: identify Establish targets for meadows and npanan habitat.
MTRCA awns 645 ha In the speCIfic areas tor protection; protect
watershed fer c:cnservabon all \/Ulnerable and Significant natural
purposes. areas; and, establish targets tar lI1e
protecllon of meadows and nparian
habitat.
Don Council Draft Work Plan 1998-2000 - Actions Towards Regenerate what Is Degraded
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
REGENERATION Since the publication of ~ In lI1e short term, we would like to Identify speCific regeneration prolects to be undertaken relatmg to wate,
PROJECTS Stees /0 a New Don in 1994. S88 twice as many proJects. lIS well and nature objectives.
almost 1 00 regeneration as some indication of their lewl of
projects (habitat and water SUCC85S. In the long term. major Support and recognize iOlt1atives by others that contnbute to regeneration
quality improvements) haw Combined Sewer Overflow and oblectlVes.
been tully or substantially stormwaler projects Will be
completed. 98% of watershed completed. Develop a digital data base of regeneration projects.
residents suppartthe
regeneraban of lI1e Dan. i
D561 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
Attachment #11 - Don Council
Don Council Draft Work Plan 1998-2000 - Actions Towards Take Responsibility for the Don
INDICATOR STATUS TARGETS ACTIONS
PERSONAL While auppart far stewardship is M~. personal s'-dship althe Support other efforts to promote watershed stewardship. :~-";;~;vi.
STEWARDSHIP pt~t - llO% aI _tlltshed watershed an integral part aI dally stewardship initiatives underway within the Don and assist In their
residents - only 35% of peapI. 6f.. promotion. Participate in opportunll1es to co.ordinate efforts with
aurwyed could think of others.
sarnething they could do far the By 2000 - 4()'l(, aI _wrshed
Dan. Many peopl. have nat resid.nts WlU know how they can Develop one malor campaIgn in coni unction with others to address
don. specifIC adIana to h.lp th. help th. Dan. and will be dang et water management Issue IUl11iz1ng social innovative socIal ".~,~ - - -
Dan such ea disconnect least one positive thing. principles).
downspouts. Continue outreach to local commUnities through specific ,,,~,,,,,,'--'
prolects, charettes and related efforts.
-
BUSINESS AND Despite some bUSiness We need to collect baseline data Identify other potential bUSiness and profeSSIonal community With
INSTITUTIONAL leadershIp from companies on bUSiness and Institutional whIch to develop working partnerships.
STEWARDSHIP such as Lever Pond's. Tremco stewardship, and set long term
Ltd., Pasteur Meneux targets. In the short term, 100 ReView the cost/effectIveness of the Don Accord inll1atlve. C;:.--'
Connaught. and Langstaff area businesses Will sign the Don bUSiness outreach plan based on sound social markeung pnnc1ples.
Industries. and the other 1 6 Accord by 2000. Build on LangstaffJEcoPark successes and expenence. DeVIse
businesses who have signed Innovative methods for publiCIZing bUSinesses which partIcipate and
the Don Accord, overall help regenerate the Don.
progress is slow. The Don
Council has not conducted Promote and educate Industry/bUSiness on BMP's and spills
Intensive bUSiness outreach at management.
thiS pOint.
Define long term targets for thiS indicator.
MUNICIPAL ThIS Indicator refers to speCIfic While poliCIes for naturalizal1on. Refine the methodology used for collecting data on this IndiCator.
STEWARDSHIP housekeeping practices far reduction of salt and fertilizer Concentrate on venficauon of the level to which policies and W~':~':
which municipalities are use. and sediment control are In are enforced and used.
responsible. such as lawn place In many municipalities, we
maintenance. sediment control. have not measured Set long term targets for the indIcator.
etc. MUniCipalities also have a effectiveness nor
role in stewardship of the Implementation. By 2000 all ReVIew and revise lif necessary) the list of watershed fnendly :"~'
watershed through many of the muniCipalities will have the and poliCIes. establish strong relationshIps WIth muniCipalities in :L
above indicators. Most have poliCies In place. and will have a regard and include Councillors.
watershed-friendly practices means of measunng
and policies in place. effectiveness. Longer term Continue to support and encourage municipal stewardship policies
targets Will be set at a later practices.
date.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0562
MOTION TO DEFER
RES. #0120/97
YORK REGION LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY
AND YORKIDURHAM TRUNK SEWER MASTER PLANS
Receipt of two Master Plan documents on the long term water supply and sewer system
for the Region of York and potential impacts on policies and programs of the Authority.
Moved by: Richard O'Brien
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THAT the above item be referred back to staff for a further detailed report on the various
issues related to the long term water supply and sewage treatment plans of the Region of
York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
RES. #0121/97 - CANADIAN HERITAGE RIVERS BOARD
1999 Annual Meeting
Hosting the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Heritage Rivers
Board.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to send a letter
to the Manager, Canadian Heritage Rivers System expressing the Authority's interest in
hosting the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board and assist with
making the necessary arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Authority has submitted a nomination document to the Canadian Heritage Rivers
Board recommending the Main and East Branches of the Humber River be designated a
Canadian Heritage River. The nomination is based on the river's outstanding natural
heritage, human heritage, recreational values and the contribution it has made to the
development of the country.
Some of the values of the Humber River are described below:
. The Humber River has outstanding examples of natural features such as the Niagara
Escarpment, the Oak Ridges Moraine, provincially significant Areas of Natural and
Scientific Interest, wetlands and endangered species;
D563 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
. The Humber River corridor was the home of aboriginal peoples as early as 12
millennia ago and their legacy of transportation networks is still enjoyed today;
. The Humber River contains over 1,000 outstanding examples of aboriginal and
historic archaeological sites, 19th and 20th century dwellings, public structures,
cemeteries, and other testaments to human activity and adaptability to the
environment;
. The Humber River corridor is home to a number of cultural groups, both those who
settled the area in the late 18th century and later immigrants who have all
contributed to the Canadian cultural mosaic;
. The Humber River is strongly associated with the careers and works of famous
persons such as Etienne Brule; Louis Joliet; Rene Robert de La Salle; Fathers Jean
de Brebeuf, Joseph Chaumonot and Lous Hennepin; Jean-Baptiste Rousseau;
Elizabeth Arden and Janet and Pierre Berton, among many;
. The Humber River corridor has outstanding recreation, education and tourism
opportunities, including natural and human heritage appreciation that are best
afforded by walking, bicycling, camping, canoeing, touring and taking part in
special programs that are offered by communities and organizations along the river;
. The Humber River corridor is protected by an array of provincial, regional and local
laws, regulations, policies and guidelines, coordinated throughout the river and
across sixteen local and regional municipalities;
. The Humber River corridor and its regulatory and planning response mechanisms
such as those of the MTRCA are outstanding examples of human adaption to
periodic flooding; and
. The Humber River is an outstanding example of the symbiotic ecosystem links
between these natural heritage, human heritage and recreational values.
The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) is a cooperative federal-provincial-territorial
program established in 1984. The objectives of the CHRS are to designate national
recognition to Canada's important rivers and to ensure their future management such that:
. the natural and human heritage which they represent are conserved and interpreted,
and;
. the opportunities they possess for recreation and heritage appreciation are realized
by residents of and visitors to Canada.
Staff is scheduled to make a presentation to the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board on
February 4, 1998 in Quebec City outlining the reasons why the Humber River should be
nominated as a Canadian Heritage River. If the nomination is accepted, the official
designation would occur at a future meeting of the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board.
November 21, 1 997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0564
The Manager of CHRS has asked the Authority staff for assistance in hosting their
February, 1999 annual meeting in Toronto. The Authority would be expected to make the
necessary arrangements for meeting space and accommodations for up to 25 CHRS board
members. Staff may also be requested to lead a tour of the Humber watershed.
This request was originally brought to the attention of the Humber Watershed Alliance at
their meeting on October 21, 1997 and the following resolution was adopted:
"THA T the Humber Watershed Alliance support, in principle, the request by the
CHRS Board to hold its February, 1999 annual meeting in the Humber watershed
subject to confirmation of the cost implications;
AND FURTHER THA T the Authority investigate this request and report back to the
Humber Watershed Alliance. ,.
This would be an excellent opportunity to receive national exposure for the Humber River,
the Humber Watershed Alliance and the Authority's watershed management activities.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
. The Canadian Heritage Rivers Board would pay for direct costs associated with their
annual meeting including meeting space, transportation, meals and accommodation.
. The Authority would incur minimal costs associated with making arrangements on
behalf of CHRS and providing staff time to organize and lead a watershed tour.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
. Liaise with the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board to confirm the date, time and other
requirements needed to successfully host the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Heritage Rivers Board.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, Ext. 211
0565 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
RES. #D122/97 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE
Minutes of Meeting #1/97
The minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #1/97 are
provided for information.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber
Watershed Alliance #1/97, as appended, be received ................... CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and
adopted by the Authority at Meeting #4/97 held on May 30, 1997 by Resolution #A98/97,
includes the following provision:
Part 1. Section 1.1 Mandate
The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on
the progress of implementing activities.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, Ext. 211
RES. #D 1 23/97 - TRILLIUM FOUNDATION PROJECT
Multi-Cultural Environmental Stewardship
Information on the Multi-Cultural Environmental Stewardship Project
in the Humber and Don River watersheds.
Moved by: Bev Salmon
Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Multi-
Cultural Environmental Stewardship Project be received;
AND FURTHER THAT staff provide progress reports to the Authority as this project is
implemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0566
BACKGROUND
The Trillium Foundation's mission is to work with others to create conditions of social
progress for people in Ontario who are socially or economically disadvantaged. The
Trillium Foundation provides grants to projects aimed at building knowledge, inspiring
social change and promoting caring communities.
The Authority submitted the Multi-Cultural Environmental Stewardship Project to the
Trillium Foundation and requested funding to implement it. The project seeks to provide
hands-on training to emerging cultural groups within local communities on methods for
implementing Community Action Sites within the Don and Humber River watersheds.
These sites demonstrate how the Authority's watershed strategies can be implemented.
Essentially, there are two parts to this project; the first is to integrate emerging cultural
groups into environmental stewardship and ecosystem regeneration projects through a
series of innovative site planning exercises. The second part is project implementation, to
be undertaken by the emerging cultural groups with technical direction provided by the
MTRCA or other partners.
A Steering Committee will be formed consisting of MTRCA staff, agency staff and
representatives from ethnic groups to guide the project. Steering committee members, in
conjunction with the MTRCA, will be responsible for contacting cultural groups and
publicizing the availability of positions for leadership training. The project will train
members of visible minority groups living around selected high profile sites to work as
community leaders to engage individuals in ecological restoration.
Trained Community Action Site leaders will be responsible for conducting outreach
activities to draw people to an "issues identification workshop" which they will facilitate.
The workshop will help the Community Action Site leaders identify issues, barriers,
partners' needs and opportunities for improving the health of selected locations within the
Humber and Don watersheds. Opportunity maps will be developed which will illustrate
how the environmental, social and economic needs can be addressed at the selected sites.
These maps will be refined by MTRCA technical staff, and then sent back to the
Community Action Site leaders to return to workshop participants for verification. After
the maps have been confirmed, Community Action Site leaders will work in conjunction
with MTRCA in developing implementation activities for the site. Leaders will be
responsible for animating the community around these program activities, and then
engaging in an evaluation of the success of the project.
The proposed Community Action Sites are located in the Don and Humber watersheds.
They have been selected because they are examples where environmental, cultural,
heritage and economic health can be protected, restored and celebrated. They are
accessible local sites that can demonstrate how Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber
and 40 Steps to a New Don can be implemented.
0567 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
The Community Action Sites that will be implemented in the Humber watershed include
Sun Row Park (City of Etobicoke), Summerlea Park (City of Etobicoke), Humber-Mede Pond
(City of North York) and Claireville Conservation Area (City of Brampton) in the Humber
watershed. In the Don watershed, the Community Action Sites include Milkman's Lane
Swamp and Binscarth Swamp. For each of these sites, the environmental integrity has
been evaluated and it has been determined that each is degraded. Common to each site is
the lack of storm water management, and thus uncontrolled and polluted runoff is entering
the respective river systems. Another common factor to each site is the lack of riparian,
instream, or forest cover. As such, site rehabilitation will include constructing wetlands,
augmenting aquatic habitats, establishing riparian areas, and linking forested areas or
establishing forest buffers.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will hire the Project Coordinator and Community Action Site Leaders. The positions
were advertised, and over 100 applications were received.
Staff, in conjunction with the Project Coordinator, will establish the Steering Committee.
The Project Coordinator will initiate the project through training and contracting
Community Action Site Leaders for each site, and through initiating the community-based
project design and implementation phases.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
To date, $150,000 to integrate emerging cultural communities into environmental
stewardship and ecosystem regeneration projects has been committed by the Trillium
Foundation.
An additional $100,000 in funding is required for project implementation. To this end, a
funding proposal has recently been submitted by the Conservation Foundation of Greater
Toronto to Environment Canada's Action 21 program.
The MTRCA has committed an additional $10,000 and $40,000 for in-kind services
towards the Community Development for Multi-Cultural Stewardship Project. Services will
include overall project managementldirection, technical expertise and financial services.
For information contact:
Gary Wilkins, Ext. 211
November 21, 1 997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0568
RES. #D124/97 - THE DOWNSVIEW LANDS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
AND HEADWATERS RESTORATION PROJECT
Development of a storm water management and headwaters
restoration plan and the initiation of a small demonstration habitat
project on the former Canadian Forces Base Downsview.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the development of a Stormwater
Management and Headwaters Restoration Project on the Downsview Lands be endorsed;
THAT staff be directed to assist the Canada Lands Company Ltd. in the development and
implementation of the Stormwater Management and Headwaters Restoration Project on
the Downsview Lands;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report on the preferred stormwater management and
headwaters restoration concept plan to the Authority when available.
AMENDMENT
RES. #D125/97
Moved by: Richard O'Brien
Seconded by: Jim McMaster
THA T paragraph three of the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report on the preferred stormwater management and
headwaters restoration concept plan to the Authority, the Humber Watershed Alliance and
the Don Regeneration Council, when available.
THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Planning is underway for a major recreational and mixed-use redevelopment on the former
Canadian Forces Base in Downsview. The Canada Lands Company Ltd., a Federal Crown
Corporation, is managing the planning review for this 600 acre project. The plan to
establish a significant unique 300 acre urban recreational greenspace at the site provides
an important opportunity to highlight innovative storm water management methods and to
demonstrate that ecological science can be integrated into park design and maintenance.
The Canada Lands Company Ltd. has approached the Authority requesting assistance in
developing and implementing this unique urban greenspace.
0569 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
The Downsview Lands has three principal drainage areas. The east half of the site drains
to the West Don River via two tributaries one flowing south-east and one flowing north.
The west half of the site drains to the Black Creek, linking with the Humber River, which is
the predominate direction of drainage on the site. The project is situated in an important
position at the headwaters of these two watersheds. Typically, these headwater areas
perform important functions such as; the provision of critical quantities of water to
downstream reaches; the provision of nutrients and organic matter; and the presence of
aquatic and terrestrial linkages. Most of these features have been degraded on the
Downsview Lands by historic settlement patterns and by more recent development
activities related to the establishment of the military base.
An opportunity to restore these functions has been identified through a pilot Storm water
Management and Headwaters Restoration project to be developed in partnership with de
Havilland Inc., a major industry located adjacent to the future parkland site. Between the
de Havilland Inc. buildings and the building to be retained on the former military base,
there is an estimated four million square feet of impervious roof surface area which
discharges directly to the stormwater system. The project will examine the potential to
ease the burden on the existing storm water management facility by isolating the roof run-
off for use within a headwaters habitat feature in the new parkland.
Smaller demonstration projects such as the establishment of a forestlwoodlot buffer edge
and understorey plantings as well as a revised landscape maintenance program will provide
immediate initiatives to enhance wildlife habitat on the site and to foster public
stewardship of the ecological restoration projects. Public education and communication
will be realized through a wide variety of citizen involvement activities and media events.
RATIONALE
Linkage with the Black Creek ravine lands west of the site across Keele Street has been
identified as important both environmentally and culturally. This linkage shows up clearly
on historic mapping and represents an important opportunity to re-establish a functional
connection to the Black Creek subwatershed. The Black Creek subwatershed is one of the
smallest sub watersheds in the Humber River. A major tributary to the Humber River, the
Black Creek is recognized as one of the worst point sources of pollution on the Humber.
Within the Black Creek, water quality is poor, forest cover is minimal and stormwater
problems cause flooding, safety hazards and erosion.
There are significant opportunities to make water quality improvement a major goal of the
redevelopment scheme and to demonstrate innovative storm water management. There are
also numerous opportunities throughout the site for the restoration of natural systems
including aquatic habitat of ponds and streams, meadows, forested corridors, and forest
remnants at the north end of the site.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 D570
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Funds will be used to develop an innovative storm water management and headwaters
restoration concept plan for the Downsview Lands and to initiate a small demonstration
project with the community.
For 1997/98 (the Federal fiscal year), funding for this project has been identified from
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Canada Lands Company Ltd., de
Havilland Inc, and Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project as follows:
Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund: $ 50,000
Canada Lands Company Ltd. $ 50,000
de Havilland Inc. $ 20,000
Metro RAP Capital Funds $ 10,000
TOTAL $130,000
funds will be allocated to the following:
On-site monitoring and data collection: $ 50,000
Demonstration Project and Community Involvement: $ 40,000
Green Infrastructure Report $ 10,000
Storm water Management & Headwaters Restoration Concept $ 30,000
TOTAL $130,000
The funding from Environment Canada and from Metro RAP Capital Funds will be
administered by the Authority. The overall project is being co-ordinated by Canada Lands
Company Ltd. and MTRCA Environmental Services Section Staff.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
This will be a multi year project. During 1997/98 we will initiate:
. site specific sampling and storm water monitoring including: surficial and
ground water sampling, soil sampling, avian monitoring, and vegetation
mapping;
. several small demonstration projects will be initiated with the community
including: community tree, shrub, and wildflower planting, a community
earth day picnic, numerous community workshops and information sessions
introducing the concept of a "natural park", and a "backyard birdfeeder
watch" program;
. the completion of a "Green Infrastructure Report" describing the
environmental character existing on site and identifying opportunities for
enhancement; and
0571 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
. the completion of a Storm water Management and Headwater Restoration
concept for review and comment.
For information contact:
Jennifer Vincent, Ext. 349
RES. #D 1 26/97 - CARRUTHERS CREEK WATERSHED,
HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT STUDY
Adoption of updated Hydrology/Hydraulics and a Storm water
Management Strategy for the Carruthers Creek.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Carruthers Creek Watershed,
Hydrology/Hydraulics and Stormwater Management Study be received;
THA T the recommendations of the study for managing stormwater related to minimizing
flooding on the Carruthers Creek be adopted as the criteria for dealing with the need for
stormwater control on future development and that first flush control for the 25 mm
rainfall, stored and released over a 24 hour period, be adopted as the minimum criteria to
address erosion and water quality concerns within the Carruthers Creek watershed in
compliance with M.O.E. standards;
AND FURTHER THAT each of the municipalities within the Carruthers Creek watershed be
requested to endorse the study recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1988, the Authority began a program of adopting a watershed plan approach to
managing the River and Stream systems within our area of jurisdiction. Following
completion of the Rouge River Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy, hydrology
studies were completed on the Duffin's Creek, Don River and Etobicoke Creek watersheds
in support of broader watershed planning initiatives.
The Town of Ajax began to develop a Storm water Strategy on the Carruthers Creek in
1992. Initially, the study was intended to define the storm water strategy to be utilized
within several large development blocks within the Town of Ajax. Discussions between
staff of the Authority and the Town resulted in an agreement to expand the study limits to
approach the study on a watershed basis. The study which had already been initiated by
the Town was revised to look at the overall watershed and the Town of Pickering was
invited to participate. At that time, the Town of Pickering declined as no major
development has been defined by its Official Plan within the Carruthers Creek watershed.
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0572
The revised study involved an update of the basin hydrology and hydraulics as well as a
comprehensive storm water strategy.
The analysis included an assessment of hydrologic impacts at flood vulnerable structures,
road crossings and any active valley uses to determine the appropriate level of storm water
controls which are required on an overall watershed basis. The use of the minimum
specified erosion control requirements (runoff from a 25 mm rainfall) was assumed as a
given throughout the watershed, with the level of flood control requirements the only issue
to be resolved. The required erosion control criteria will be resolved at a more detailed
level of study.
The study identified several impacts related to the frequency of flooding at several road
crossings due to changes within the watershed's hydrology resulting from the proposed
new urban land uses. These impacts were ana lysed and it was determined that they could
be mitigated through a post to pre-development application of storm water treatment. A
second alternative of capital works to increase the capacity of the affected structures to
pass flood flows was also investigated and discarded due to the capital costs associated
with this scheme and the practicality in implementing such an approach.
The strategy to mitigate flood control impacts on the Carruthers Creek watershed is
defined as controlling the post development peak flows to the pre-development levels for
the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year storm flows above Bayly Street, with no flood control
storm water controls required south of Bayly Street. Controls for erosion and water quality
will be required throughout the watershed.
For information contact:
Don Haley, Ext.226
RES. #D127/97 - EXHIBITION CREEK - STREAM CORRIDOR RESTORATION
PROJECT
On behalf of the Town of Markham, Authority staff are proposing to
co-ordinate the design, construction, monitoring and maintenance of
a stream corridor restoration project on Exhibition Creek, Rouge River
Watershed.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: IIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Authority staff be directed to
proceed with the restoration of the stream corridor in a reach of Exhibition Creek in the
vicinity of 16th Avenue and Highway # 48 (Anderson Ave.) subject to finalization of an
agreement with the Town of Markham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
D573 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
BACKGROUND
A 370 metre reach of Exhibition Creek in the Town of Markham has previously been
channelized and is confined between a Canadian National Railway right of way and a
commercial/office development on Anderson Avenue. The full channel cross-section is 3
metres deep by 12.5 metres wide. The low flow channel is less than one metre wide and
0.1 metre deep, and meanders through areas of shrubs and cattails. The watercourse is
permanently flowing and there is fish habitat. Along the channel wall adjacent to the
railway tracks there are areas of exposed soils, cracking and oversteepend banks indicating
erosion activity and slope instability.
Through the site plan approval process for the development of the commercial/industrial
area monies were retained by the Town of Markham, as letters of credit, to deal with this
channel. The Town, who has an easement agreement on the channel, also has interest in
ensuring that the slopes are stabilized. At Executive Committee Meeting # 8 on October
17, 1997 a permit was approved to undertake the stream corridor restoration works based
on an undertaking from the Town of Markham staff to finalize an appropriate design.
Through on-going discussions with Town staff an opportunity was identified to restore this
site using bio-engineering techniques as a demonstration project. MTRCA staff offered to
co-ordinate and manage the design, construction, monitoring and maintenance of the
project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
On October 14, 1997 the Town of Markham Council approved the expenditure of
$108,810.44 for the remediation works to Exhibition Creek. Discussions are on-going
with Town staff; however, it is anticipated that these monies or a portion thereof will be
available to the Authority to hire a consultant to do a bio-engineering design and a
contractor, if required, to implement the design. Authority staff have suggested that after
a five year monitoring program during which the Authority would be responsible for
maintenance and satisfactory performance of the works, responsibility for the site would
revert to the Town. Staff are confident that a bioengineering approach will stabilize the
slope adequately. Design of the works will be done to minimize maintenance
requirements. We are waiting for formal support for the project from the Town of
Markham, at which time, details will be discussed concerning preparation of an agreement,
funding and a monitoringlmaintenance program.
FUTURE BENEFITSIPROBLEMS
Rouge Park staff are supportive of this project and will be recommending that this site be
incorporated into the Rouge Park North Plan. The works are in compliance with the
objectives of the draft park plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
All costs of the project will be recovered from the funds held by the Town of Markham up
to the maximum of $108,810.44 (includes contingency of $10,000 plus GST).
For information contact:
Mary Asselstine, Ext. 304
November 21, 1997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 D574
RES. #D 128/97 - METRO TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Mud Creek Restoration and Wetlands - Don Valley Brick Works
Metro RAP Capital funds in the amount of $35,000 be approved by
the Authority for the Mud Creek Restoration and Wetlands Project.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the allocation of $35,000 of
Metro RAP Capital funds for the Mud Creek Restoration Project be approved. .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A component of the Don Valley Brick Works Regeneration Project was the redirection of a
portion of the Mud Creek flow along the historic route used when water was required as
part of the brick making process. Prior to the redirection, the full flow of the Creek
parallelled the site boundary to the west and entered a pipe which outlets on the Don. In
addition to the redirection of flow, a series of wetlands were created in the quarry to
enhance the quality of base flow"water, create aquatic habitat, and enable future fish
spawning (Northern Pike as targeted species).
The constructed wetlands incorporated the following features:
- filtration, sedimentation and removal of nutrients (in the upper pond);
- provision of critical habitat areas for migratory and resident wildlife,
establish significant areas of wetland vegetation communities;
- provide opportunities for wildlife viewing, education, and recreation; and
- to demonstrate and stimulate regeneration opportunities within urban areas.
Other Agencies and Organizations that have contributed to this project are:
1. Province of Ontario
2. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
3. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
4. The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
5. Canadian Wildflower Society
6. Garden Club of Ontario
7. W. Garfield Weston Foundation
8. Environment Canada (Great Lakes 2000 Program).
0575 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
Funds have become available as other RAP related projects will not be completed this
fiscal year. The $35,000 will be used this year for the following components:
- Topsoil and compost mixture for the wetlands;
- Additional plant material; and
- Construction equipment and project management.
RA TIONALE
The proposed work will enhance efforts already undertaken to focus attention on urban
watershed regeneration issues and opportunities within the Don Watershed.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
The funding for the additional work will be administered by the Authority, and the work
will be implemented by MTRCA Environmental Services Section Staff.
For information contact:
Nick Saccone, Ext. 301
.
RES. #D129/97 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY
AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT
Erosion at the rears of 62-66 Creekwood Drive, City of Scarborough
Highland Creek Watershed
Staff report of the erosion occurring at the rears of 62-66 Creekwood
Road, City of Scarborough.
Moved by: Paul Raina
Seconded by: lIa Bossons
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff include the erosion site at
the rears of 62 - 66 Creekwood Drive City of Scarborough in the Pool of Erosion Sites in
Metropolitan Toronto and proceed with remedial work as soon as funding can be assigned.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED
BACKGROUND
A letter, dated September 4, 1997 was received from Drew Westwater, City Clerk for the
City of Scarborough, urging the Authority to undertake remedial construction on sections
of the Highland Creek behind some properties at Seven Oaks Community in Scarborough.
In this regard, at Authority Meeting #8/97, held September 26, 1997 Resolution
#A 196/97 was adopted:
MTHA T the above-noted correspondence a letter from the
Clerk of the City of Scarborough, be received;
AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to prepare a report to
the Watershed Management Advisory Board on the erosion of
Highland Creek behind some properties in the Seven Oaks
Community. IF
November 21, 1 997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0576
The single family homes on Creekwood Road were constructed in the 1960's and back on
to the East Branch of the Highland Creek. The lots extend down the slope abutting lands
owned by the Authority. In 1978 a storm event centred on the Highland Creek watershed
caused significant erosion on the banks of the Highland Creek in this vicinity. In 1979 the
Authority carried out erosion control works to protect these homes and valley wall
features. This area is considered by the Authority as Environmentally Significant Area (ESA
No. 77). During the past few years, the watershed of the Highland Creek has experienced
significant flows causing the rip rap protection at the rears of 62-66 Creekwood Drive to
fail. This has placed this section of the Highland Creek valley vulnerable to the erosive
action of the flows in creek.
Staff has conducted an evaluation of the erosion problem in this reach of the East
Highland Creek area and included the site in our pool of erosion sites in Metropolitan
Toronto. We anticipate that repairs would be undertaken in 1998.
For information contact:
Jim Tucker, Ext. 247
0577 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 November 21, 1997
NEW BUSINESS
RES. #D130/97 - MILNE RESERVOIR FISHWA Y PROJECT
Development of a letter of intent with the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Law Development
Corporation and Ontario Streams for the implementation of a fish way
at the Milne Reservoir in the Town of Markham.
Moved by: Lois Hancey
Seconded by: Bev Salmon
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to participate in
the preparation of a letter of intent to design and construct a fish ladder at the Milne
Reservoir Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources initiated a project to determine the
appropriate design for a fish way to allow fish to move upstream, past the Milne Reservoir
Dam. The project was conducted in consultation with the local municipalities, MTRCA, as
well as Save the Rouge, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine and the public. The project
followed a Class Environmental Assessment for Small Scale MNR Projects.
The need to achieve fish passage at the Milne Reservoir Dam was identified in the Rouge
River Fisheries Management Plan. The overall objective of the Rouge Fish Plan is to:
"Protect, rehabilitate and enhance the Rouge River watershed
so that it will support healthy, self-sustaining fish populations
consisting of cold and warm water fish communities, where
appropriate. "
In order to develop self-sustaining migratory fish populations where they once existed in
the Rouge, the Fish Plan identified that it would be necessary to modify existing online
dams to allow fish passage. The Milne Reservoir Dam was identified in the Fish Plan as
one of the major barriers to achieving the fisheries objective for the watershed. The Rouge
Fish Plan was approved at Authority meeting #2/94 and later endorsed by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and watershed municipalities.
In 1996, the Ministry of Natural Resources completed their report entitled: "Milne Reservoir
Fishway Project Plan" and since then have been looking for opportunities to implement the
preferred design identified in their report. In 1997, the design and implementation of fish
passage at the Milne Reservoir Dam was identified as possible fish habitat compensation
for the proposed loss of fish habitat at the Cornell Community in the Town of Markham.
Since the Authority owns the Milne Reservoir Dam, Authority staff were asked to
participate in the preparation of a letter of intent with the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Law Development Group (Cornell) Limited,
and Ontario Streams to design and implement the preferred design in the Ministry report
Milne Reservoir Fishway Project Plan.
November 21, 1 997 Watershed Management Advisory Board #9/97 0578
RATIONALE
Authority staff participated in the development of the conceptual proposal for a fish way at
Milne and the project is consistent with the recommendations in the Rouge River Fisheries
Management plan.
The Authority owns the Milne Dam and the surrounding lands and thus has a vested
interest in the detailed design and implementation of the fishway. Staff participation in
the development of a letter of intent is the first step in ensuring Authority interests such
as liability during construction and eventual operation, continued functioning of the dam
for flood control, and long term operation and maintenance, are addressed in the project.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Staff will participate in the development of a letter of intent. Once the letter of intent is
completed and signed, Authority staff will be involved in the review and have input to the
development of detailed designs and supervise construction activities. Authority staff will
discuss arrangements with the Town of Markham regarding access to the Milne Dam
through lands owned by the Authority but under management agreement with the Town
of Markham. Staff will work with the Town of Markham to ensure that local residents are
informed of the works in order to ensure that the project causes minimal disturbance
during construction.
Long term maintenance and operation of the fish way will have to be negotiated with the
Ministry of Natural Resources.
FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS
Fish passage at the Milne Reservoir will complement the passage that has already been
achieved at Toogood Pond in Unionville, several kilometres up stream. In fact, mitigation
of the Milne Dam is the final step in achieving passage of migratory trout into Bruce Creek
where suitable spawning habitat exists.
Report prepared by:
B. Mcintyre, Ext. 326
For information contact:
D. Dyce, Ext. 250
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :30 a.m. on November 21, 1997.
Lois Griffin Craig Mather
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
Ipl