The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater Management Advisory Board 1998 ~ , THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #1/98 01 May 15, 1998 The Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday,May 15, 1998. The Chair of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair Irene Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice Chair Cliff Gyles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Pam McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien ........................................ Chair, Authority Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS David Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Ila Bossons ................................................. Member Jim McMaster ............................................... Member Denzil Minnan-Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES. #01/98 - MINUTES Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/97, held January 23, 1998, be received. ... CARRIED . D2 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15, 1998 OELEGA TIONS (a) Mr. Jack Fraser a member of the Bridlewood Community Association spoke regarding the Surplus Ontario Hydro Lands, as shown on Page D3 of these minutes. RES. #02/98 - OELEGA TIONS Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Irene Jones THAT the above delegation from (a) Mr. Jack Fraser be received. . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED PRESENT A TION (a) Mr. Jim Tucker, staff, TRCA presented members with a brief overview of Erosion Control, in relation to the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001, as shown on page D9 of these minutes. RES. #03/98 - PRESENTATIONS Mov'ed by: Mike Tzekas Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THAT the above presentation from (a) Mr. Jim Tucker be received. . . . . . . . .. CARRIED May 15, 1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 D3 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RES. #04/98 - SURPLUS ONTARIO HYDRO LANDS City of Toronto (Formerly City of Scarborough) Report on the possible participation of the Authority in the purchase of surplus Ontario Hydro land in the City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough). Moved by: Mike Tzekas Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report dated May 4, 1998 on the surplus Ontario Hydro lands located between Lawrence Avenue and Highway # 401, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough), be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority's interest in participating in the acquisition of surplus Ontario Hydro Lands, in the former City of Scarborough, be limited to those lands which meet the Authority's criteria for defining lands which are suitable for acquisition as outlined in the staff report. AMENDMENT RES. #05/98 Moved by: ' Mike Tzekas Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THA T staff report further on the environmental sensitivity of lands in the Hydro Corridors between, west of Warden Avenue, south of Highway 401 and north of Highway 401, up to McNicol Avenue; THAT staff report on the Authority's interest in participating in the acquisition of the Hydro Corridors within the area as noted above, as well as those already indicated in the staff report dated May 7, 1998; THA T staff also report on the effects that the proposed development will have on the T erraview Willowfield Concept site; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be asked to comment on the City's interest in the Hydro Corridors already declared Surplus by Ontario Hydro and the remaining corridors within the former City of Scarborough. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED D4 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15, 1998 BACKGROUND The Members of the Authority at meeting #3/98 held on April 24, 1998 adopted Resolution #64/98: MTHA T staff be directed to report to the next Watershed Management Advisory Board on the Authority's participation in the possible purchase of the surplus hydro lands in the former City of Scarborough, indicated by this report. ,.. Also, at the same meeting, the Authority received a communication entitled "CITY OF TORONTO (SCARBOROUGH DISTRICT) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1001 - Ontario Municipal Board referral (Ontario Hydro/Graywood Investments Ltd.)"', which provided background detail on the planning and environmental issues associated with this site. The Authority supports the City of Toronto in its position before the OMB that the lands in question continue as an Open Space designation. Staff has been directed to seek participant status at the OMB hearing. The Authority from the very beginning has had an active acquisition program. The result of our efforts over the past thirty plus years has been the acquisition of over 32,000 acres of green space land. The basis for the Authority's acquisition program has been its Master Plan for Acquisition which has been funded through various Authority Projects. The Master Plan identifies those lands which the Authority deems to be suitable for acquisition. The lands deemed to be suitable for acquisition are defined as valley and stream corridor lands, Lake Ontario shoreline properties and properties throughout our watersheds which are environmentally significant. The practice of the Authority has been to acquire these lands as they became available on the open market and when we had funding. The most recent Acquisition Project of the Authority, was adopted in 1995 and is known as the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996 - 2000. Due to the current financial situation, funding for this Project from our normal sources, has not been available. Acquisitions by the Authority recently have been funded for the most part from land sale revenues. There have been some specific acquisitions in partnership with our municipal partners where we have shared the cost, but these are in the minority. Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996-2000 The Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996-2000, enables The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to further its acquisition objectives. These objectives are: to acquire property interests, whether by fee simple, leasehold, easement, covenant, or stewardship agreements, in hazard, conservation and environmentally significant land in order to protect against unwise land-use which would affect their ability to perform their natural functions and to conserve these lands for the benefit of the people within the Authority's watersheds. May 15,1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 D5 The Project also defines more clearly the type of lands we wish to protect through acquisition. These definitions build on the original Master Plan and combine current Authority policies that deal with the protection of our important natural resources. Our ability to be clear and focused on the types of lands we are interested in bringing into public ownership, has been an important strategy in the past and is essential for the future. We have limited financial resources and we must use these limited resources carefully. land Acquisition Criteria The Authority in various policy documents, such as our Greenspace Strategy and the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, has defined the components of the Greenspace system which it seeks to conserve as: . Valley and stream corridors; . The Lake Ontario waterfront; . Environmentally Significant Areas; . Provincial Wetlands (Classes 1-7); . Kettle lakes; . Ground water Discharge Areas; . Significant Woodlot/Vegetation/Habitat Linkages: . Carolinian Forest; . Riparian Habitat Zones; . Flood Control, Erosion and Reservoir Project Lands; . Niagara Escarpment Park Extensions; . Links for the Regional Trail System; and . Lands which are identified by the Authority in cooperation with its member municipalities andlor the Province of Ontario as being complementary to the Greenspace system. The lands which meet these criteria are represented on a map within the 1996 - 2000 Project document. Recognizing that all of the lands that meet these criteria can not be shown on the map due to its scale, the written definitions would be used to determine if a particular parcel would meet our criteria for acquisition. It is not possible to acquire all of the components of the Greenspace system which have been identified as being suitable for acquisition, at least in the short term. The limited availability of funding will require that the most suitable lands which are on the market each year, will be the lands which are acquired. The areas in which the Authority will concentrate its acquisition efforts under the current Project, are the major river valleys, the Lake Ontario waterfront and environmentally significant lands as defined by the Authority. The Project also identifies a set of criteria that the Authority would use to determine whether acquisition is the most appropriate course of action in order to protect these Greenspace lands. These criteria are: DB Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 1 5, 1 998 (a) the availability of funding for both purchase and ongoing maintenance; (b) the availability of alternatives to acquisition; (c) the ability of the Authority or other agencies to conserve the lands; (d) the nature and immediacy of the threat to the lands; (e) the significance of the lands to the Greenspace system; (f) the relationship of a specific property to those already in public ownership; (g) the need for the lands to achieve adopted project requirements; (h) the willingness of the owner to enter into negotiations; (i) the ability to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of Greenspace; (j) the specific interests of the funding partners/sources; (k) the costs involved both for purchase and long-term management; (I) th,e availability of access to the property; and (m) the degree of flood and erosion risk. HYDRO LANDS As directed by the Authority, staff have reviewed the possibility of the Authority becoming involved in the acquisition of the surplus Ontario Hydro lands in the former City of Scarborough. This review has been based on the criteria set out above. Staff's review of the surplus Ontario Hydro corridor lands indicates that two tributaries of the Highland Creek are within the corridor. The Dorset Park Branch which enters the corridor approximately at Nautucket Boulevard and ends southeast of Metropolitan Road is within lands owned by Ontario Hydro. The Bendale Branch enters the corridor in the vicinity of Kenmanor Boulevard and ends at Finch Avenue. The stream channel itself is in public ownership (former City of Scarborough). In the case of the Bendale branch, the stream corridor would generally be defined as 10 metres back from the regional flood line. Staff noted that the regional flood plain spills over the top of the hardened channel and therefore beyond the limit of public ownership. It may therefore be desirable to attempt to acquire a larger corridor to include all of the flood plain plus a buffer which might extend to the limit of the hydro corridor. This would allow an opportunity to enhance and regenerate the stream corridor. The Dorset Park Branch represents a similar opportunity. The approximate limits of the stream corridors within the hydro corridors are illustrated on the attached sketch. In accordance with the land acquisition criteria of the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996-2000, the hydro lands which contain these two tributaries would be the only lands within the corridor which would be defined as suitable for acquisition by the Authority. Finally, should the OMB Hearing proceed, and in the event that the decision of the Board should go against the position of the City and the Authority that these lands should remain as open space, some level of development would occur. The Authority in that event would attempt to ensure that the Bendale Branch of the Highland Creek and adjacent lands remain in public ownership through the subdivision review process. May 15,1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 D7 FINANCIAL DETAILS Since the Bendale and Dorset Park lands identified as suitable for acquisition are flood plain and stream corridor lands, it is anticipated that the value of these parcels will be minimal. In accordance with Authority and provincial policies, the value of the property must be determined by an accredited appraiser. Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, ext.223 For information contact: Jim Dillane, ext.220 Mike Fenning, ext.223 Don Prince, ext. 221 08 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15,1998 map .,;0 , Hydro Corridor Lands - { . ~ 'THE TORONTO ANa REGION CoNSERVATION AUTHORITY May 15,1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 D9 RES. #06/98 - CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001 Contributions towards Remedial Works from benefiting Private Property Owners. Authority members and staff have reviewed the policy regarding contributions by benefiting private property owners towards Valley and Shoreline Regeneration remedial works. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the policy regarding the contribution by private property owners towards Valley and Shoreline Regeneration works remains unchanged.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/81, Resolution #71/81 was adopted: The following operational criteria for determining the benefiting owner(s) contribution under the Erosion and Sediment Control Programme be appro ved; (a) The Authority will require a minimum of a permanent easement over the private property for the work area and access routes where it has , been determined that title to the property is not required. A cash contribution in accordance with the approved scale will also be required; (b) Where the property involved would meet other Authority objectives, title to the lands must be transferred to the Authority as the owner contribution in lieu of a cash contribution; (c) Where agreement to policy (b) cannot be achieved, the benefiting owner(s) will be assessed 45% of the cost of the works, being the municipal share; (d) Where works are carried out on Authority-owned land for the protection of private property, the cash contribution will be waived; (e) In all cases, the Authority will require some form of binding indemnification agreement signed by the benefiting owner(s) which may be registered on title; (f) The benefiting owner(s) may make representation to the Authority, Executive Committee, or any Advisory Board with regard to any aspect of the erosion control programs in accordance with procedures adopted by Authority Resolution # 18180; D10 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15,1998 (g) Where required, the cash contribution from the benefiting owner(s) will be based on the following scales: PROPOSED 0 WNER CONTRIBUTIONS Residential .Max.. $ $ $ 0 - 1 5,000 - 1,500 + 10% (Cost - 0) 3,000 1 5,000 - 30,000 - 3,500 + 10% (Cost - 15,000) 4,500 30,000 - 50,000 - 4,500 + 10% (Cost - 30,000) 6,500 50,000 - 75,000 - 6,500 + 10% (Cost - 50,000) 9,000 75,000 - 100,000 - 9,000 + 10% (Cost - 75,000) 11,500 100,000 - plus - 11,500 + 10% (Cost - 100,000) Commercial/Industrial .Max.. $ $ $ 0 - 1 5,000 - 2,200 + 15% (Cost - 0) 4,400 15,000 - 30,000 - 4,400 + 15% (Cost - 15,000) 6,600 30,000 - 50,000 - 6,600 + 15% (Cost - 30,000) 9,600 50,000 - 75,000 - 9,600 + 15% (Cost - 50,000) 13,350 75.000 - 100,000 - 13,350 + 15% (Cost - 75.000) 1 7, 1 00 100,000 - plus - 17,100 + 15% (Cost - 100.0001 At Authority Meeting #8/97, the following resolutions were adopted: RES. #A 193/97 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Shirley Eidt THA T the above-noted correspondence (a) from Mr. Trevor D'Souza be received; THA T staff be directed to prepare a report on the "formula IF 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 Court/Weston Road Project in the City of North York; AND FURTHER THA T 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. May 15, 1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 D11 AMENDMENT #1 RES. #A 194/97 Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Shirley Eidt THA T a sub-committee be formed to study the issue of erosion control, both past practices and future Authority policy, including fill regulations, building permits, and waivers; AND FURTHER THA T this sub-committee report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board. AMENDMENT #1 WAS .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED AMENDMENT #2 RES. #A 195/97 Moved by: Case Dotes Seconded by: Randy Barber THA T paragraph three of the main motion be deleted and replaced with the following: THA T staff be directed to prepare a final offer by February, 1998, including a waiver of liability, to Mr. Trevor D'Souza in accordance with the adopted cost sharing policy under the Authority's erosion control and slope stabilization program for the slope stabilization work at his property located at 42 Royal Rouge Trail, in the City of Scarborough; AMENDMENT #2 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED A sub-committee was formed including Authority members Maria Augimeri, Lorna Bissell and Authority staff Brian Denney, Director of Watershed Management Division, Nick Saccone, Manager of the Environmental Services Section and Jim Tucker, Supervisor Water Control Projects. The committee reviewed the existing policy passed under resolution dated October 9, 1981 as it relates to recent valley land and shoreline regeneration projects carried out by the Authority. It was concluded that the existing policy of obtaining contributions by benefiting private property owners is a fair and equitable method of receiving contributions towards valley and shoreline regeneration projects on or effecting private property. D12 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15,1998 The committee also studied the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program as it relates to prevent new development that would introduce risk of life and property associated with erosion and slope stability. It was the opinion of the committee that strategies set out in the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program adequately address the concerns of placing life and property at risk from erosion and slope instability. For information contact: Jim Tucker, ext. 247 RES. #07/98 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997 - 2001 Progress Report and Pool of Valley and Shoreline Erosion Sites List Staff has prepared a prioritized list of erosion sites potentially requiring remedial measures under the Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project. Staff will make a slide presentation of the sites. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Irene Jones THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the lists of prioritized erosion and monitoring sites under the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997- 2001, as shown in the Attachments 1, 2 and 3 be received for information. .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The goal of the valley and shoreline regeneration project is to minimize the hazards to fife and property that results from erosion of riverbanks, valley walls, and shoreline, and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the valleys and Lake Ontario waterfront. This report deals with the aspects of the program in areas of existing land development. The Authority has carried out valley and shoreline regeneration works since the early 1970's. Since the initiation of the program, the Authority has carried out erosion and sediment control works at a total of 140 sites and spent $22 million carrying out these projects. At present, there are 18 sites on our waterfront and valley land erosion priority lists (Attachments 1 and 2) where owners have requested remedial measures be undertaken by the Authority. At risk at these sites are multiple dwellings, single dwellings, office buildings and public infrastructure. In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control works, three major factors are considered: the potential effect to structures; valley wall conditions; and, river and shoreline action. The potential effect on structures is deemed the most important and accordingly, given more weight than the physical and geological - -- May 15, 1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 D13 conditions associated with the other two factors. Determining the potential effect on structures involves the number, size and type of structures(s) affected. Valley wall conditions considered include: the height, slope angle, vegetative cover, ground water characteristics and the soil type and composition. The river and lake action as a factor, considers the present shoreline position as well as the potential future scouring action. The technical priorities are reassessed during our annual exercise whereby all sites on our inventory list are visited and monitored. This review reflects the dynamics of the erosion processes and the addition of any new sites, and, therefore ensures that the works we are proposing for a given year are technically addressing the most hazardous sites within our area of jurisdiction. These priority lists are used in the preparation of our capital budgets and are available to take advantage of other funding opportunities. In addition, staff monitor a number of sites in the City of Toronto and in the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham (Attachment 3). The hazard at these sites is generally low, however they may have the potential to become more serious and threaten existing development andlor public infrastructure, and, therefore, should be given careful attention if a redevelopment proposal is considered. Should the hazard conditions change, these sites are elevated to the priority works list. Most of the Lake Ontario waterfront monitoring sites in the Region of Durham are within the shoreline hazardous zone and it is proposed to acquire these properties when available and as funding permits under the Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1992-1996. The number of extremely hazardous sites has been reduced over the years. This is due to the fact that the Authority has used a priority ranking system to address the severe sites first. The other key aspect to the Authority's success has been the preventative aspect of the program. Through the Authority's plan input and review process and working with our member municipalities, development adjacent to the waterfront and to valley and stream corridors is reviewed to ensure development is not introduced into potentially hazardous areas. Valley and shoreline regeneration measures will be analysed on the basis of financial, technical and environmental cost/benefits. Acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works where the proposed works exceed the value of the benefiting property or are not in compliance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Program and the Shoreline Management Program. Any proposed remedial works will be undertaken in accordance to the procedures outlined in the Conservation Authorities Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects For information contact: James Tucker ext.247 Nigel Cowey ext. 244 014 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15,1998 ATTACHMENT 1 The following table lists the top ten (10) waterfront shoreline erosion sites in order of their technical priority. The current list of priorities are reviewed annually to accomodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED COMMENTS 1 55 Sunnypoint Crescent Lake Ontario Problem: Slope erosion Structures Affected: 1 house Height of Bank: 80m Length of Bank: 30m 2 Guildwood Parkway Lake Ontario Problem: Slope & shoreline erosion Structures Affected: 9 houses Height of Bank: 41m Length of Bank: 160m 3 Springbank Avenue Lake Ontario Problem: slope erosion (formerly Nos. 39 and 41) Structures Affected: road & services Height of Bank: 54m Length of Bank: 30m 4 Fishleigh Drive Lake Ontario Problem: slope & shoreline erosion Structures Affected: 2 houses Height of Bank: 54m Length of Bank: 150m -~ 5 Rosetta McLain Gardens Lake Ontario Problem: Slope erosion Structures Affected: pathway, parkland & formal gardens Height of Bank: 56m Length of Bank: 140m 6 27 - 37 Springbank Lake Ontario Problem: Slope erosion Avenue Structures Affected: 5 houses Height of Bank: 54m Length of Bank: 60m 7 Gibraltar Point Lake Ontario Problem: shoreline erosion Toronto Islands Structures Affected: parkland, building, parkland, services Height of Bank: 0.5m Length of Shoreline: 1.2km May 1 5, 1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 015 8 Meadowcliffe Drive Lake Ontario Problem: slope & shoreline erosion Structures Affected: 5 houses Height of Bank: 57m Length of- Bank: 250m 9 Broadmead Avenue Lake Ontario Problem: slope erosion' Structures Affected: 2 houses Height of Bank: 30m Length of Bank: 30m 10 Greyabbey Trail Lake Ontario Problem: slope erosion Structures Affected: 1 6 houses & parkland Height of Bank: 37m Lenoth of Bank: 330m There are several other sites along the Toronto shoreline; particularly along the Scarborough Bluffs sector, where Authority staff monitor crest recession at individual properties. These sites may move to a higher priority based on increased rate of erosion. These sites are generally located in the following sectors: Kingsbury Crescent Crescent wood Road Lakehurst Crescent Sunnypoint Crescent Eastern Beaches Chesterton Shores 016 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15,1998 ATTACHMENT 2 The following table lists the top eight (8) valley land erosion sites in order of their technical priority. The current pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1998 to accommodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. TORONTO ANO REGION CONSERVATION EROSION PRIORITY - 1998 PRIORITY LOCA TION W A TERSHEO COMMENTS 1 180-188 Parkview Oon River Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion Hill Crescent Structures Affected: 4 houses Height of Bank: 35m Lenoth of Bank: 100m 2 Burnhamthorpe Mimico Creek Problem: Riverbank erosion Road at Mattice Structures Affected: roadway Road Height of Bank: 11 m Lenath of Bank: 50m 3 121-123 Colonel Highland Creek Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion Oanforth Structures Affected: 2 Houses Height of Bank: 40m Lenath of Bank: 30m 4 42-44 Royal Rouge Rouge River Problem: Valley wall failure Trail Structures Affected: One house and One pool Height of Bank: 30m Lenath of Bank: 20m 5 Sewell's Road at Rouge River Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion Finch Structure Affected: Roadway Height of Bank: 14m Length of Bank: 88m 6 1220 Access Road East Oon River Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion at Sheppard Avenue Structures Affected: Office building East Height of Bank: 17m Lenath of Bank: 50m 7 6 Atwood Orive Humber River Problem: Riverbank erosion Structure Affected: One house Height of Bank: 4m Length of Bank: 40m 8 Manitoba Road Mimico Creek Problem: Slope failure & riverbank erosion Structure Affected: Townhouse development Height of Bank: 1 2m Length of Bank: 30m May 15,1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 017 ATTACHMENT 3 (Page 1 of 5) CITY OF TORONTO EROSION CONTROL MONITORING LIST LOCATION WATERSHED Weir Crescent Highland Creek Alder Road Don River 91 Forest Grove East Don River 353 Betty Ann Drive Don River North York General Don River 4152 - 4174 Dundas Street West Humber River 69 Blaydon Avenue Storm Sewer Black Creek Mouth of Highland Creek Highland Creek 161 Riverside Drive Humber River Across from Martin Grove Mimico Creek 842 Leland Avenue Mimico Creek 175 Verobeach Boulevard Humber River Don Valley Drive Don River Eccleston Drive East Don River 29-31 Spring Gardens & Meadow Crest Road Mimico Creek Humber Valley Yacht Club Humber River 29 Jason Road Humber River Eccleston Drive East Bank East Don River Gwendolen Park CT Club West Don River 123 - 125 Pegasus Trail East Highland Creek 734 Lawrence Avenue East West Don River 6 - 14 Loney Avenue Black Creek 255 - 259 Derrydown Road Black Creek Northline Road near Public Works East Don River 018 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15, 1998 A TT ACHMENT 3 (Page 2 of 5) REGION OF PEEL EROSION CONTROL MONITORING LIST LOCATION WA TERSHED 4424 - 4434 Palisades Lane and Etobicoke Creek 1993 - 1999 Beechknoll 6469 Netherhart Road Etobicoke Creek 12 Beamish Court (WH-142) West Humber River 3525 - 3533 Riverspray Crescent (Site #1) Little Etobicoke Creek 3525 - 3533 Riverspray Crescent (Site #2) Little Etobicoke Creek 1726 Lincolnshire Boulevard Etobicoke Creek May 15,1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 019 A TT ACHMENT 3 (Page 3 of 5) REGION OF YORK EROSION CONTROL MONITORING LIST LOCATION WATERSHED 21 - 25 Carol wood Cr. Rouge River 10151 Highway 27 Humber River 16 Ravencliffe Road Don River 20 Deanbank East Don River 9854 Highway #27, Kleinburg Humber River 9961 Warden Avenue Rouge River 22 Framingham Drive Don River Fiddlehead Farm Humber River 020 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15,1998 A TT ACHMENT 3 (Page 4 of 5) REGION OF DURHAM EROSION CONTROL MONITORING LIST LOCA TION WA TERSHED Greenwood C.A. 5th Concession Duffin Creek 1404 Ravenscroft Road Duffin Creek 1789 Altona Road Petticoat Creek Across from 1800 Altona Road (West side R-5) Petticoat Creek 1840 Altona Road Petticoat Creek 1436 Highbush Trail Petticoat Creek Valley Farm Road, 0-22 Duffin Creek (West side North of Finch) Rav.enscroft Road Duffin Creek Greenwood C.A. - Lookout Tower Duffin Creek May 15,1998 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 021 ATTACHMENT 3 (Page 5 of 5) REGION OF DURHAM WATERFRONT EROSION MONITORING SITES LOCATION MUNICIPALITY Bella Vista Drive (4 houses) Pickering West Shore Boulevard ( 5 houses) Pickering Frenchman's Bay Pickering Sandra Drive (2 houses) Pickering Beachpointe Promenade (6 houses) Pickering Lakeview Boulevard (5 houses) Ajax RES. #08/98 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #2/98 - April 16, 1998 The minutes of Meeting #2/98 held April 16, 1998 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for information. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #2/98 held April 16, 1998 be received. . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report MForty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman, ext. 238 022 Watershed Management Advisory Board #1/98 May 15, 1998 RES. #09/98- HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meetings #1/98 and #2198 The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meetings#1/98 and #2/98 are provided for information. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meetings #1/98 and #2/98, as appended, be received. .... CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #4/97 held on May 30, 1997 by Resolution #A66/97, includes the following provision: Part 1. Section 1.1 Mandate The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on the progress of implementing activities. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, ext. 211 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11: 15 a.m. on May 15, 1998. Lorna Bissell Craig Mather Chair Secretary- Treasurer Ipl ~ , THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #2/98 D23 June 19, 1998 The Members of the Watershed Management Advisory Board met in the South Theatre in the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, June 19, 1998. The Chair of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m. PRESENT Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair Irene Jones ............................................................. Vice Chair David Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member lIa Bossons ............................................................... Member Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Pam McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . Member Jim McMaster .................................."....",.......,........., Member Denzil Minnan-Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority REGRETS Maja Prentice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , Member RES. #010/98 . MINUTES Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: I rene Jones THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/98, held May 15,1998, be received. . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED PRESENTATION Joanna Kidd made a presentation on the Toronto Bay Initiative outlining numerous accomplishments and future plans. The Board Members congratulated Joanna Kidd on the Initiatives and encouraged Authority staff to continue to support the Toronto Bay Initiative. . 024 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RES. #011 /98 LEGACY: A STRATEGY FOR A HEALTHY HUMBER AND A CALL TO ACTION - IMPLEMENTING LEGACY: A STRATEGY FOR A HEALTHY HUMBER 1998 Award for Planning Excellence Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humbe,r and its companion document, A Call to Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber won the Canadian Institute of Planners 1998 Award for Planning Excellence. Moved by: Irene Jones Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Canadian Institute of Planners 1998 Award for Planning Excellence be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT a letter of thanks be sent to the Humber Watershed Task Force members and staff who participated in the development of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humberand its implementation document, A Call to Action -Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber. ...................................... CARRIED BACKGROUND The Canadian Institute of Planners is a professional organization that governs the education and practice of planning across Canada. In order to recognize the achievements and accomplishments in planning, the Institute provides annual awards to projects that have a high degree of quality and professional recognition. Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document A Call to Action, represents a long-term strategy for the protection and management of the Humber River's natural, cultural, heritage, recreation and education resources. This strategy was developed over a two year period by a volunteer task force that consisted of watershed residents, community groups, agency staff and elected representatives. The Humber River watershed management strategy was one of 43 submissions from across Canada that was submitted for the 1998 Award for Planning Excellence. Project submissions were judged on their excellence in planning, innovation, impact on the field of expertise, implementation potential and presentation. The Humber River watershed management strategy was recognized as a winner in planning excellence because it was developed by a volunteer Task Force, and contained strong principles of watershed management. The strategy was also recognized for its detailed action plans for five subwatershed areas, and the identification of seventeen Community Action Sites that required immediate regeneration activities. . June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 025 The strategy was also recognized for its ongoing initiatives which include the production of a newsletter, the Humber Advocate, and the Humber Report Card, which will form the basis of a long-term monitoring program to measure the health of the Humber River watershed. RATIONALE Without the continued dedication and support of the Humber Watershed Task Force members and the Humber Watershed Alliance, the Authority would not have received the 1998 Awards for Planning Excellence and the high degree of professional recognition that this award brings to the Authority. We, therefore, would like to extend our appreciation and congratulations to the members of the task force and staff who contributed to the production of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document, A Call to Action. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, ext. 211 Report prepared by: Gemma Connolly, ext. 202 RES. #012/98 TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Grenadier Pond North Wetland Enlargement and Rehabilitation Project The Grenadier Pond North Wetland Enlargement and Rehabilitation Project be approved by the Authority and $50,000 be allocated to this project under the Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation Program. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT that the Grenadier Pond North Wetland Enlargement and Rehabilitation Project be approved; THAT Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation 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 Grenadier pond is situated within the High Park complex, and has been the focus of some intensive habitat restoration work over the past few years. The north wetland rehabilitation work is part of this larger, on-going pond rehabilitation program and complements previously and currently funded efforts to improve water and sediment quality and rehabilitate riparian habitat within Grenadier Pond. Financial or in-kind contributions from Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, City of Toronto, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Canadian National Sportsmen's Show, Ducks Unlimited, Environment Canada, Ministry of Environment 026 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 and Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources, and the High Park Citizens' Advisory Committee have supported one or more of the following pond rehabilitation initiatives: 1. Fish and Waterfowl Control Demonstration Projects 2. Fish Stocking and Habitat Structuring with Brush Bundles 3. Volunteer Stewardship Activities: Eco-tours, Eco-fairs, Shoreline Plantings 4. Shoreline Softening/Habitat Rehabilitation Projects 5. Water Chemistry and Biota Monitoring 6. Sediment Characterization and Sediment RemovalfTreatment Feasibility ,7. Structural modifications to outlet weir to allow for seasonal water fluctuations 8. Construction of a Sedimentation Control Facility upstream of Grenadier Pond 9. Waterfowl Habitat Structures The north wetland of Grenadier Pond has been significantly reduced by static water levels and untreated storm water discharges. These factors, over time, have contributed to a reduction in wetland coverage and an accelerated build-up of nutrient rich sediments that restricted the growth of native marsh habitat. To address these factors, a proposal to remediate the north wetland was detailed in the findings of the 1995 report entitled: "Proposals for the Restoration of Grenadier Pond, Wendigo Creek and the Associated Wetlands". This document outlined the existing condition of the wetland and highlighted the techniques for its enlargement and rehabilitation. The north marsh -covers about one third of the extent found in the mid-1950's. The marsh is now elevated above typical water levels reducing the amount of open water which occurs within it. Many animal species that were typically associated with the wetland and dependent on water interspersion are now absent. Aggressive non-native plant species also appear to be overtaking some native plants and reducing species diversity. Fish stocking has occurred but until water, sediment and habitat issues have been addressed, fish production cannot be expected to be adequate to sustain the population, In support of this effort to recreate a diverse north wetland habitat, the City recently implemented two fundamental actions aimed at improving water quality and habitat diversity, A new sedimentation control facility was constructed upstream from Grenadier Pond to control sediment inputs into the pond. In addition, the existing outlet weir at the south end of the pond was restructured to allow for more seasonal water level fluctuations. Now that sediment discharges are being effectively controlled and monitored and a mechanism is in place to draw down pond water levels, there is the potential to enlarge and recreate habitat at the north end of the pond to improve species diversity, water quality and possibly develop linkages with other natural areas. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The final configuration of the wetland will be a combination of open water and emergent vegetation. To achieve this wetland feature, implementation will see portions of the site excavated below existing water levels and the remainder of the site gradually graded to provide the proper topography for wetland plant communities. Channels in the exposed sediment will be promoted through the use of log cribbing, and minor excavations will be --~ June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 027 created to promote a more desirable flow pattern within the area. Sand fill will be deployed in the area of high sediment nutrient levels and mixed with excavated material to provide a proper growing medium for wetland plants. The combination of regrading, sediment remediation, and a new flow pattern to Wendigo Creek will provide the proper conditions to expand the wetland area. When the area is regraded and log cribbing is in place, it will be planted with the desired wetland plants. In addition, 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 plant community composition found in similar wetlands 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 validius), arrowhead (Sagitta ria latifolia) and waterlily (Nuphar sp.). Material will be established through a combination of nursery stock, our Aquatic Plants Program, mature transplants, and seeding. FINANCIAL DETAilS Funding for this project has been identified from Environment Canada's Great lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, the Toronto Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project, and the City of Toronto as follows: City of Toronto $92,800 Metro RAP $50,000 Environment Canada's Great Lakes CleanUp Fund $42,800 I Total I $185,600 I The total projected project cost is estimated at $185,000. The funding from Environment Canada and the RAP Implementation funds will be administered by the Authority. The overall , project is to be coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Division of the City of Toronto and TRCA Environmental Services Section Staff. For information contact: Gord MacPherson, ext.246 028 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 RES. #013/98 CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001 42 Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project Rouge River Watershed City of Toronto (Former City of Scarborough) Construction of erosion control works at the rear of 42 Royal Rouge Trail Rouge River Watershed, City of Toronto. Moved by: Pam McConnell Seconded by: Denzil Minnan-Wong THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the construction of the erosion control works at the rear of 42 Royal Rouge Trail, under the" City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001 " at a total budget of $ 25,000 subject to receipt of all necessary approvals; AND FURTHER THAT the owners of 42 Royal Rouge Trail transfer ownership to the Authority that portion of their property where the works are carried out as contribution towards the cost of the works. ....................................... CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority was initially made aware of the slope problem behind the rear of Nos. 42 - 44 Royal Rouge Trail in the Summer of 1989. Staff investigated the problem and ranked it according to our erosion hazard criteria. At the time, the site did not rank high enough within our pool of erosion sites to warrant remedial work. The site was therefore placed on our erosion monitoring list and evaluated yearly. In the interim, the Authority dealt with higher ranked sites elevating 42-44 Royal Rouge to NO.4 on our City of Toronto valley erosion priority list for this, year. The problem at this site consists of a valley wall failure approximately 25 metres long and 4 metres high, affecting the upper third of the slope. Since the erosion problem was first identified, approximately 2 metres of soil has been lost at the rear of No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. Although tableland is being lost, at present there is no immediate danger to the existing dwelling. Royal Rouge Trail is part of a sub-division called Deauville Developments which received registration in 1985. The original draft plan was circulated,in 1984 and was predated by a number of technical studies including a soils report prepared by Soil Eng. Limited dated September 1984. The soils report identified the potential for shallow translation failures in the upper slope because of perched water table. This appears to be consistent with the problem at the rear of No, 42 Royal Rouge Trail. As a result, one of their recommendation was that "all structures should be set back at least 10 metres away from the top of bank" for all the lots along this reach of valley slope. This recommendation was carried through the development process and adopted specific to the zoning bylaws for this area. The bylaw also makes specific reference to pools not being allowed with the 10m setback. All the homes along the reach are located well in excess of the recommended 10 metres structural setback, the rear June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 029 property line is located at the physical top of slope. Unfortunately, a pool has been constructed within the 10 metre zone at the rear of 44 Royal Rouge Trail. A permit for this pool was granted without consultation of the Authority. Over the past few years, additional geotechnical assessments have been gathered which have confirmed the findings of the original geotechnical reports. The present oversteepened section of the slope is a safety hazard to the homeowner's family. The proposed work will assist in the stabilization of the bank and will limit the access to the hazard. Staff has had numerous discussions with the affected homeowners and they concur with the proposed remedial works. RATIONALE The 42 Royal Rouge Trail site has been identified in The City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project as a priority based on the information gathered through the Authority's ongoing erosion monitoring program. The Authority's goal through this project is to: "Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the valley and lake front 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 landswhere 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 D30 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 (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. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The work at the rear of 42 Royal Rouge Trail will consist of placing a gravel stone buttress against the lower portion of the erosion scar and regrading the upper section of the slope as shown on the attached plans. The gravel material will provide a positive drain for the perched water table. The earth regrading will assist in stabilizing the slope and allow for opportunities to revegetate the area. FINANCIAL DETAILS Terraprobe Limited, in conjunction with staff, developed cost estimates for the each component of the remedial work. The estimated cost for the remedial works at 42 Royal Rouge Trail is $25,000. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of the City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 - 2001". Account No. 145-01 has been set up for this project For information contact: Jim Tucker, ext. 247 Attachments (2) . June 19. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 031 ATTACHMENT 1 I ~! ! .j ~ ~ ~:l i ~!! 0 ~ N I ~: ~ ~a:! ~, ~ -: (ij c g $ - - 0 . ,,- 0 OlE ~ lDiij-.. ~ ~ ~ EN. U > .' _ E 10 CI lD::- IE :I a:~'5 -It N O,,_1Il W · II: lDcnJ u - ~ lD lZ z.. )C)QtB. 0 Q, ell W~ W >- Q,OCll IE ~ O'O_Cll ~ lll: II:'-cn- ~ ~ ~ ~ N _ ~ - . g ~ ~ : i : )r3Joocw I ~ .. ~ 3 I ~ i2 5 8 0 3 , ~ % ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ! < - Q. Z = o .l:. - 8 . ~ ~ I > ~ I II: _ I W ~ I ~ · z - I 0 (Ji w U ; ~ z ; ~ 0 9 ~ - ~ = Cl ! CoO w <5 a: j II C '~ Z i <8 o <<i ~ ~ Z 0 o E II: ~ o !! .... l! , III I W ltl ! % I u .... i ~~ 032 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19.1998 AITACHMENT 2 I .' ,0 . , I" Ul . ' C .-.: - ,0 0 c: NI : .. al I 1.2 ~O:~i ~ 'XO~.. z I..: iii c: ~ 1- .- 0 . "'C.- 0 .. Gl iii .. II- E N ~ I . ,- I ~ ~ :5 ~ o "'C! Ul ~ ~ ~~ ~8.c.~ - o 0.2 Gl II: ... CI) .. a. lti ~ ell . ~ ~I II: i ~ ' ~ I 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ CD II: c: w C II: ~ o 0 0 CD :%: ~ ~ 5 CD ::l Z I- - -w II: II: ;:) J ~ ~ (J 0 ~ ~ ~ c( _ (J U IU Z ~ ~ z .... CI) 0 (J in 2 rh o 0 <:I 0 2 Cl)1 - 0 w II: Jl: il I- ~ II: W C. u > .. II: ~ w W ;; ~ en ; w Z - IL o c:; ~ 0; Z ::; .., z \ Z :E ~ o 0 _ t: (J C) ! ~ I W 8 ! a:: ~ ." - J: III ~ C ~ ! 0 .... Z t: (J c(c3 II: w w ~ o ~ z .... ~ ~ I- ~ Z a . o E II: ~ GO CI .... ~ .... :: ::! N I o ! II) .. .. .. .. ~~ ~ .. .. .. .. - .. - - (J) ~ (II) NOU.VI\313 ~.~ ~ ~ ~ I w z - June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 033 RES. #014/98 VELLORE WOODS COMMUNITY (BLOCK 32W) City of Vaughan Resolution of Authority interests regarding a number of referrals to the Ontario Municipal Board relating to proposed zoning by-law amendments and proposed plans of subdivision situated within the Vellore Woods Community (Block 32W) in the City of Vaughan. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Vellore Woods Community in the City of Vaughan be received; THAT staff continue to pursue the resolution of Authority issues and interests in cooperation with the City of Vaughan and other relevant parties through the Mediation Hearing and/or at the Ontario Municipal Board; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to retain the firm of Baker & McKenzie to provide legal representation for the Authority with respect to this matter. . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Veil ore Woods Community is comprised of some 171 hectares of land bounded by Major Mackenzie Drive to the north, Rutherford Road to the south, Highway No. 400 to the east, and Weston Road to the west (Attachment 1). The majority of the lands are situated within the West Don River, with some lands draining to the Black Creek. In June of 1995, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs approved Official Plan Amendment 400 (OPA 400) to the City of Vaughan Official Plan. OPA 400 is a planning document which focuses on an ecosystem approach to planning and the development of communities with a compact and efficient urban form, Through this document, the City established a 'Block Plan' process to facilitate the comprehensive implementation of development on a 1,000 acre concession block basis, premised on the land use designations and policies established in OPA 400. The Block Plan process for the Vellore Woods Community was initiated in the Spring of 1996. It included the preparation of a series of detailed reports including a Master Environmental Servicing Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Urban Design Guidelines, and a , Transportation Analysis. A review and evaluation of the various reports was completed by the City and affected public agencies, and Council conditionally endorsed the Block Plan in the Fall of 1997. Since that time, the proponents of development within the Block Plan have been working towards the resolution of a number of outstanding matters, including issues affecting the program and policy interests of the Authority. It should be noted that no formal appeal mechanism related to the Block Plan exists under the Planning Act; rather, the avenue for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board is through individual development applications submitted for the Block Plan. 034 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 A number of draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments within the Vellore Woods Community have been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. An initial Pre-Hearing and Mediation Conference with respect to this matter took place on May 19, 1998, which was attended by Authority staff. The next Pre-Hearing and Mediation Conference is scheduled for June 29, 1998, following which the Ontario Municipal Board has set aside five days commencing August 17, 1998 to hear any outstanding matters. TRCA PROGRAM INTERESTS The Vellore Woods Community is made up of predominantly flat cultivated farm fields, with two distinct wooded areas and a tributary of the West Don River which traverses the lands from the north west to the central south east. The Authority's program issues affected by the Vellore Woods Community Block Plan can be broadly identified as follows: . Stream Corridor Management; . Woodlot Protection & Management; . Stormwater Management (Quantity & Quality). Stream Corridor Management The tributary of the West Don River which traverses the community has an unusually wide and shallow flood plain with periodic flow in early spring, late fall and following large storm events (Attachment 2). This is primarily owing to the historic construction of Highway 400 as an elevated road bed with a small culvert beneath, resulting in a large backwater flooded area. The tributary is in a degraded condition due to years of agricultural use. To accommodate the servicing of these lands the stream invert is proposed to be lowered, and the corridor boundary re-established in accordance with principles of natural channel design. This will also allow for the re-establishment of riparian features and functions associated with this tributary, while at the same time reducing the backwater flooding issues associated with the Highway 400 culverts. The proposed stream corridor alteration and rehabilitation works will allow for the integration of off-line stormwater wetland treatment features which will improve downstream water quality and provide diverse natural communities not currently existing in this part of the West Don subwatershed. Bio-engineering techniques using plant material from the site are proposed to create a naturalized corridor which links the Vellore Woods Community with the rest of the upper portions of the West Don Watershed. Plantings of trees and shrubs along the stream bank edge will shade the waters for fish and provide a diversity of habitats for birds and wildlife. These works are proposed to extend from the Vellore Woods Community mid-way downstream through the Vaughan City Centre lands east of Highway 400 and south of Paramount Canada's Wonderland (Attachment 3). The proposed culverts under Highway 400 will be 350 metres long, extending under Highway 400 beyond the Paramount Canada's Wonderland access road and through the Vaughan City Centre lands to connect with the existing valley system. This length of enclosure is required to address design and safe~ --- ------ -~ - -- June 19,1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 035 issues associated with the proposed Highway 400 overpass, which is further discussed in this report. The proposed works will require a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158; premised on staff's review of details pertaining to the proposed stream corridor alteration and rehabilitation, the works would be in accordance with the Authority's Valley & Stream Corridor Management Program. Additionally, individual development applications will need to implement the approved recommendations and findings .of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. As part of the permit submission a comprehensive detail design and implementation strategy will need to be completed addressing provisions for project management and contract administration, a construction phasing and scheduling program that sets out servicing requirements to the timing and phasing of tableland development, and a construction program that minimizes the need for modified, interim servicing strategies. Approvals under the Federal Fisheries Act are also required; Authority staff has consulted with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who have advised they support the concept of the proposed realignment subject to the fulfilment of a number of agreed upon conditions. Another issue affecting the tributary management of the Vellore Woods Community relates to an overpass connecting the Vellore Woods Community with the Vaughan City Centre lands east of Highway 400. Two design options were proposed: (i) a pier structure; and (ii) a fill embankment. Authority staff expressed concern with the fill embankment, because it compromised the storm water management design approved for the Vellore Woods Community and would significantly reduce riparian storage and result in a greater length of stream corridor enclosure under Highway 400. The pier option on the other hand would reduce the amount of stream enclosure and not impact either riparian storage or storm water management as approved through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. While either alternative was considered technically viable, the embankment would entail a revision to the Block Plan and associated development applications to accommodate a revised stormwater management alternative. Further discussions between the Block Plan proponents and the City resulted in the pier structure being identified as the preferred alternative, and the municipality has committed to the overpass being designed as a pier structure. Woodlot Protection & Management Neither of the wooded areas have been adopted by the Authority as an Environmentally Significant Area, although the Vellore Tract has been identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as an Area of Natural and Scientific.lnterest (ANSI). The-Vellore Tract is approximately 12 hectares in size and is situated in the south central part of the community with frontage on Weston Road, and is proposed to be retained in accordance with the findings of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Vaughan's , OPA 400. The second woodlot is not proposed for protection by the City since it did .not demonstrate high or moderate environmental function when assessed as part of the OPA 400 exercise. D36 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 The approval of the Veil ore Woods Community Block Plan requires the preparation of a ' , comprehensive Open Space Master Plan prior to subdivision registration which will include measures to mitigate woodlot alterations and ensure a net gain of habitat and will direct the naturalization of the entire valley system within the community. Stormwater Management To service the Vellore Woods Community three stormwater management facilities are proposed. These facilities have been conceptually designed 'to address water quality and quantity, including erosion control, to levels prescribed by the Authority. Two of the ponds will be sited along the reconfigured channel block, and have been designed to provide diverse habitats. These facilities are intended to blend in with the natural environment and form part of the open space corridor. The third pond is comparable in design, and is situated on table land at the south end of the Vellore Woods Community. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Notwithstanding Authority staff's acceptance of the Vellore Woods Community Master Environmental Servicing Plan, there are a number of outstanding issues associated with the individual development applications situated within the Block Plan. . A number of the draft plans of subdivision do not reflect the prescribed channel widths and configurations which had been previously approved through the review and approval of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. Staff is in receipt of technical details to-substantiate the proposed changes, which we are currently in the process of reviewing. . The design and configuration of a stormwater management facility has changed from what had been previously approved through the review and approval of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. Staff is in receipt of technical details to substantiate the proposed changes, which we are currently in the process of reviewing. . The acceptance of the proposed stream corridor management works outlined earlier in this report are subject to a permit being granted by the Executive Committee pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158. Individual development applications will be subject to revision in order to meet the Authority's requirements in this regard. . A number of wide, shallow lots are proposed within the Veil ore Woods Community, resulting in reduced setback standards for lots backing onto the open space system. The Authority requires that for any lots backing onto a valley or stream corridor, a minimum 10 metre structural setback be maintained for principal buildings and structures from this limit. The current proposal would maintain a 6 metre structural setback from the open space system; a number of alternatives are currently being examined. . The City of Vaughan has expressed an interest in siting a park and associated tot lot within a portion of the Vellore Tract woodlot, which is to be purchased by the City in accordance with the requirements of OPA 400. Discussions are ongoing amongst the June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 037 land owner, City of Vaughan and Authority regarding the acceptability of such a use and impacts to the Vellore Tract Woodlot. Although staff is endeavouring to resolve these issues through the mediation process, we are requesting that legal counsel be assigned to assist in any proposed settlement or alternatively to represent the Authority at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing should our issues not be resolved. For information contact: Luch Ognibene, ext. 284 Attachments (3) 038 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19.1998 ATIACHMENT 1 VELLORE WOODS COMMUNIN ( BLOCK 32 - WEST) J --$- I LEGeND o COMMERClAL oc ,om-=: ~c::INR IC.~~ U:.u:JC.ll~ "'c::c:M'~~ i 0 MED, DENSI1Y : --.... : .,..- , - I 0 LOW DENSI1Y I : ~ ~~~~ o VAllEY lAND o S.W.M. ! [II GREENWAY , .~~- , I . BUFFER I I . TABLElAND WOCDLOT I : ~ ~EA*l I oc, ""'~c:zo-. , IC. "'KIACXZ)~ I U:.u:JCM.~ _ a:M ._a:ooo-=w. - -. CIw:Kl _1DCKl -~ o STUDY AAEA #2 'le ------ KLM PLANNING PARTNERS INC. URBA.'I/ PLANNERS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS a June 19,1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARO #2/98 D39 ATTACHMENT 2 ,,~ .;:-_~,,'.l I ~' ----."'--,,-, - - " ,'~ - : ".~!' - ~ '" ,:~,-=j I -&- - -- ~ " ;~ - (I" '- '\~, :" -;: \ , - .-- _&.:.' .' ~~. If~ll~ .. _i _ _ _ '-~::i.....;...\~~ \\ - -- _. - --' ___- ,.- _ '-',' 'l~D_':J' ~", \ -, - ,-, - ;;. , " , "~"-~~r.::.,!\ -, -:- ," ", -. _-.: -::~ .~\ , :, - _:. _:.; l~:~.__:;:: I -, __'~\"::'; : -- ,~\..' - - . ,,-..; , -~: ,-)\ ~'- ' - - '\ - : '\" :.-p..._:--,'."~-:- , . ~.. --'~,I -, , . ~ l. . II" \~ '. -', ~..' , ' I ,.. ~:'_~;I '09' ,~,~ ''= ,-, "n _ \ ')'. ~ '~\-=- .' ....2 . ~ " ',\ ,.-- .,.:.. ~"'" ,. J -,,-' .,., I , ( .. _ ~~,=: ~~'-7' ..:'~:' -; .."'! h: \ th ...__.8.0", -- ~., . ,I l ' - - - - '- ...- - I I J \ '- - - , - " , -~ , .~-: "," , .'_= '-, /- ~~, ': ,_..~~.-~ 'II, , ' " _ - .. I.. JOQ ,,",,, _ _ "j' :':-,';,' ~~ '';!''';_-'-_ "J(':"_::~-'~ ,', ,_...l__,~ I ' ,_", ~ I, . _::~ .A$~~'--: .: -~: \\ _-~ .. \ I \ -;~-", ~'..: -- , ,L-.,>.. ,. , ..-I .. _-,_ '~-."J:~"~\-:-i:""i-':"" , It~. - _ - -, ~ \- (f. /' ~', I c;;.:, . _ .. -, ,: ~ ': ' . . - -1 ',- ~- --. ; -' /:'- " ..J I 'I' -' - ~- ----' - --.. - ' T ' t--- --=O--.-~" : ,,' ,..- ~ '-:": -"" - ~. ': ~ : \ '. , - -, -, . .. ", t.. .. , - - - -' .- _" - -. ., - -I (. \----::;;;'?:-=---'--./' " ,'..'-, ' ,.(: I , ~- ~~~':;:';:,r';~~?':' ." ' - '- ;' [, I It'__~'- ' \ '"",..' - ~.. -- -~,.. 'k, \ ',,' :.=---~, '..'" . ~ .,,--- -". ~'! I ,#. _~'~ ....'".. .___ _- - - _. I I ~.;.::..~ " ;'..- "": ,,(it"'~ - ' _ - -:. I' I' r'\.~.~ ~r- I .... ".~' ... L '1 - ~.'" . --: -__ ... ::..-' iJ-:J'~-- -+-\ - -= .. , I: f~ '-" >J-:::,~(':", - ~- -.=-' -, ~/., ~j[1 . , -:, '.=" ::..-.' ,." ~ 11 ~."""'_.. -,'-" ....- -=:: - I \:~~~~~i-~c' .',',. : (;'"",;11:( I 1,1. ._, '-"11 .' - -""...::,,"'1 ,\ -=.~. -' I \ \. ,-,?~:: -,.,..:.- ~ .. = -, -, -I'~\ " . 0:--'... - '~ _ li~j C:iI~~'~ ~~" ~ '>~ . - SC"L~ 'ITS , =SCHAEFFERS =-_ ::=...., I LEGEND BLOCK 32 l.4ESP --~ '-. ':':::~'::=~' :_: SURFACE WATER RESOURCES -= ..,: City of Voughan I _ _ _ ;)roDosea ReQlonol :'"!ooahne __uuu 'Oo,ono' F'ooo"no "','noul REGIONAL STORM ~'qnwoy 400 FLOODlINES, I o,\rr JUr'lf" 1996 FIGURE 2.03 D40 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19.1998 ATTACHMENT 3 . " . J ~ ( \ ' "~ I I ~ I ".- Or ; .-; : ' I~ ; l ._ A . ) .'1 '- I , . PBnlmount i .I '. I ! -' Coxlsaa's __ - - I , ; - WondtUfand,..-J ( .' C. I '. I /(j~woo:1 Th.a!rv!! ') I \-" ~ .-.--~ r / I I - ." ,I' ) ,j' :i '--_ ~../ " i <', C I T y. 0 F .~.-=-. 11\ '.. .' Ii:" '. I ,-..EEl \ \ l' 'L." .' .. . . . - 73 --.. ','l- IT'" l " ,_.Auih.rfG~ Rd. , I"" --if .. ! "~--:,/ 'l -- J, I "1.', :1..';:"; -' ': I } r .' ~ L' - SC HAEFFE RS 64 j:ardin Dnve Concord. Ontario L4 K JPJ . . Tel: (90S) 738-6100 . Consulting EngIneers FZlC: (905) 736.6875 Location Plan _ Tor-onto Line: (41 6)2 IJ-5590 Scale: N.T.S. ----- June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 D41 RES. #015/98 HIGHWAY 407{TRANSITWAY, MARKHAM ROAD EASTERLY TO HIGHWAY 7 EAST OF BROCK ROAD Update on work of Stakeholders Consultation Process for Rouge River and Petticoat Creek Watershed crossings by proposed Highway 407. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the discussions related to the extension of Highway 407 easterly, including initial crossing designs within the Rouge River Watershed, be received for information. . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND At meeting #5/97 of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, held June 20, 1997, the Board approved staff involvement in the Stakeholders Consultation Process to design the easterly extension of Highway 407 from Highway 48 to Highway 7 east of Brock Road. In accordance, staff have been actively involved in meetings, site visits and reviewing reports related to the design of drainage and valley/stream corridor crossings along the proposed highway. East of Highway 48, a total of 26 watercourse crossings on the Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek are required over the length of the Highway extension. To date preliminary designs have been put forward for all 26 crossings. Staff have reviewed the documents, visited the sites and provided preliminary comments for the designs put forward for crossings along the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek, but have yet to provide any formal comment on the Duffin Creek crossings. As this component of the Environmental Assessment for the Highway extension does not contain any public input, the Authority's comments to date have recognised this issue. Our comments have clearly identified that they are preliminary in nature and may change once input from the public has been incorporated. The process adopted to undertake a preliminary design for each of the crossings ensures that the Authority's watershed management objectives have been incorporated. Issues such as aquatic and terrestrial habitat, fisheries, public access, wildlife passage, flooding and valley/stream features are accounted for within the design. A table and set of design charts have been prepared for each of the crossings to establish the design criteria to be used. Using this design technique, the sizing and configuration of each crossing alternative has been discussed and a preliminary consensus reached on the general characteristics and remediation necessary for the preferred alternative for each crossing. The number of alternatives currently range from a single design for some of the minor crossings to up to four designs for the major watercourse crossings. At present, a total of six bridges and twenty culvert crossings have been put forward. Bridge crossings are located at the Rouge and Little Rouge Rivers, the West Duffin, at two unnamed tributaries of the West Duffin immediately to the east and the Urfe Creeks. A potential also exists for a bridge on one of the East Duffin tributaries east of Brock Road, however, these discussions are pending. The remaining watercourse crossings will most likely be designed as culverts of varying size to accommodate design requirements specific to each location. 042 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 The highway crosses over eight watercourses within the Rouge watershed. The principal crossings within the Rouge River watershed include the bridges for the Rouge and Little Rouge Rivers. At the Rouge River, a total of four designs have been put forward. All are bridges, the difference principally being the size of the opening and percentage of valley feature to be retained. The current proposal for the preferred alternative is to construct a 204 metre wide six span bridge which would have a bottom opening of approximately 140 metres and maintains about 70 % of the valley feature. At the Little Rouge, of three alternatives, the preferred design is a five span 188 m wide structure with a bottom opening of approximately 140 m which retains about 83 % of the valley feature. Within the Rouge, the remaining crossings are all culverts, ranging in size and type to allow for hydrologic, wildlife and fisheries design issues. One minor diversion is proposed where the highway passes almost completely over the confluence of two intermittent tributaries, Within the Petticoat watershed, the highway will cross over five small intermittent tributaries. Due to the size of the watersheds at the crossings and the vertical gradient of the highway being below or at existing grades through the watershed, several diversions are proposed, resulting in only two combined watercourse crossings remaining. Changes in the highway required to allow for passage of these minor tributaries would result in substantial changes affecting both the Little Rouge and West Duffin crossings. In addition to the determination of design criteria for the Highway crossings, the same criteria is to be used in determining the crossing requirements for the future transitway to be located along the south edge of the highway. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff of the Authority will continue to assist in the Stakeholder Consultation Process through the completion of this phase of the Highway design process. We will be meeting to discuss the remaining Duffin Creek crossings, the stormwater management designs and issues related to design criteria for the future Transitway. FINANCIAL DETAILS As noted in the communication to the Board at meeting #3/98, a financial arrangement has been agreed upon with the Ministry of Transportation to allow for continuation of work on Authority Environmental and Flood Control programs, This financial agreement allows for additional staff to continue work on these programs to offset staff time allocated to the Highway project. For information contact: Don Haley, ext. 226 June 19,1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 043 RES. #016/98 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Works undertaken 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 In 1997, the TRCA signed a three year Memorandum of Understanding to assist in implementing the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. This report provides an update on 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 activities. Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Irene Jones THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the work undertaken in conjunction with the Remedial Action Plan Memorandum of Understanding (1997) be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the staff be directed to continue the work consistent with the objectives of the TRCA and the Remedial Action Plan subject to available funding. ......................................................... CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Agreement was renewed in 1978 with the purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. In 1987, a protocol to the Agreement identitred 42 Areas of Concern (AoCs) in the Basin where one or more beneficial uses have been impaired. Of these 42 AoCs, 5 were shared between Canada and the United States in the connecting channel areas, and 12 were within the Province of Ontario. The Toronto Region is one of the largest and 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". 044 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 In the ten years since the process to develop a Remedial Action Plan for the Toronto Region commenced, a great deal of good work had been done to identify problems and suggest appropriate remedial measures. Many important implementation projects have been completed or initiated to address critical issues. In particular, projects to deal with combined sewer outfalls and habitat enhancement have been undertaken by many municipalities. Some federal and provincial support has been available to assist in these projects. However, during the ten years, there had 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 Toronto and Region. It was time for a renewed focus and emphasis on the importance of protecting and restoring the rivers and the lakeshore. The report, "Clean Water, Clear Choices" recommended Lead Implementors and Partners to address specific remedial actions. It did not, however, recommend an 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 TRCA and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust as "co-stewards". This approach reflected the growing recognition of the need to address remedial actions on a watershed basis, the Authority's experience in municipal consultation, public involvement, project implementation and the experience of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in facilitation and partnership development. The consultation process and results from the workshop confirmed that a strong base of support existed within the RAP area for the Authority and the Trust to proceed as "Co-Chairs". At the Authority Meeting #5/96 held on June 26, 1996, Resolution #A30/96 was adopted: UTHA T the staff report concerning the Authority's proposed role as Co-chair with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to implement the Metropolitan Toronto Region Remedial Action Plan be received; THA T the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and Environment Canada be advised that the Authority is prepared to accept a joint lead role for implementation of the Remedial Action Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Region provided that adequate provincial and federal resources are available; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to negotiate a suitable Memorandum of Understanding among the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOU) and submit the proposed MOU to the Executive Committee for approval. n Immediately following the direction from the Authority, staff met with representatives of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada. In late October the Memorandum was signed. June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 045 1997/1998 PROGRESS REPORT The terms of the MOU provide $250,000. shared jointly by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the TRCA to undertake specific coordination and implementation activities. In Year 1 of the 3 year agreement the WRT was to: . 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. The TRCA in Year 1 was to: . create and coordinate an action focused education/Volunteer program; . focus attention on the critical issues of stormwater 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 Etobicoke/Mimico Task Force; . establish the Humber Alliance. Despite the delays resulting from the late signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, much of the work set out in the original work plan was accomplished by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the TRCA. Education and Volunteer Proaram Funding was directed to two programs RAP on Wheels and the Yellow Fish Road. The Rap on Wheels program provides a trained environmental educator to schools on a 1/2 day basis and provides hands on watershed environmental experiences emphasizing the linkage between healthy watersheds and the Great Lakes. The Yellow Fish Road encourages volunteers to discover the linkage of stormwater to the health of the rivers through the painting of yellow fish next to storm drains. Both programs were very successful. The Rap on Wheels program in its first season of operation visited 56 classes. It is recommended that this work be continued in 1998/99. Stormwater Management In 1997 the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto initiated a Wet Weather Flow study in cooperation with the local municipalities to address the issues of stormwater management. To augment this work the TRCA, in cooperation with the headwater municipalities, is undertaking a number of investigations to document the extent and type of existing stormwater management facilities. It is recommended that this work be continued in 1998/99 046 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 and be expanded to identify opportunities for the retrofit of existing stormwater management facilities to enhance their performance. Additional locations for stormwater management facilities will be identified. Watershed Monitoring Program During 1997/98, a protocol was developed to investigate the aquatic invertebrates within the watersheds including a method for volunteers. Tested on the Don Watershed in the Fall of 1997, the preliminary analysis has revealed over 40 species. In the lower degraded areas of the watershed, only 4 species were found, In areas less impacted by urban development, up to 40 species were found. This information will be used to initiate a database that can be used in subsequent years to monitor watershed health. Etobicoke Mimico State of the Watershed Report The State of the Watershed Report was compiled over the past 18 month period, It documents in text and graphics the current health of the watershed including water quality and quantity issues, cultural and natural heritage, land uses and related themes. This State of the Watershed Report is the first phase in the development of a watershed strategy. Humber Alliance In October 1997, the Humber Alliance was established. Members include elected representatives, agency staff, business associations, interest groups and watershed residents. The Alliance will work within a framework of subwatershed committees. Priority actions for their first term include: . developing a report card to report on progress made in achieving watershed health; . implement Clean Water, Clear Choices, the report of the Metro Toronto RAP; . develop the Humber Watershed Pledge to secure support by watershed partners; . effectively communicate and educate stakeholders; . facilitate projects to protect, restore and celebrate the watershed; . pursue the designation of the Humber as a Canadian Heritage River. Among the Alliance's many implementation efforts, the Humber Report Card will be one of its main accomplishments. A process for developing the report card has been completed. A subcommittee has been established, A work plan and objectives have been identified. The subcommittee has identified a long list of indicators and is currently establishing criteria for choosing a final list of watershed indicators. Co-ordination of Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Funding Applications The TRCA provides a secretariat role for the federally funded Great Lakes 2000 program within the Toronto Region, The-applications are distributed and reviewed to ensure they meet the funding requirements prior to full review by various federal agencies and others. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The draft 1998/99 work plan includes a number of initiatives that will be carried out jointly by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the TRCA. It is anticipated that the TRCA will continue to have responsibility for a number of areas including: June 19, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 047 Community Education This provides for the continuation of the RAP on Wheels Program, and the involvement of volunteers through the Don Council, the Humber Alliance, the proposed Highland Creek and Etobicoke /Mimico Creek task forces as well as specific volunteer events providing opportunities for direct involvement in regeneration activities. Stormwater Management TRCA will continue to provide advice to headwater municipalities with respect to the evaluation of the potential to retrofit existing stormwater management facilities and related actions. This work complements the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Study. Monitorina In-field monitoring of fish communities and aquatic invertebrates will be undertaken for selected watersheds. In addition, the TRCA, with the support of the municipalities and other agencies, will address the development and streamlining of monitoring efforts with the objective of improving the information in a cost effective approach. Watershed Planning Preliminary funding has been allocated to support the development of an Etobicoke/Mimico Watershed Strategy. Materials will be developed to assist in the incorporation of Remedial Action Plan objectives into Official Plans and other policy documents. The development of the Humber Watershed Report Card will also continue. Administration Funding has been requested to continue the secretariat role in the processing and co- ordination of Great Lakes 2000 applications. FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS The implementation of the Remedial Action Plan goals and objectives are fundamentally consistent with other efforts of the TRCA. This program augments the efforts being undertaken to protect and restore the resources of the watersheds. FINANCIAL DETAILS This program is primarily funded through financial resources provided by Environment Canada and the Provincial Government. Opportunities may exist to expand the work through a variety of partnerships. The work is undertaken to the extent resources are made available, For information contact: Adele Freeman, ext. 238 048 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 RES. #017/98 PROPOSED HIGHLAND CREEK WATERSHED STRATEGY Development of a Highland Creek Watershed Strategy. Moved by: Pam McConnell Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the proposed Highland Creek Watershed Strategy be received for information; THAT staff be directed to work closely with City of Toronto staff and other agency stakeholders to develop the terms of reference for the development of the Highland Creek Watershed Strategy; THAT the terms of reference be consistent with the environmental initiatives of the former City of Scarborough; the current initiatives of the City of Toronto including the work of the Environmental Task Force and the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Study; and the implementation of the Toronto Remedial Action Plan; THAT the terms of reference include a mechanism for public involvement through the establishment of a task force or equivalent; THAT TRCA staff, in conjunction with the City of Toronto staff, proceed with the completion of the Highland Creek State of the Watershed Report and the initiation of additional studies within the Highland Creek basin to identify opportunities to address stormwater management (water quality and quantity) subject to available funding; AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be provided to members of the Scarborough Community Council. ............................................... CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1989, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommended a Greenspace Strategy to address the conservation of the Lake Ontario waterfront, the river valleys and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Greenspace Strategy identified the need for greater cooperation to achieve comprehensive natural resource management planning. The Strategy proposed, in part, that the Authority establish planning task forces for each major river watershed. The major watersheds within the TRCA's jurisdiction include the Humber, Don and Rouge Rivers, and the Etobicoke, Mimico, Highland, Petticoat, Duffins and Carruthers Creeks. In 1990, the first watershed management strategy, the Comprehensive Management Strategy for the Rouge River watershed, was adopted by the MTRCA. In 1991, the Authority initiated the development of a Don River watershed management strategy and appointed, in 1992, the 25 member Don Watershed Task Force. With the assistance of consultants and staff from a number of agencies, the Task Force developed the award winning report Forty Steps to a New Don which was adopted by the Authority in May, 1994. This report, along with Turning the Corner: The Don Watershed Report Card (1997) are June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 049 implemented, in part, through the Don Watershed Regeneration Council which consists of citizen members, persons appointed by groups with a particular interest in the Don, and representatives of the municipal councils. The Humber Watershed Strategy was initiated in 1994 with the appointment of a diverse stakeholder group to Humber Watershed Task Force. Legacy and A Call to Action were completed in 1997 and were accorded the Canadian Institute of Planners 1998 Award for Planning Excellence. The Humber Watershed Alliance, consisting of a wide diversity of stakeholders and municipal representatives, was established to assist the TRCA and others in the implementation of the strategy documents. Watershed and Waterfront Strategy development and implementation are identified in the TRCA's 1998 Business Plan. There are generally three phases to this work: Phase 1 : Development of a State of the Watershed Report which identifies the resources and resource issues; Phase 2: Development of a Watershed Management Strategy through a multi- stakeholder approach including municipal representatives and citizens of the watershed; and Phase 3: Advocacy of the watershed management strategy, including implementation and monitoring to be co-ordinated, in part, by a stakeholders alliance. The Business Plan includes the directive to complete 5 watershed strategies by 2000. This report provides an overview of work currently underway and seeks concurrence of the Authority to develop a terms of reference for the establishment of a Highland Creek Watershed Task Force in the fall of 1998, in consultation with the City of Toronto, the Town of Markham and other stakeholders. RATIONALE The development of watershed strategies specifically for the Rouge, Don, and Humber River watersheds have provided an excellent mechanism for the Authority to work closely with regional and local municipalities, other agencies and the public to further the awareness of watershed issues. While experience has been gained through the preparation of the Rouge, Don and Humber strategies, it is recognized that the development of a Highland Strategy should reflect the unique hydrologic, natural and cultural heritage and community concerns. Over the past few years a number of key background studies have been undertaken by the former City of Scarborough and the TRCA. Flood line mapping is nearing completion for the majority of the watershed. The'former'City'of Scarborough completed the Centennial Creek Subwatershed Plan which is currently in its implementation phases. An innovative pilot project to naturalize a section of Markham Branch has been undertaken by the municipality which has partnered with a local citizen group to carry out the necessary plantings. The TRCA, in partnership with the City of Toronto, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, is in the final stages of completing the draft Highland Creek 050 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 Fisheries Management Plan. A background "State of the Watershed" report, also in preparation, will provide a summary of the current status of the natural resources of the watershed and identify specific issues and potential opportunities within the Highland Creek Watershed. Prior to initiating the full public consultation component of a watershed strategy, the goal is to compile the existing information on the watershed and to augment this with specific studies to update the databases required for future analysis. The background work on the Highland Creek Watershed is rapidly approaching the point where a task force could be established to , develop a strategy comparable in scope to the work done for the Don and Humber Watersheds. The unique aspects of the Highland Creek Watershed include: . most of the watershed is found within the City of Toronto and former City of Scarborough. A small portion of the watershed is within the Town of Markham. . a provincially significant wetland - Stephenson's Swamp - just upstream of Lake Ontario. . four designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Stephenson's Swamp (# 74), Highland Forest (#75), Hague Park (# 76) and Morningside Park Forest (# 77) . one designated life science ANSI (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest) by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Highland Creek Swamp) . a number of rare flora and fauna species are present . the 102 km2 watershed is completely urbanized with approximately 81 % covered by development . the watershed community is ethnically diverse . the headwaters have been channelized while the lower parts of the system are highly natural . a flashy hydraulic system with great fluctuations in flow . a high baseflow of cold groundwater ( 20%) . lack of stormwater controls (quantity and quality) . poor water quality. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A joint workshop, attended primarily by City of Toronto and TRCA staff, was held in April of 1998 to discuss Highland Creek Watershed issues. A small steering committee was established to review the issues and assist in the development of a strategic terms of reference. TRCA staff will work with the staff of the City of Toronto, other agencies, and representatives of the Friends of Highland Creek and others to finalize this terms of reference for Fall 1998, anticipating the establishment of a task force by year end. Staff will finalize the state of the watershed report, including peer review, to ensure the report is available to coincide with the establishment of the proposed task force. Subject to available funding, TRCA staff will undertake studies to determine opportunities for stormwater management addressing data gaps identified in the Toronto Wet Weather Flow Study and to address the accelerated rates of erosion within the watershed. June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 051 FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding is provided in Account 118-30 for the completion and printing of the State of the Watershed Report. Funding for the stormwater management study is available through the Remedial Action Plan 113-64 funding (TRCA capital) to an upset limit of $30,000. Additional Partnership funding is being sought. For information contact: Adele Freeman, ext. 238 Attachment (1) 052 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 ATTACHMENT 1 -S ~ffi .Q .~~ ~ rJ) U.c Q) Q) - C/) ...... :> .~ as ~.~ $1 ?'.- c.c ~23 ."2 8~ ~ .c u U~ ...... c = ~ Q) CC6 "'0 ~ E :0::; o ro~ ~ .co - ~-- .-so ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... cr) ~ ::l J 5~ (30: wO a::I: 05 z~ <z ~S z< 0> 0:0: Ow .....(1) wZ .=8 ..6~ - - ------ E -i.~ ] ~ C;!~ ~ :sas en ~ S -"", 0 ~ ~ = o 0...,.. ~ ~ UJ'lj 3 ~ ~ ;:: ....J~,Ii; i5 \3 :J "" '-' .= > ":::! -l~Q2(/):::: ':> << <D~ June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 053 RES. #018/98 BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY - THE WEST DON 1998-2002 Proposed Five Year Regeneration Project for the Bartley Smith Greenway, Don Watershed. Moved by: Cliff Gyles Seconded by: Denzil Minnan-Wong THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Bartley Smith Greenway - Phase II March 1998 Regeneration Project be received; THAT the Phase II project be supported in principle subject to available funding; AND FURTHER THAT staff and the community be supported in their efforts to seek financial and in kind resources. ...................................... CARRIED BACKGROUND The Bartley Smith Greenway is a 15 kilometre valley corridor that follows the west branch of the Don River through the centre of the City of Vaughan. The regeneration of this valley corridor was sparked by a generous donation from the estate of Anne Bartley Smith, for whom the Greenway was named. The project was originally adopted by the Authority at Meeting #3/93 Res.#A72/93. Staff were directed at that time to pursue funding partners, and request support for the project from the City of Vaughan. ~The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto adopted the project and carried out a formal fundraising campaign which concluded in 1997. The Conservation Foundation continues to receive and receipt donations for the project. At Authority Meeting #11/96, held December 20, 1996, Resolution No. A268/96 was adopted: "THA T staff continue to pursue the linkage of the trail system through the Bartley Smith Greenway in partnership with the Province of Ontario, the City of Vaughan, other agencies and stakeholders; THA T management and trail access agreements be pursued to ensure cost efficient and effective management of the trail and lands throughout the Greenway; THA T the City of Vaughan and the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, members of the EcoPark Steering Committee and the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto be thanked for their support of this project; THA T the Rupert's Pond Concept Site be included formally in the Bartley Smith Greenway; AND FURTHER THAT new sources of funding for the project continue to be sought to realize the full potential of this corridor in contributing to the greenspace health of the Region. " ~ 054 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 In the last two years there have been a number of accomplishments: . The City of Vaughan have assumed the management for the Langstaff EcoPark, a parcel owned by the TRCA. . The City of Vaughan and various agencies are in the process of signing trail management agreements through the Highway 407 corridor. . A two hectare habitat wetland, the Keffer Marsh, centred in the Lang~taff EcoPark, was formally opened in October of 1997, as well as a 0.8 km trail link leading to the Marsh. . The design for the Rupert's Pond concept site was completed and construction begun to naturalize a tributary to the West Don providing enhanced water management and improved habitats. . The TRCA, in co-operation with the City of Vaughan, is undertaking the retrofit of a stormwater management pond north of Major Mackenzie Drive and east of McNaughton Road known as the Killian Lamar Site. In addition to the specific projects noted, TRCA and City of Vaughan staff have developed the Bartley Smith Greenway Phase II project included with this agenda package. This project identifies the past accomplishments, proposals for the next five years, documents past funding partners and proposes a $2.7 million dollar budget for the next five years. This document will be used in seeking funding from alternative sources. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Fundraising for this project remains an important component of the work to be done. Staff will work with the Langstaff EcoPark Committee, other local community leaders, and the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto to secure funds for the project. The Don Watershed Regeneration Council has pledged volunteer support to assist in a number of community outreach activities including involvement of local schools and other groups within the Vaughan Community and the establishment of riparian habitats. Staff will assist in these efforts. Design and construction of the Killian Lamar Stormwater Pond retrofit will proceed during 1998. FINANCIAL DETAilS The Don Watershed Regeneration Council has been successful in securing funds from Action 21 and MNR totalling $36,500 directed at establishing riparian"plantings in the West Don over the next two year period. June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 055 Approximately 1/3 ($312,000) of the anticipated funds of $900,000 for the 1998 work are in hand through various sources. The work in the Bartley Smith Greenway will proceed as funds become available. For information contact: Adele Freeman, ext. 238 RES. #019/98 CHESTER SPRINGS MARSH MONITORING PROGRAM To report on the Chester Springs Marsh Monitoring Program Moved by: Irene Jones Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY that the 1997 Chester Springs Marsh report dated June 19, 1998 be received; THAT staff work with the Lower Don Task Force to monitor wetland creation and restoration sites in the Lower Don; AND FURTHER THAT staff assist the Lower Don Task Force in securing funds for this project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND~ Chester Spring Marsh is a demonstration wetland in the Lower Don River. The wetland was constructed during the winter and spring of 1995/1996 by the City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department and the Lower Don Task Force. In order to determine the success of the project a long term monitoring program needed to be developed. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was asked by the Lower Don Task Force to provide assistance in developing a monitoring program for Chester Springs Marsh. The goals and objectives of the monitoring program are to: . To establish an environmental audit of the Chester Springs Marsh through a combination of professional and community based monitoring techniques. . Monitor the biological responses to the Chester Springs Marsh rehabilitation project over time, including recolonization and natural succession of fish, wildlife and plant communities. . Involve interested groups and individuals in the monitoring of the site. . Evaluate implementation techniques and make recommendations for future projects. . Provide information to signal maintenance requirements, such as the control of invasive vegetation, during the initial establishment of the biological communities in Chester Springs Marsh. The monitoring program was designed with two components, a professional monitoring program and a community monitoring program. The community component was coordinated by the Lower Don Task Force and the community was responsible for monitoring water: 056 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 quality, water levels, marsh birds and amphibians, benthic invertebrates, mapping exotic- invasive plant species, and measuring plant densities and height. The professional monitoring component was undertaken by the TRCA and included monitoring water temperature, light intensity, plant species, fish, turtles, and breeding birds. SUMMARY The 1997 monitoring program was completed successfully. A total of 192 plant species were found on the site. This represents an increase of 10% from the 151 species found during on the site in the fall of 1996 after the first summer of planting. Of the 192 plant species found 62% were native, 35.4% were exotic and, 2.6% were of uncertain origin or circumboreal species. Many of the native wetland plants planted last year are doing well and there is almost no occurrence of dog strangling vine, garlic mustard, dame's rocket, and stinging nettle all of which are invasive species found in the lower Don close to Chester Springs Marsh. Eight species of fish were found in the marsh. Seven of the fish were native and the only non- native fish was a single carp. The majority of the fish caught were minnows which are typical of oxbow ponds. Twenty-seven birds were recorded on site during the breeding season and killdeer and spotted sandpiper were confirmed breeders. Several other birds such as Black crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) and, Belted Kingfishers (Gery/e a/cyon) were all observed foraging in the marsh. The community monitored marsh amphibians using the Marsh Monitoring Program protocol deveioped by the Long Point Bird Observatory and Canadian Wildlife Service. American toads were found to be. breeding on site by the community and TRCA staff also found green frogs breeding. Several small turtles were observed on the east side of the marsh but, were too far to be identified by TRCA staff. Basking traps were set but failed to catch the turtles. It is believed these turtles are probably non-native red-eared (Trachemys scripta e/egans) sliders or eastern painted turtles (Ghrysemys picta picta). Overall, Chester Springs Marsh is progressing as planned and has become an important biological feature on the Lower Don River. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The monitoring program will be continued annually for the next two years. It is possible that the monitoring program will continue beyond this period but in a slightly modified form. FINANCIAL DETAILS For 1997, funding for this project has been identified from Environment Canada's Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and Canada Trust friends of1he Environment program. Future funding for the monitoring program is being secured by the City of Toronto and the Lower Don Task Force. For more information or a complete copy of the 1997 monitoring report contact: Tamara Chipperfield, ext. 248 June 19. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 057 RES. #020/98 METRO RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Program Update Status of Metro Rural Clean Water Program Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the 1997/98 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 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 third 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 man?lgement issues 2) reduces nutrient, bacteria and sediment loadings to the Great Lakes from within the 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, five remedial projects were completed with private landowners, all within the Humber watershed: 2 septic system repairs/replacements, 1 manure management, 1 milkhouse washwater disposal and one livestock access restriction project. As both bacteria and phosphorus loadings to watercourses have been identified as concerns within the RAP area, annual reductions in loadings for these parameters were calculated for each type of project. Through the completion of the above projects, annual reductions in loadings for bacteria and phosphorus to the Humber River and the Great Lakes Basin over 1997/98 were an estimated 3.0 X 1014 E. coli and 5.2 X 109 kg of phosphorus respectively. Given that each cow produces a raw pollutant load equivalent to roughly seven adult humans, these projects accounted for the removal of waste equal to that produced by over 300 people. Besides the environmental benefit, the Metro Rural Clean Water Program has provided great economic spin-off benefits to local contractors. In its third year of operation the program has generated approximately $101,963.60 towards local industries and contractors. For information contact: Ann Marie Weselan, ext. 323 058 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 RES. #021 /98 TORONTO BAY INITIATIVE A Living Place: Opportunities for Habitat Regeneration in Toronto Bay The Authority receive the Toronto Bay Initiative Report - A Living Place: Opportunities for Habitat Regeneration in Toronto Bay. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Pam McConnell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Bay Initiative report entitled: "A Living Place: Opportunities for Habitat Regeneration in Toronto Bay" be received; THAT staff be directed to support the Toronto Bay Initiative with the implementation of the fish and wildlife habitat regeneration efforts outlined within the Living Place report and waterfront monitoring efforts as part of reporting on the health and regeneration initiatives in Toronto Bay; AND FURTHER THAT the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the Toronto Bay Initiative be so advised. . ." . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND Over the last eighty years, changing human activities on the Toronto Waterfront have resulted in a diversity of land uses in the area. The growing community living and working around Toronto Bay is now placing increased emphasis on the health and safety of the Bay. In 1996, initiated by the Mayor's office and the local Councillor, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust facilitated the creation of a citizen and neighbourhood constituency group to focus on improving the health of the Toronto Bay ecosystem, The group entitled: Toronto Bay Initiative, focused on five issues requiring attention in the Bay area. The Initiative also established a small study group representing various government agencies, academic institutions, residents and special interest groups. They met to examine opportunities for habitat regeneration in the Bay. The five main issues identified by the Toronto Bay Initiative are: Improving water quality. Regenerating fish and wildlife habitat. Improving public access to the water. Ensuring linkages with upstream programs. Promoting public awareness and ecological literacy. In response to the objective of regenerating fish and wildlife habitat, the Living Bay Study Group was formed and produced the report: "A Living Place - Opportunities for Habitat Regeneration in Toronto Bay. This report examines the opportunities that exist to regenerate fish and wildlife habitat in the Toronto Bay area by creating new natural areas and protecting and enhancing existing ones. June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 059 The Goal developed by the Living Bay Study Group is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat within the Toronto Bay through: Identifying ecologically appropriate habitat projects that showcase active fish and wildlife habitat regeneration; Protecting and promoting the natural features of the Toronto Bay; and Improving public awareness and understanding of the ecological significance and conditions of the Bay. The Living Bay Study Group also adopted the following Objectives to guide the actions: . Improve the health and integrity of the resident fish and wildlife community in Toronto Bay. . Regenerate lost habitats including woodlands, wetlands, natural shorelines, shoals and reefs within the Bay. . Create critical habitat features for resident wildlife including shorebirds, waterbirds, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mammals. . Improve access to the Bay. . Improve aesthetics. . Provide appropriate educational and recreational opportunities. The regeneration of fish and wildlife habitat in the Toronto Bay area can be created through the strategic use of conservation design principles: to create a unique and an important habitat. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Living Place reflects the consensus of a diverse range of interests. It has mapped a number of areas where fish and wildlife habitat regeneration can take place. These are presented as concepts for habitat restoration rather than site-specific projects. With less than 3% canopy coverage, (the city-wide average is 20-25%) the North Shore of Toronto Bay can benefit from tree planting in public and private spaces and along roadways, and the naturalization of existing parklands. This will improve air quality and provide habitat for many species of wildlife. In areas where there is no discharge of stormwater or combined sewer, fish habitat can be created by placing rocks and boulders along seawalls to provide spawning and shelter structure for fish and a substrate for the growth of aquatic plants. The City of Toronto, in collaboration with the TRCA, is developing a wetland in the Spadina Gardens on the north shore of the Bay, where there was once a parking lot. As well as being a powerful symbol of habitat regeneration in a highly urbanized area, this project will provide habitat for a range of birds, fish, amphibians and invertebrates. In the Portlands, the report builds on the recommendations of the "Greening of the Toronto Portlands" report prepared by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and adopted by Toronto City Council. Habitats on the Toronto Islands could be improved in many ways. Selective tree planting could take place where existing cottonwoods have reached the end of their lives. In places where shoreline stabilization is needed, it could be done in a manner that would enhance both terrestrial and aquatic habitats by allowing for plant growth. These habitat 060 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 opportunities were incorporated into the Toronto Island Shoreline project undertaken on behalf of the Province of Ontario. Shoreline naturalization, where possible, would encourage the growth of diverse plants and shrubs including emergent vegetation. Careful grading of shorelines could provide mudflats at low water to attract shorebirds. In three specific areas, providing increased water circulation would improve local water quality. Wetlands, almost absent from the Toronto Bay area, could be created in many areas of the Islands. Habitats in the open waters of the Bay could be enhanced through the creation of underwater reefs in areas that are not used for navigation. These would provide structure for fish spawning and cover. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Toronto Bay Initiative is actively pursuing complementary funding to those of the City of Toronto, the land owner, and is establishing partnerships from the public and private sector. The focus of this effort has been directed at augmenting the wetland creation project at Spadina Quay. To this end, the Toronto Bay Initiative recently received a grant of $2,500 from the Province of Ontario under the Community Fisheries Improvement Program and a grant of $5,000 from Consumers Gas. The funding partnerships and participation by TRCA will be reported on as each regeneration project proceeds. Technical staff support and monitoring continue to be provided under our existing budgeted programs. For information contact: Gord MacPherson, ext.246 RES. #022/98 CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001 Spring bank Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Toronto Remediation of Nos. 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue gully erosion, City of Toronto. Moved by: Pam McConnell Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to complete the final design for remedial slope stabilization at 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue in accordance with the adopted management strategy; THAT the Authority budget for implementing the Project in 1999; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto-Scarborough Division and the residents of Spring bank Avenue be so advised. ................................... CARRIED June 19. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 061 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/96 held July 26,1996, Resolution #A132/96 was adopted: "THA T the Authority endorse the continuation of the Springbank Avenue Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" subject to reaching a suitable agreement with the owners, in accordance with the following management strategy: 1) design and construction of a slope buttress at the toe of slope, the installation of a free draining rubble and granular blanket, and the installation of dewatering wells in the vicinity of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue; and 2) the acquisition of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue; THA T staff be directed to proceed to implement the management strategy at a total estimated cost of $500,000 subject to confirmation of funding; THA T in light of the unsafe site conditions, staff be directed to advise the City of Scarborough and the owner that the terms of the permit issued by the Authority cannot be fulfilled and that the site should be secured; THAT staff be directed to negotiate the acquisition of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue, this being the only alternative erosion control option to address the hazard; THA T staff be directed to pursue funding opportunities with the City of Scarborough; AND FURTHER THAT the owners of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue and Metropolitan Toronto be so advised". In 1997, the Authority acquired the properties of 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue and demolished both houses and restored the sites. Because of the ongoing gully erosion, the properties were fenced off to protect the public. Due to funding requirements for other valley and shoreline erosion priorities in the City of Toronto, no remedial work has been undertaken to stabilize the gully to date. A petition, signed by the residents along Springbank Avenue, was received by Mr. Craig Mather, CAO, on March 30, 1998. The residents have expressed their concerns about the accumulations of blowing sand being eroded from the Springbank gully and are requesting the Authority to implement the remedial plans for 'stabilizing the gully. On June 11th, Authority staff met with City of Toronto-Scarborough Division staff and representatives of Councillors Brian Ashton and Gerry Altobello to review the funding status for the remedial work. The Authority has budgeted $50,000 in 1998 to undertake the final design and obtain all necessary approvals. The Authority would also be seeking other funding partners to assist with the implementation in 1999. 062 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The initiation of remedial measures at 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue will be undertaken in accordance to the procedures outlined in the Conservation Authorities' Class Environmental Assessment. Authority staff will meet with the residents along Springbank Avenue to assist in developing final plans to address the erosion. We anticipate it will take the remainder of 1998 to complete the Environmental Study Report and obtain approvals in preparation for construction in the Spring of 1999. FINANCIAL DETAilS , Funding up to $50,000 to complete the final design and obtain all approvals is available under "The City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" under Account No. 143-01. Report prepared by: Nigel Cowey, ,ext. 244 Attachments (3) June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 D63 ATTACHMENT 1 March 9, 1998 Craig Mather C.A.O.. Toronto and Region ConservatiOrT Authority. S 5horeham Drive, Downsview, ON. M3N154. Dear Mr. Mather: We. the undersigned residents of SpnngbaJ-'lk, Avenu&. ara..writing, you to request immediate- implementation of TRAC's remedial plans for the property orginally occupied by 39 and 41 5pringbank Avenue. Since the removal of both homes. we have been almost buried by enormous quantities of blowing sand. presumably up from the Sluff face. Instead of snow this winter, we have shovelled sand, almost every week. On days when the winds are high. airborne sand infiltrates our homes, rain gutters. and blankets our vehicles to the extent that when we turn on tbe blower in the car, sand comes out! This has reached a point beyond simple inconvenience, 5pringbank Avenue is a year round walkway for people heading towards the Harrison Estates and on to Rosetta McLain Gardens. We are now receiving daily negative comments on how filthy the street has become. Weekly street sweeping will be required if this situation is not remedied now. We are aware that TRAC has set aside the funds necessary and respectfully ask that the project proceed right away, Thank you for your prompt attention to thiS matter. Please direct your response to: Carole Wigington, 32 Springbank Avenue, phone: 416-690-5299, cJc . Heddy Greenwood, Birchcliff Community Association . Toronto Councillor Brian Ashton . Toronto Councillor Gerry Altobello . Bob Quinn, scarborough Division of Wastewater 064 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 J 1 une 9, 1998 ATTACHMENT 2 Signature Page: 1S+:s S~.4IV1J.'1 3f8 ~C~ ~A~O~L! w/~/N~r~J<,.J ~Z ~/~~~ ,\~ '1'\",,- ~ ~"",--"I lc ~~ ""'~) b~t\. [i,c.L.~ DIc.KINSa~ tfc ~F'R'I'-lG-eA~(c. -<Q. ... A '_ ~c :".:' V':~_. .- ~~ , , r :: A ,,,-: D I 0 E \.Jv: cBS / t R. ~ r; /tf,.^ I ,-'- "," - '-''-.... -:::_ c __ - -;c... 1'- ._ J (:!. CLt-d~:" L.c I L (~f 2~~ ~ /'r; ;l..:l'" D /9-Ve.c; Z z. 7/;(.; )J~./?J4",oI< ~.~ - 7lJ ~tu. -<1 cu.r'<4 )~ ~~ If ~~~ a-- . ~,_" _ 0-...z=,- . tc-~ I~ Id--~ ~'.'1Y-")-;W-R _!fJJC~-lJ::J; ~t. ~> l '1 _ '-) I'v" -. ~ ~~, \ ~ -<.. - -C;h .. 1.11 L ~ '- / - - - ~ ~'e- Cee:;.E. J,./i~a'j () dcA- vtJ(j I ~ L ~ . ~z-(J'r~rrr(\. ~G:: . )D Sfv/yrl~ Ave- IY/Ge ~'n J 1YJ~ TIAft1~-~ /11.11-.e.:J.lJ -< / e. ""0 (C/O AI '5 a AJ ~ f <:j ~ A/^,~~(< June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 065 ATTACHMENT 3 Signature Page: Name (Please Print) Address SiQnature !5/~ tCLr~P:rJ9-jA;e 33 {.. .J 1 L..1- fOP~ ~~. CS(L~ ~ trf):(\ z./~ 9Q.)IV~k ~"E..... C E /~ TJ{l../ Dt::- /v1.$ c oTf / 7 5;7/?/ ji/ 6 ;Y/f-/1/ I< ~....h_;~;l~z: (). 62..AJv1 <f:lrotJ .;;;I.3 sPer rf&8PnJ ~~fi::,.. ---!. \.-- \--A z...e ) ..; ...2.. \ '\ \ ~("$ _ V 00, G> O~ 1'1' 1 c H e 1< L~ '7 P ~ o-R?e,-,-< k:. .s4s.t.. ~ ~ \,0 \L.'Le<; '8 S~d-1:,.:...lv~ ~'~-}.-u.J '-- . 9" QSS ~Io S~\'eJ~L A-~ Q",--~ CrE<8iT-H 2-1"" ~ ~ ~~ \<..c~"<- \\ ~'<:'::l'a~ ~~:;~ ~jfiR<f4. PQ.it"':~e .'" <- 6 Sp-n,h",..~ PNe.- ~ ' j ~cq v&' ~r ("\ f,(' \ $ ~~"f\~J~~jL ~-; ~ -- Mv<-- i?v'/c~~ :5; S / ~ ,.c...IG; ~ /t-f/Pc- rl-c./Z:: . 066 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 RES. #023/98 LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT IN THE CITY OF TORONTO Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project (Highland Creek to Rouge River), January 1998 To obtain endorsement of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Plan and direction to submit the plan to the Ministry of Environment for approval under the Environmental Asse,ssment Act. Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan be endorsed and submitted to the Minister of Environment for approval under the Environmental Assessment Act; THAT staff be directed to prepare a "Project" based on the Concept Plan and including a funding partnership for approval by the Authority and the City of Toronto; AND FURTHER THAT staff continue with acquisition efforts to achieve the objectives of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #5/97 held on June 27, 1997, Resolution #A111/97 was adopted: "THA T 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 Community and Recreation Association, and the Office of the Greater Toronto Area be so advised." On June 1 0, 1997, the Council of the City of Scarborough adopted the following resolution concerning the Waterfront Trail and Waterfront Improvements from East Point Park to the Rouge River: June 19,1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 067 "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. n The Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project addresses the community and political desire to complete the waterfront component of the community plans and provide for safe access across CN Rail to the Scarborough shoreline between Highland Creek and the Rouge River. The Authority has set up a Working Committee to provide direction to the study team and to assist in the development of the project Terms of Reference and Environmental Assessment documents. The Working Committee is comprised of the following: TRCA Chair of Working Committee City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Department City of Toronto Planning Department City of Toronto (Scarborough) Planning and Buildings Department City of Toronto (Scarborough) Recreation, Parks and Culture Department City of Toronto (Scarborough) Works and Environment Department Councillor Ron Moeser Scarborough Highland Creek (City of Toronto) Councillor Frank Faubert Scarborough Highland Creek (City of Toronto) Steve Gilchrist MPP, Scarborough East John McKay MP, Scarborough East Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District Waterfront Regeneration Trust Rouge Park Alliance West Rouge Community Association (2 members) Centennial Community & Recreation Assoc. (2 members) Port Union Community Homeowners Assoc. Ken Morrish The Working Committee has met ten times to review the existing conditions of the shoreline, identify all stakeholders to the Project and potential issues that will need to be resolved through the Environmental Assessment, assist with the public meetings, and comment on the proposed Terms of Reference and Draft Environmental Assessment. The Authority has initiated the Environmental Assessment process which includes discussions with all stakeholders and members of the public, and the development of a Terms of Reference. To date. two public meetings have been held to present and discuss the project Terms of Reference, and two further public meetings have been held to discuss the project Environmental Assessment and to evaluate the project-alternatives. Discussions revolved around issues, concerns and preliminary shoreline design alternatives. The Authority has received a great deal of support from the local community associations and members of the public for the timely implementation of the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project. 068 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 Other approvals are required for the related land acquisition strategy (discussions with MNR for their crown land and with CN in regard to the designation of some of their lands as surplus, appraisals), for an Authority project incorporating a funding partnership based on 1/3 federal, 1/3 provincial and 1/3 municipal, and for a fisheries compensation plan where the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's Defensible Methods Model is used to estimate the level of compensation required under the "no net loss" policy of the Fisheries Act. The Authority hired Shoreplan Engineering Limited to undertake a Detailed Design Study for the shoreline improvements from Highland Creek to the Rouge River, paying specific attention , to the stretch of shoreline from Highland Creek over to just east of the Port Union Village Common. The Authority also retained Totten Sims Hubicki Associates for a component of the Detailed Design Study to ensure that the shoreline improvements works are integrated with the work already completed by Totten Sims Hubicki on behalf of the City of Scarborough for the Village Common and the implementation of the Community Plan. The Detailed Design Study incorporated the Authority's expertise in the aquatic and terrestrial components. In the Fall of 1997, the Authority was given direction by the Ministry of Environment to pursue a full individual Environmental Assessment. The first task was to develop a proposed Terms of Reference for the project, which provided descriptions of the project location, the proposed undertaking, the existing environment, the potential effects of the environment, the five different waterfront corridor design options, and the process for consulting with the public and developing the full environmental assessment study. Two public meetings were held to discuss the proposed Terms of Reference and to gather information about public issues, concerns and preferences for the waterfront corridor. The proposed Terms of Reference was submitted to the Ministry of Environment on January 19, 1998. It was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights for a 30 day public review period until March 19, 1998, and underwent a concurrent government agency review. Two public comments on the proposed Terms of Reference were received by the Ministry of Environment, both in support of the process. The main issues that were identified through the public consultation process were: . development of a multi-use trail system with water access; . maintain and provide wildlife habitat; . provide adequate access to the trail; . safety of trail users; . provide adequate parking facilities to minimize parking on neighbourhood streets; . prevention of trail and sediment erosion from wave and wind erosion; . include the historical context into trail design and 'interpretation; and . how lakefilling will have an impact upon the current natural processes. The proposed Terms of Reference have been forwarded to the Minister of the Ministry of Environment for his approval. Approval by the Minister was granted on June 9, 1998 (see attached approval). June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 069 The Environmental Assessment study process was initiated once the proposed Terms of Reference was submitted for approval. Two public meetings were held for the purpose of having members of the community evaluate the five proposed waterfront corridor design alternatives and identify a preferred option. Concurrently, meetings were held with representatives from government agencies. Ministry of Natural Resources staff provided input on the five waterfront alternatives, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans began evaluating the potential impact of the project on fisheries habitat by running data through their Defensible Methods Model. The five alternatives were: Alternative 1 - Do Nothing (existing conditions) Continue with acquisition of land at Chesterton Shores . Public access to the waterfront at Chesterton Shores and GO Station . Parkettes available for public use along Chesterton Shores . No safe and appropriate access from the community to the Highland Creek trail (west side of Highland Creek) and westerly sections of the Waterfront Trail Alternative 2 - Minor Modifications/Expansion of Existing Land base . Develop pedestrian node at the foot of Port Union Road and tunnel from Village Common . Bank stabilization at Chesterton Shores to maintain existing land base . Trail alignment to be north of the CN Rail lines . Continue acquisition of land at Chesterton Shores and pedestrian node (Port Union Rd) . Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement . Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles . Fencing and signage to stop unsafe crossing of the rail lines . Lakefilling necessary to carry out this alternative Alternative 3a - Waterfront Corridor South of CN Rail Lines from Highland Creek to the East Side of Chesterton Shores . Develop pedestrian node at the foot of Port Union with pier/Viewing platform . Pedestrian access from Port Union community to the shoreline, south of the CN Rail via two pedestrian tunnels from Highland Creek to the east side of Chesterton Shores . Shoreline protection from Highland Creek to the east side of Chesterton Shores . Waterfront park connecting Highland Creek to the Rouge River, south of the CN Rail lines from Highland Creek to the east side of Chesterton Shores . Trail continues along Lawrence Avenue from the east side of Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River . Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement . Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles . Lakefilling necessary to carry out this alternative 070 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 Alternative 3b - Waterfront Corridor South of CN Rail Lines from Highland Creek to Rouge River . This alternative does not require the placement of groynes between Chesterton Shores and the Rouge River - this will cost less and disturb a smaller area of existing natural habitat while still providing a continuous waterfront park south of CN Rail . Waterfront trail connecting Highland Creek to the Rouge River, south of the CN Rail lines . Develop pedestrian node at the foot of Port Union with pier/viewing platform . Pedestrian access from Port Union community to the shoreline, south of the CN Rail via two pedestrian tunnels . Shoreline protection . Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement . Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles . Lakefilling necessary to carry out this alternative Alternative 3c - Waterfront Corridor South of CN Rail Lines from Highland Creek to Rouge River . Develop pedestrian node at the foot of Port Union with pier/viewing platform . Pedestrian access from Port Union community to the shoreline, south of the CN Rail via two pedestrian tunnels . Shoreline protection along length of shoreline (includes groynes in from of Chesterton Shores) . Waterfront park with trail connecting Highland Creek to Rouge River, south of the CN Rail lines . . Terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement . Access for emergency and maintenance vehicles . Lakefilling necessary to carry out this alternative The preferred concept for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project was developed through a project evaluation process involving members of the public, local politicians, and staff from governing agencies such as MNR, MOE and TRCA. The Working Committee provided guidance and input into what the local community would like to see in terms of waterfront improvements, and assisted with the evaluation and selection of the preferred alternative. Technical studies were undertaken to better understand the existing conditions in the study area and to determine the potential effects that the proposed undertaking might have on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments. Public and agency consultation was a critical component of the evaluation and selection of the preferred alternative. The public evaluation process involved providing public presentations about the project alternatives, and gathering information from the pub1ic in the form of worksheets which identified their preferred waterfront concept. The third Port Union public meeting was held on March 4, 1998 as part of the Environmental Assessment study process, to provide to the public the different waterfront design concepts, have them evaluate the different alternatives, and choose their preferred design. The evaluation criteria which was provided to the public was developed from issues identifie~ at June 19,1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 071 previous Port Union waterfront meetings and Working Committee meetings, through discussions with government agency staff, and from researching previous government commitments to the Port Union area. On a worksheet, people were asked to rank how important the following criteria were to them: . safety; . natural environment; . access to the waterfront; . recreational use; . enhancement of Port Union waterfront community character; . linkage with Lake Ontario waterfront corridor; . time frame (of construction); . costs of the project; and . attractiveness to visitors. They were then requested to compare the five alternatives, and indicate how each of the different alternatives were satisfied by the criteria. As of April 14, 1998, a total of 98 completed surveys were returned to the TRCA. The returned worksheets identified that the public placed a high priority on safety, the natural environment, full access to the waterfront and a multi-use tail system. The criteria that identified as a low priority include the time that it takes to implement the project, attractiveness to visitors, and the cost of the project. In total, 68% of survey respondents are in favour of implementing Alternative 3c, derived from the ISMP map 8.3. There were also 35 letters received from members of the general public outlining their preferred waterfront design. The majority of these support alternative 2 with modifications, maintaining the beach at Highland Creek for use by clothing optional sunbathers. A technical evaluation of the alternatives was undertaken from aquatic, coastal and terrestrial perspectives, The terrestrial perspective includes plants and wildlife which may be impacted, the aquatic perspective primarily addresses fish and fish habitat, and the coastal perspective addresses how the shoreline modifications will affect such things as sediment transport and wave erosion rates. The technical evaluation identified that the preferred alternative for waterfront improvements is Alternative 3b, which is similar to Alternative 3c but without the groyne structure along the Chesterton Shores shoreline. RATIONALE The preferred waterfront concept is based upon Alternative 3b, a continuous waterfront corridor between Highland Creek and the Rouge River, but without the groyne protection along the Chesterton Shores shoreline (see map fold-out for details). This concept provides the waterfront amenities that the public prefers, but reduces the footprint of the project and the impact upon fisheries habitat. 072 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19, 1998 The preferred waterfront concept includes a 3.6 km meandering trail along the Port Union shoreline between Highland Creek and the Rouge River. The features of the preferred waterfront corridor include a series of headlands, or promontories, with cobble beaches between them. A pedestrian node will be created at the foot of Port Union Road, linked to the proposed Port Union Village Common by a tunnel. A secondary pedestrian connection is proposed for the west side of the Port Union Village Community. On this node there will be a pier jutting into Lake Ontario and an observation tower, with t~e opportunity to build an interpretive centre. Along the corridor there will be extensive areas of native vegetation, providing habitat for coastal wildlife and migratory birds. The preferred Concept Plan was selected because the concept: . is consistent with the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay), which identifies the Port Union shoreline as a concept site and provides management recommendations; . is consistent with the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan (City of Toronto) and the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Plan (City of Toronto), which promotes public use of the waterfront and guides the development and management of waterfront lands; . is consistent with the City of Scarborough Official Plan and Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan. The secondary plan provides for a unique residential waterfront community linked to an enhanced waterfront with recreational opportunities; . fulfills the objectives of the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy as developed by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust; . addresses safety concerns with regard to unsafe rail crossing, as identified by CN and members of the public; . has been endorsed by the general public at four public meetings as evidenced by the substantial number of positive comments received; and . can be easily constructed in phases, to allow implementation to proceed according to the status of funding and property acquisition. The implementation of the preferred Port Union waterfront improvement concept will be undertaken in two phases: Phase I (Stages I & II) and Phase II (Stages III & IV). Stage 1 and Stage 2 both focus on project construction between Highland Creek and Chesterton Shores. Stage 3 and Stage 4 focus on the section of shoreline from Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Prior to implementing the Project, the Authority requires the following actions to be undertaken: . submit EA for pre-consultation to the MOE and other commenting agencies; . project development - includes securement of funding commitments with approval by the City of Toronto/TRCA; . June 19, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 073 . seek approval under the Environmental Assessment Act: Ontario Ministry of Environment (once the Environmental Assessment study is submitted, a decision should be made within four months) in accordance with their service delivery guidelines; . seek approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Transport Canada) and the Fisheries Act (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), including the completion of a fisheries compensation agreement; . seek approval under the Public Lands Act (Ministry of Natural Resources); . continue to negotiate for the acquisition of private lands; . confirmation of a partnership agreement between the Federal Government, Province of Ontario, City of Toronto and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project; and . preparation of detailed designs for Phase I - Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores. FINANCIAL DETAILS Total costs for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Concept Plan have been estimated at approximately $12,000,000, in 1998 dollars, to be applied toward the completion of land creation and protection, landscaping, fisheries compensation, a pedestrian underpass, and trail construction. The estimated costs will be further refined when detailed designs of the waterfront corridor have been produced and during the preparation of the "Project" document and funding partnership, Funding for the project is being pursued from the three levels of government - 1/3 federal, 1/3 provincial and 1/3 municipal, on a two phase approach. Phase I funding will implement the construction of the waterfront corridor from Highland Creek to the east side of the Port Union node (Chesterton Shores). Phase II funding will implement the full build out of the project, Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River. Details of a funding partnership will be incorporated into the "Project" to be forwarded at a later date for Authority and City of Toronto approval. The cost of undertaking the environmental assessment was approved in the 1998 City of Toronto budget under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999 in the City of Toronto, and is in the Authority account #223-10. Report prepared by: Kristin Geater, ext. 316 For information contact: Larry Field, ext. 243 Attachments (2) 074 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June ~9, 1998 ATTACHMENT 1 Ministry MinlSt.,. ~ otthe de Environment J'Environnement MlnLStre lR? U: u WlE /DJ MinISter Onl.no 135 Sl. ClaJr Avenue West 135. avenue Sl. ClaJr ouest Surte 100 Bureau 100 Toromo ON M4V 1 P5 Toronto ON M4V IP5 JUN 12 1998 M. T. R. c. A. 611 78 May 29, 1998 Mr. L. Field Watershed Management Division The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4, Dear Mr. Field: This is to advise that, as set out in the attached approval, I have approved your proposed Terms of Reference for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment with respect to the proposed Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project. As required by subsection 6.1(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, your environmental assessment must now be prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference. While the approval of your Terms of Reference provides additional certainty to your ., - environmental assessment decision-making process, it does not secure approval of the undertaking. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is responsible for fulfilling the commitments outlined in the Terms of Reference and providing the appropriate level of quality regarding the future work to be completed. Should you wish to vary significantly from your approved Terms of Reference, in preparing your environmental assessment you will need to submit a new/amended Terms of Reference for the Minister's consideration. In the event of any uncertainty in this regard, you should consult with the Ministry of the Environment through the Ministry's Environmental Assessment 'Branch. ~~' w,~~ Norman W. Sterling Minister Enclosure June 19.1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 075 ATTACHMENT 2 XNVIRO~AL ASSBSSlIIINT ACT ... SBCT:ION 6 (4 ) APPROVAL 01" 'rDKS 01" RBFBRBNCB 1"oa 'rBB PREPAIlAT:ION 01" AN BNVIRONMEN'l'AL ASSBSSHBN'r RE: Proponent: The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Undertaking: Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project EA File No.: CA-MT-02 As provided for by section 6(4) of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Terms of Reference, as submitted for approval to the Ministry of the Environment on January 29, 1998, to govern the preparation of an environmental assessment for the above-noted undertaking, are hereby approved. Pursuant to subsection 6.1(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, any environmental assessment for the above- noted undertaking, submitted to the Ministry of the Env~ronment pursuant to subsection 6.2(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, must be prepared in accordance with the Terms of Reference as hereby approved. Dated at Toronto this ---SIl.-- day of 9:L,,,, , , 199 <{ tI 7kr... ?if ~~ .Minister .of .the -Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West 15th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V lP5 D76 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #2/98 June 19,1998 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11 :45 a.m., on June 19, 1998. Lorna Bissell Craig Mather Chair Secretary-Treasurer /md ~ , THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Page D77 . The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/98, was held in the North Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 1 B, 1998. The Vice Chair, Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. PRESENT David Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member lIa Bossons ............................................................... Member Irene Jones ............................................................. Vice Chair Pam McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Jim McMaster .,...."......................,."........................... Member Richard O'Brien. . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . . . . . , , , , . . . . . . . , . . . , , , , . . . , . . . . . . Chair, Authority REGRETS Lorna Bissell ..,.,..,........"............,................................. Chair Cliff Gyles. . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Denzil Minnan-Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Maja Prentice. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Mike Tzekas . . . ,', . . . , , . . . . . . , , , , . . . . . . . . . . , . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Member RES.#D24/98 - MINUTES Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Jim McMaster THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/98, held on Friday, June 19,1998, be approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#D25/98 - FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES PREVENTATIVE WORKS PROGRAM Staff have prepared a list of prioritized maintenance works for Authority flood control structures which fall under the Preventative Works category of the Provincial budget process. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow 078 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report and the attached list 'of preventative maintenance works for Flood Control Structures be received for information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority has been involved in the construction of flood control works such as dams, channels and dykes since the development of the first Plan for Flood Control developed in 1959. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has constructed 29 facilities directly related to providing flood protection over the last 38 years and also owns facilities related to flood protection dating back to the original four Authorities prior to amalgamation in 1957. As a principal component of the Authority's core business since its inception, the Authority has traditionally defined annual budgets related to regular and major maintenance associated with our flood control infrastructure. The funding related to these operations was historically based upon a funding formula of 50 percent Municipal and 50 percent Provincial. The regular maintenance budget was based upon an relatively uniform annual amount related to normal everyday operational and maintenance needs. The Authority prepared and submitted a listing of major maintenance sites on an annual basis for funding consideration under the flood control capital provincial grant. With the Provincial cutbacks, the Province decided to no longer fund the Flood Control Capital component of the Conservation Authorities programs including both the capital and major maintenance items. Discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources related to major maintenance did however result in the development of a separate funding category defined as Preventative Maintenance, which recognised certain levels of maintenance which should remain funded. The general criteria required to be considered for Preventative Maintenance is to show that the works were required within some repetitive time frame not necessarily on an annual basis, Works such as replacement of machinery, maintenance of flood gates or sediment removal from flood channels falls within this category. In keeping with past practices of developing a five year Major Maintenance Program, the Authority is bringing forward a five year Preventative Maintenance Program to define the works and priority for those types of works which fall under this Provincial 50 percent funding category. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The listing of Preventative works, their location, required maintenance and approximate cost is attached to this communication as Table 1. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Provincial component of the funding required to undertake these works will be requested on an annual basis1hrotlgh -the-Provineial funding process:-rhe-Municipal component has and will continue to be defined through the Authority's Operating Budget. Report prepared by: Don Haley, extension 226 For information contact: Don Haley extension .226 or Jim Tucker extension 247 Date: September 3, 1998 Attachment (1) September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 079 Attachment 1 Table 1 Flood Control Structure Preventative Maintenance 1998 Priority SUe Watercourse Type of Inspected Maintenance Structure Required 1 Hoggs Hollow Don River Concrete/Gabion June 1998 SedimentNegetation channel Removal 2 Woodbridge Humber River Rip-Rap and June 1998 Erosion Control Concrete drops 3 Pickeringl Ajax Duffin Creek Oyke's June 1998 Erosion Control 4 Long Branch Etobicoke Crk. Gabion channel June 1998 Erosion Control 5 G. Ross Lord Don River Concrete-earthen June 1998 - Minor concrete Dam Dam repairs - Caulking joints 6 Claireville Oam Humber River Concrete-earthen June 1998 Concrete repairs Dam 7 Jane/Rockcliffe Black Creek Concrete channel June 1998 Vegetation removal 8 Jane/Wilson Black Creek Concrete channel June 1998 Vegetation removal 9 Oak Ridges E, Humber R. Earth channel June 1998 Oebris removal 10 Bolton Humber River Oykejearth June 1998 Erosion control diversion channel 11 Oixie/Oundas Little Armour stone June 1998 Debris removal Channel Etobicoke Crk. channel 12 Malvern Highland Crk. Concrete channel June 1998 Erosion control 13 Tyndall Nursing Little Concrete wall June 1998 Debris removal Home Etobicoke Crk, 14 Derry/Airport Mimico Creek Gabion channel June 1998 Vegetation removal 15 Brampton Etobicoke Crk. Concrete channel June 1998 Sediment removal D80 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 RES.#D26/98 - HIGHWAY 407/TRANSITWAY, MARKHAM ROAD EASTERLY TO HIGHWAY 7 EAST OF BROCK ROAD Update on work of Stakeholders Consultation Process for the Duffin Creek Watershed crossings by proposed Highway 407. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT the staff report on the discussions related to the extension , of Highway 407 easterly, including initial crossing designs within the Duffin Creek Watershed be received for information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND At meeting #5/97, of the Watershed Management Advisory Board, held June 20, 1997, the Board approved staff involvement in the Stakeholders Consultation Process to design the easterly extension of Highway 407 from Highway 48 to Highway 7 east of Brock Road. As follow up to that communication, staff brought forward a report detailing the results of the process within the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek watersheds to meeting # 2/98 of the Watershed Management Advisory Board held June 19, 1998. Since the June 19,1998 meeting, staff have continued to be actively involved in meetings, site visits and r~viewing reports related to the design of drainage and valley/stream corridor crossings along the proposed highway. Within the entire length of proposed roadway east of Highway 48, a total of 26 watercourse crossings on the Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and Duffin Creek are required. To date preliminary designs have been put forward for all 26 crossings. Staff have reviewed the documents, visited the sites and provided preliminary comments for the designs put forward for all crossings. As noted in our previous report to the Board, this component of the Environmental Assessment for the Highway extension does not contain any public input. As such, the Authority's comments to date have noted this issue and have clearly identified that the comments are preliminary in nature and may change once input from the public has been incorporated. The Stakeholders Consultation Process (SCP) adopted to undertake the preliminary design for crossings ensures that the Authority's watershed management objectives have been incorporated. Issues such as aquatic and terrestrial habitat, fisheries, public access, wildlife passage, flooding and Valley/stream features are accounted for within the design. A table and set of design charts have been prepared for each of the crossings to establish the design criteria to be used. Using this design technique, the sizing and configuration of each crossing alternative has been discussed and a-preliminary~nsensus-reached on-the general characteristics and remediation necessary for the preferred alternative for each crossing. The number of alternatives currently range from a single design for some of the minor crossings to up to four designs for the major watercourse crossings. At present, a total of six bridges and twenty culvert crossings have been put forward as the initial crossing types along the length of the highway, with thirteen watercourse crossings within the Duffin Creek watershed. September 18. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORYBOARO #3/98 081 As the highway enters into the Duffin watershed, the most. easterly tributary of the Petticoat Creek (drainage area 13.5 HA) will be diverted to the West Duffin Creek due to the vertical alignment of the highway. Restrictions related to highway needs precludes the maintaining of the existing drainage pattern for this small area. The crossing of the West Duffin Creek, south of the community of Green River, will require a bridge as will the small tributary immediately to the east. Two proposed alignments have been put forward, with staff supporting the more northerly alignment at this stage as it avoids the Whitevale Corridor ESA. The current design alternatives for bridge types are similar for both the North and Southerly alignments, with a 140-146 m four span structure-being proposed. The bridge structure over the tributary immediately east of the West Duffin Creek will be a two span 51 m structure. A bridge is also proposed at the crossing of the Urfe Creek tributary west of Brock Road. The need for a further bridge crossing east of Brock Road at Brougham Creek is still under discussion, staff have concerns that the proposed triple cell culvert crossing may not maintain the ecological and public use functions at this valley corridor. It is anticipated that the option of both a bridge and a culvert type crossing will be brought forward to the public to obtain more input. The remaining 10 crossings are proposed to be concrete box culverts of varying sizes. In addition to the determination of design criteria for the Highway crossings, the same criteria is to be used in determining the crossing requirements for the future transit way to be located along the south edge of the highway. The issue of stormwater management treatment for both the highway and transitway facilities has also been determined through this phase of the project. The level of treatment required for the highway/transitway was based upon the Authority's specific criteria for the watersheds through which the Highway traverses. Runoff from the entire length of highway will be treated through either formal pond facilities or through vegetated swales. The majority of the highway and transitway facilities will be treated through ponds with only smaller sections of roadway utilizing the swale treatment types. Innovative techniques related to an attempt to reduce thermal impacts on receiving watercourses will also be incorporated watercourses where temperature will be a fisheries concern. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff of the Authority will continue to assist in the Stakeholders Consultation Process through the completion of this phase of the Highway design process. With the completion of the predesigns at each crossing and the determination of the stormwater treatment scheme along the highway, a meeting to present the findings and receive input from the municipal participants of the SCP is still 'required. The SCP will also continue through the public consultation process, preliminary design, final design and construction. The Authority's role within the SCP will also continue to ensure our interests related to an ecosystem approach to the design, construction and restoration are incorporated. FINANCIAL DETAILS As noted in the communication to the Board at meeting #2/98, a financial arrangement has been agreed upon with the Ministry of Transportation to allow for continuation of work on Authority Environmental and Flood Control programs. This financial agreement allows for additional staff to continue work on these programs to offset staff time allocated to the Highway project. D82 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 1 B, 199B For information contact: Don Haley, extension 226 Date: September 3, 1998 RES.#D27 198 - HUMBER WATERSHED REPORT CARD Status report on the Humber Watershed Report Card. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the work plan for the Humber Watershed Report Card be approved; THAT the draft purpose statement, objectives, indicator selection criteria and preliminary short list of indicators be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT the final Humber Watershed Report Card be brought forward to the Authority for approval when completed .................................. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance Terms of Reference identifies, as a priority item, the need to develop a watershed report card to identify the progress made in implementing the objectives of "Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber." The Humber Watershed Report Card Subcommittee was formed on April 1, 1998 and is well on its way toward the development of a Humber Watershed Report Card. Efforts have focused on: finalizing a work plan; . defining the purpose and objectives of the report card; . identifying indicator selection criteria; and, . identifying a preliminary short list of indicators. A copy of this information is attached for further reference, The subcommittee assessed 273 indicators against the selection criteria and identified a preliminary list of indicators for further review. Through this process, the subcommittee has also been collecting relevant background information on similar initiatives which include: . The Don Report Card; . - The Fraser Basin-Report-Card; . The Regional Municipality of Peel's State of the Environment Reports on Water, Land and Atmosphere; . Durham Region's State of the Environment Poster Map; and . The Regional Municipality of York's Report Card process. The Region of York is in the preliminary stages of developing a report card to measure the effectiveness of its Official Plan policies, September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 083 In order to proceed with the next stage of the report card process, the Humber Watershed Alliance, at its meeting on July 21, 1998, adopted the following resolution: '7HA T the work plan for the Humber Watershed Report Card be approved; THA T the draft purpose statement, objectives, indicator selection criteria and preliminary short list of indicators be received for information; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to organize expert workshops and public meetings to help develop a set of indicators for the Humber Watershed Report Card. " DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In order to identify which indicators are essential for measuring the health of the watershed, the following activities need to take place: . Experts' Workshop will be held throughout the summer to further refine the list of indicators. . a series of public meetings will be held to gain public input on the short list of indicators. . approval of the short list of indicators by the Humber Watershed Alliance. . identify targets. The Subcommittee anticipates that the final list of indicators will not be finalized until November 1998. At that time, a special meeting of the Alliance may be necessary to approve the final list of indicators. Once the final list of indicators has been approved, the necessary research, writing and presentation of the information will begin. FINANCIAL DETAILS Authority staff will provide technical support to assist in the Experts' Workshop, public meetings and in the preparation of the draft document. Additional external funds will be sought to produce the final document. For information contact: Gemma Connolly, extension 202 Date: September 3, 1998 Attachments (3) D84 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 1 B, 199B Attachment 1 HUMBER WATERSHED REPORT CARD DRAFT PURPOSE STATEMENT AND QBJECTIVES Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Humber Report Card is to monitor and report the health of the ecosystem of the Humber River watershed. Objectives: 1. Identify indicators and targets that will monitor the health of the Humber River watershed. 2. Assess and report progress toward the implementation of the recommendations of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber. 3. Promote community awareness of the health needs of the watershed. 4, Provide the basis for future management priorities in achieving and sustaining the health of the watershed. 5. Provide information that contributes to other reporting needs such as the Remedial Action Plan objectives for delisting the Toronto Area of Concern and the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board for maintaining a Canadian Heritage Rivers designation. September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 085 Attachment 2 HUMBER WATERSHED REPORT CARD LONG LIST OF INDICATORS DRAFT SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Is the indicator essential to the Humber Watershed Alliance objectives for achieving and sustaining a healthy watershed? 2. Is the indicator an integrative indicator, which can be used in a number of categories to assess the environmental health of the watershed? 3. Are there reasonable data sources available for the indicator? It is recognized that not all indicators will have a data or information source available. This does not preclude them from being included in the analysis. 4. Will you be able to set clear targets for the indicator? It was identified that not all indicators will have clear targets. This does not preclude them from being included in the analysis. 5. Is the indicator understandable for the target audiences? 6. Does the indicator contribute to other agencies' reporting needs for assessing the health of the watershed? This is particularly important with the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board nomination and the RAP objectives for delisting the Toronto Area Waterfront as an Area of Concern. 7. Is the indicator credible and defensible? This is particularly important in some indicator categories where you have to measure biochemical parameters. It was recognized that some indicators may not be scientifically defensible. 086 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18,1998 Attachment 3 ~ 13. .. '" ~.. . ~ ~ i- - - .. -.--...- Ii Ii _ ~ ~ ~ ~T _ ~'" ~I~ 1&::': g: g: ~ ] f~ - -- - i----- - << L C .\A '= mOt m ~ >>, .. Q)CJ)O'J ~' g I~~I~ t!..~ .!!:t ::I ::I r~'. ~ ~ i:; ~/.. - ,-" !i,Q,: - - _. -.- 0 - - . - - - - - - - ~. I~ ~ }.I':, Ii i 4 t i ~ : .' 2 ~ ..,8.' - -- f~ - iij ~,~A ~ ; .:. :g ; 0 c! tOCDk.Q C ". a'I en ... E - i.. 15 D .. " ~ I~u~~ ~ '&I, WtnQZ ;; f~ - ----- ----- - .. l .'- "!l' _ i ~ I~ I ~ ~ II T:' - - - - - - .;; ~ - - - - .. .. -.. - - - - - -. - - - I CD<<)<<J a:HO~ ~ ~~$ ~~: :;!~' ~NN NNC .~ ..:; ~ I:; "I; ~'__~;!1 _~~o!!._ ____.___ _u____ \ IF:, ~ -~- /'Ji~ '" I 1 i~~. ~ ! I ~..::~ ~i<~ _! ______ _ . 0 f ~ ~_ (~, 5 1!l; J: fit: ~ ~ !! i I~ ~ I WI w~g c: .:.:::1 ,; ';l!!I~iO~rl IE ~:5 ; ~ SEa !! ~ .ol~ ~ ~ I 2~:~8~!~ ~1'I t. ': : ~ ; ~ ~ g a ~ G ~ g : = . .~ i G I; ; i -; ~ 8 ~ i E ~ ~ ~ e , - ~-~ I~O=.."w~ ~~ e" 10=.. ..~ Co! II g ~ I~ it < ~~j_ s 0 RI E U Ii ~ c: l ~ ~B~~a ~~g ~~ sne8g ~~= : ~" 8~~ ~ f!~Ef:"~~ ~~~.; O~~ CftY n<I'IO. o~~g~g...o e~~~< ~!~ ':. -.~ ti 0 c: ., g Ii (5 ~ rI 0 Ifl g 'ii 0 - 'Vag !! ... '0 J '"'.~ e-~"t: !'!-.ci;~~I~> ue5<..t: ~-a~ ~ ;!3 .2~i.e~I~ ~~-w;!:~~~o ~~~I~ i!~i ft~ G~oG. __~- ~-~ ~12MI~ti cu., -= ~:"'''~~:; ..o5.E~~plgN ..,.1:13;;;;; :.;~c- . ~ " - to: II DO" .. ;;;1 ~ .~ .. .. S .c .. i:!1~ n -= .. .. ro D :. u'S: . E $ !:f 0 II . .= I~ ~ -= l::: u ~ U . N I ~ ;; ~! . 15" "O=E~~i- : EEaU!~~ ::u=u ;E~u ..r. :~.co!!Sul~ ~~uu.cI~::J~= .c"zu=~ .cO-a:_ . ~~~UC~O~ ~~~~~W~>< ~~X~I~ ~U~~ ,J(. September 1 8, 1998 WA TERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 087 RES.#D28/98 - TAYLOR MASSEY CREEK REGENERATION IN TERRAVIEW PARK AND WILLOWFIELD GARDENS PARK The Terraview Park and Willowfield Gardens Park Regeneration Project be allocated $50,000 through the Toronto Remedial Action PIaJ:llmplementation Program. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Taylor Massey Creek Regeneration Project Phase 1, Terraview Park be allocated $50,000 in support of the Project; THAT staff be directed to continue to assist the City of Toronto throughout the implementation; AND FURTHER THAT a similar level of funding be allocated for Phase 2 1999, subject to available funding and that the regeneration concepts remain unaltered ........ CARRIED BACKGROUND Taylor/ Massey Creek is one of the four tributaries of the Don River. The Report of the Don River Watershed Task Force entitled Forty Steps to a New Don outlines a strategy for the regeneration of the Don River Watershed. Included in that report were a number of concept sites designed and promoted to demonstrate regeneration opportunities and methods within this heavily urbanized watershed. The Terraview Park and Willowfield Gardens Park project is one of the original concept sites identified, Implementation of this site has long been awaited by members of the community and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. The site consists of a 0.6 km section of concrete lined watercourse which traverses manicured parkland and schoolyards. In the 1950's, the watercourse was straightened and channelized resulting in the loss of headwater wetland and riparian habitat. Water quality samples taken by the former City of Scarborough from the outfalls discharging into this section of Massey Creek have indicated concentrations of suspended solids, nutrients and faecal coliform bacteria in excess of the Provincial Guidelines for Recreational Water Quality. RATIONALE The objectives for the project include water quality improvement, stormwater management, enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, improved recreational facilities and provision of , education opportunities. The project includes the following features: . removal of-the-edsting conerete channef-of-Massey Creek . construction of naturalized creek reaches . construction of a plunge pool, two wetlands with small islands, and a innovative peat bog for water quality improvement and habitat enhancement . widening of the floodplain to provide additional stormwater storage . installation of oll\sediment separators In the storm sewer system for water quality improvement . construction of a regulation soccer field with a subsurface stormwater filter system 088 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 . construction of a playground and water play area . construction of walking trails . plantings to enhance the habitat and site aesthetics . construction of outdoor classroom/monitoring pods . disposal of excess excavated material at the rear of the Toronto District School Board property located on the north side of Terraview Park, re-Iandscaping of the area, and the construction of a softball diamond. The final design (available at the meeting) is the result of a multi-displinary steering committee led by the City of Toronto, supported by the TRCA which included representatives from the Terraview Willowfield Community School Council. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The design will be implemented by the City of Toronto in two phases. Phase 1 (Terraview Park) in 1998 and Phase 2 (Willowfield Garden) in 1999. FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated base costs of construction, project management, surveys are estimated at $675,000. The City of Toronto are providing $600,000 for capital construction in 1998. The contribution from the TRCA RAP 1998 account has been budgeted at $50,000. Similar costs are anticipated for Phase 2 scheduled for construction in 1999. The Terraview Willowfield Community School Council are in the process of applying for ECOACTION 2000 funding from the Federal Government to assist in wetland and habitat plantings and interpretive signage. The Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup fund has also been approached to provide funding for the project. For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238 Date: September 10, 1998 Attachment (1) September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 089 Attachment 1 - -- ---_._~-- ------------- " .... ------------- - -------~-~-~ ) , Terraview Willowfield " , .... , , --, Regeneration Project I .....__ ,"\."'_P,,,,,,..., ........~ ~- ---~------ .--- _'".!. '\ ~', , '- ..."'.... "'-'; ..............................,., "'J, ~\ - -------- , \ , ,,' l -}. '.-....../-....-..... " " , 1 : 'I \....... '-"( '. ". i'\.,-,\ " , ) ~.....l.. .. ".'__ n' "'-'V \..~_I " ~-' , \: '" '" .. ~. . ~-~ .. ( ......-....... ...-..---- J ,(- , .. . , '. )f " :\ '1F' ~ ,I,; >" ...' , " ~.., \ ," '''.~ " 1 0 1 2 Kllometers Date: Sept. 10/98 ~ -- .._t - - - - 090 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 RES.#D29/98 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL 1998/1999 Work Plan The 1998 - 1999 Work Plan for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council is provided for the information and approval of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1998/1999 Don Watershed Regeneration Council Work Plan be received and approved; THAT the Work Plan be updated on a continuing basis; THAT the 1999/2000 Work Plan be submitted to the Authority in March 1999; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to assist the members and associate members of the Council in their efforts to seek financial and in-kind resources to achieve the objectives established in the Work Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND One of the significant achievements of the first Don Watershed Regeneration Council (1995 - 1997) was the development and publication of "Turning the Corner: The Don Watershed Report Card". This report establishes specific Don River regeneration and protection targets to be achieved for the years 2000, 2010 and 2030, This report, together with the strategic direction set in "Forty Steps to a New Don", provides the basis for the 1998/1999 Work Plan established for the Don Council. The Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council requires that its Chair report to the Authority on a semi-annual basis on the projects and progress of the Council. In addition, annual work plans are to be submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each year and the minutes of each Don Council meeting are to be forwarded to all TRCA members to keep them abreast of Don Council initiatives. Due to the extended period of time required to both institute the new Don Council and distill the requirements of "Turning the Corner" into actions to be taken, this Work Plan was not approved in draft form by the Don Council until June 1998, Resolution #F34/98). This coupled with the cancellation of the August Watershed Management Advisory Board meeting has necessitated the presentation of the plan at this time. Since this is the first Work Plan tabled by the second Council, the Chair will update the Authority on its progress at the end of 1998. The attached Work Plan-identifie&the clIrrent-activities that-the'volunteer members are undertaking with the support of various TRCA staff members, to address the targets established in "Turning the Corner". Some highlights of the Work Plan include: September 18. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 091 . Coordination and involvement in the implementation of the Bartley Smith Greenway project, including an EcoAction 2000 award of $35,000 for extensive riparian plantings. . Participation in the development of a stormwater retrofit opportunities study for the Don's headwater municipalities. . Continuing involvement and fund raising for the Langstaff Ecopark Project in Vaughan, and the Little German Mills Creek Community Action Site Project in Markham. . Active involvement in community based monitoring efforts such as the Don Frog Monitoring Program. . Initiation of a comprehensive Don Watershed Natural Heritage Study which will set specific criteria for regeneration and protection of natural areas in the watershed in order to ensure that these activities occur in the manner most beneficial to the health of the Don ecosystem. . Design and implementation of various community outreach and education initiatives to promote Don watershed protection and regeneration and secure support from all sectors of society. . Assistance in establishing a Construction Sediment Control Program to promote the importance of mitigating the impacts of sediment on the river. In addition, the Don Council members will continue to raise the awareness of elected officials from all levels of government on the pressing needs of the watershed. WORK TO BE DONE The Work Plan will be addressed as quickly as possible with the objective of achieving positive progress towards the real1zation of the targets set for the protection and regeneration of the watershed in "Turning the Corner". FINANCIAL DETAILS The TRCA supports the efforts of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the implementation of "Forty Steps to a New Don" and "Turning the Corner" to the extent approved within its annual budget. Additional funds and partnerships are sought on a continual basis in order to support increased community awareness, to undertake projects and to encourage and support others in their efforts to contribute to the recovery of the Don. For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238 Report prepared by: Brian Dundas, extension 262 Date: September 10, 1998 Attachments (1) D92 WA TERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 ... ca S en Attachment 1 ~ ~ c: '0 06 ~ g: ~ mo .- G:I U Q)'- g!!';) .~ ~ ca~ iXi .!~as~ en c:: '2c ~ _uc:'!:: IVgf ';0 ep._ Q, o~~5 '~"E 'Or; ~a ~ :;;1::"" .~m '".<: Om 'G,!'" en .c8."ll. ~c: 0.- -- C:~-l' Z E '~o. 50 ,Q,S; !l.:.l!! ;;l"'.. g ~ ~ E 0 l'; ~ tJ 5's <3 ~ ~ U - S:i:' .. .<: ~., ~ 0 c: Ol.- ale: C '0- '001- Oce/) ~ .!!!.~~~ ;~c: ge. Xi,~ ~ti8' t en ~m'-'o Q) .1;: -i ~ c: ~ Gi Cii is '0 . !!: C:cD'E- 1iP'1l 'E.Q c!!! oC:i!i &&. &;Q)ca"O ~~E :;In; -t: ::811) 0~1i; g~K 0:;; ~gc: !!~'ii ;E:3'~';l ~~" ;~ !"'~ <TEe; di88.c.5 .5 S-E ~ e ~8~ c!~ ~ o .., B,j ~ C a f3 a~ Gi 5~~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ Q~ E J3 'Q 3:CIIU) ...=!'O ~Eo CD c: ~~~ ~~ ~1ij5 -5 ~ ~o; ~CD .c~'E E ..c::E en 'Eg~ jl .i'd ""sc:h5. '" ..J ca::] U G:I C t: - gt- 0 m ~ ~8~ "55 .~[~ 9a.ga. ~ CJ o1!.., !~ =",c: EmC:s! Z ~-c: :!!'" "!.e 2::1 - - !!c~ ca~ ~-C'1 J2Q)ca~ ~ ~~o ...VI :=U)C co;;'';! en CUQ)C: ~g. .c.~'.c '0"0;'8 (I) Ea.5 ~o ~B~u ocao'= w .geu \LiS, w!!Ei) ajJ:Sa..'s ~ 8l c ~ ~ (ij ~ : > _ u.., ,_ CD ~ e ~ ~ _ en Z ~ ~ai ~ ~ ~ - 0 c:.c ., - ~ -= a: lEE 'E .s cr: ~ ~ o~ wi s. "' E :>> a: a lD oc~ c: 6 ~ ~ 8 ~ti5.~ z~~ Cn~-a ~ z 11.' E ~g.5~ 1;;-5,9- J: o :>> c:r::E..... w~==' !!4iY en o en 08a: oSi:e !!(;5 ~ g: m;;: ~~wCJ .5 ~~ ct m en .... a.. ~ ::1 ca (3 o c: _ a: ~ Z CJ .9 "::l or;: ~ 2 ~ ~~ 'I ;;:'5 <( 0 t:~ u 0 ~~ g: ~ ., e GJ ~ ~ = € ct c: :t ... 0 "' o B ~ a: 0 .~ ctu. 0 U -" <( ... .. c: a: '" Q ~ o ~ co t: tb .~ ~ ~ a:: 0 a.l 0 '" >. ~ a en~ II: "' W .:.: _ IV a: (J 0 (/) o~ g' ~ ~ o:i! S 0... G ~ ~ c: - c: en :J -.., 8 Z Q ~ c:.., o U E co Q) s:. ~I,~e 8J ! I ctl~~ ~~ ~ ", September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 093 :> ~ - :.g g ... ~.~ .9:3 aI::.x ~ .en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ g ~S:5 a... gO ~~ uti 0 08" ~~!!5 ~~ s~ ~ ~~~ ~~~... ~- c8~ - ~ ~i~ .~s 05 E! cs ~ Q l1..~a wu;~:g::.9" ~.~ 'll "'u :OjO '2il~IlI~ -g1a ..c: 9 . - Co "C =:1: 4) C <( g>.. .x::,,"> "'en ._~ III I- .ca;: :J8co~c c! 2'i: Q. S! m~~"2 ~o~58 ~.~ ~8 ~:a - E cacucdX t>>c: 'CiiQ) O~ u.. !,go ~5lfiE~.to Q,~ ~5 & 6 "@&l ca ~ 52>>.2 ~ .!! ~ ~ Q) ~ ~8. ~~~:J E~~~~~ ~u ~~ ~ :::<3=.15,!!! .9 eti:::< 9in ~~ O~ a: g. - .elD !i ,S 1: C: Q).1:: lD 0 SJ ~ o _ :: U) .~ ~:E Q).. i 8. a.g ~ B'c ~ ~ i ~ c: 0:: 00 ~ -~ 1l~~1l ~ ~ .5:5 :s ~ g 5'~ !;; !l ~ z ~ S: lD ~ ~!9 ~ ~~ taBs&: :3 ~ .~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~ ~~ [ ~~-gc3 l1. <( 0 S ~ III ~8.:; 2.>:> s81.x9 :.: 0 'if 8 .- € ' \1 ~ '5 e c: - ~ en ~ 0 t:~~ ~:> .o5:S ~.x~ -8Ciiu;~ ,.. ... ,,::!" III c: ,,0 E u" >.Q~C: ;> a:: '.t::!.c12 ;: 0 aioa _c ~~5 'rE~:J w 0 ~gC)>= m 0 Cii::cn Q)8 l'Ua,O .EQ)ct:: ~ 8: ~:g.~ ~ ~ ~ ~:g r~~" ~ ~5CU ~ ~ € 1ij g..g ~ E :J .=a.OI_lD a:CI)C:C _-co l- a..::'::~ ocn>o :::< en .. :::< 0 III . .. o z 'g :ill :ill u <( :::<, ~ m \ 2:: I-- ~ X _ .x ~ a.. ~ ~ - ~ a: :J4 J: CO~(ij.:ac ~ ~ i a1 ~ ~ecS g w " w t;; ... I-c mC'lfO 0 t; ....c~ ~ u;~ ot.gcn o a: z c:~ ~CI'I .~E ;-5co ns Z O:J S'S t =~ oo~ i < ~OC(C3 oCIe [u: occ.;~ ~ ~ iI ~~ ()~~ ~~ ~8C3 ~ ~ ~ ~d5 ~~8 ~~ ~5~ ~ w _ a: - <( l1. ~ 5 ~ g )- 0. a: ::!cti:3 c~ I- :J e" ..:.!!:! Q) \: 1'0 ... Z 0 ~iiOc;: wU= Q) =' a: cooE --.i!!Q) ..3:: ..3:: g' ~ CJ ~rl:IeE :l~~ ::J ::J E ::E 0 ~3Q)0 J::ro~ J:: CDJ:: g o ~ CD~~U ~tt~ ~ ~~ CD U ~ !de8 ~eE ~ 8~ e ~.8€Gi ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ rl:I 0 1'0= o~... 0 ~O rl:I ~~CDo ~~~ ~ >~ ~ I-- o ~ 9 tu CD g 'fi CJ =~ ~ !:i ~8. E 2: ... g.'" ~ III , Ii! ~dj ~:a < iE ~ C ~ .d ~ E a: t:~ ca ~ ~:3 &.c ~ a.E~ UJ ~ o.~ ~-,: a:.~ ~ ~ 5 E 9 E en c: '500 5 E~ ~ 8 Qi~~ U ee ~ 0 ~ ~ g B W8 a ~ ~ € 15 5 ~ ~~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ c; ~~ ~ ~ ~ e-~ g ~ i3 E 0: woo.E cE .g >= ~ > ~ 0 ~ I ~ ~ D94 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 1 B, 199B 0 ~ .! lii ~j g ... 0 .- co .8-Q. ~o ~1O o CO.s ~ camoO e~-g.Q ~:; u ,. -go.8'~.s 8g~! - CIl ug~gio ::e~i;o , "'~ '" ' ~,g'~ E z '- .c. J! c: '" 0 e ....::l"l? l!J C 1! l!! 1= ~~!~.a'! a:ou8' u .g3f~1a>u.. '2~~Q: C( I- ';~.g:Scag :~E~"~ CIl ~13~~~~~ ~u;.g~! a: ii: :g"?cn;5ie u".xg"- I- 0 - Q) .c IU') c. ::e ~~il3~ ....C\IC)Q.uQ)O ~ >-..s 2! ~ a.'~ ~~"'CcQ. ~~s.86.8.fi ~-8j8.e a:i III I-- oi J!l 5 t:_ ~ '" .. u; .l2 -g ~ ,: '" ~gg' !Cii:g.s -CD_ H u; ~ .. ..- .. .. ~.c", '" ..- E ~ ~ :i 8' z .E~.E .c.."C C. S CIl .. .. t: ~Q1Q:jCDIU') .... m~c3 .::.ct;(;i~ E Q. C( ~.:ar::lD ~~~~~ .. :.: 0 u "'.c .c ~Q)'" 8' a: Cl S~~ 0 CD.c.SCII"C C. ~ .. <II _ .52J=~.! SS.!!! E-:iol!? 0 Ol W " ~ 0 " w ~ '" 0 S201iiS t: Ol 8-.c 0 ;!? ~ ~~ Q)C,Ccaco Z O,2.~~~ ::e 5 :ii 0 ~ ::e 1= Ol CD 0 Ol III ;; C( " U U ;!? ex: Q. I-- :) :i: 0 CIl W 0 Q. ::e a: :) 8 <( .; :e <( 0 "C .U .~ .. ~ a: a: t:..ex: .u; w Cl CIl ~ 8..... 'iij :e " I- CIl c.<II .. ~ CIl l- S "C.c<ll Q'E (;it: c a: ru~! t: .. <( " 0 U 0_= " 0 UU Z Q. m.... ::em ex:E <( Q. N _ " c. <"8 ....g> CIl :) <( ~~~ ~t: <( CIl CIl Q. U U.c U w ::> ex: u"C " ex: u :2 ex: Z 0 I- c.nS~ ....CIl .... W - a: a: Cl ,;. " " <( " 8 8 ~ " t: <( " .. ::e ::e " = I is " ~ Q. ~ .. t: t: " :) >- ,., 0 E Z 0 ~ u; u; 0 0 0 0 0 ::> a: il ::e ex: ex: "C il ::e Cl ~ ::e 0 " ";0 .,; .,; " CIl " ~ " " :.E~ Ul 0 ~ t: '" " '" '" t: " t: U 11 uc. u u 8';; Q ~ ::e,2 ::e ::e .8 ~ 10 !!IUl .. .. g " t: \I E E "C " ~ " " ~8 "C w Ow 0 0 w - t: CIl t: 11 u 0 10 t: Iii 0 "6> u "jij '" '" " C E Cl :; "C ~ a: w E .. u; <( '15 "C ~8' .c I- '" " 0 .. .c 01 " l!? CIl~ " a: "Co. 0 <( '" " ~E oS u :; 10 I- '" ;: ex:.. -.; a: E '" t: .cO: > 0 .. 0 J:g ~ .. :s E 0 'iij Q. 8' J .. w g ~ '15 u a: .25- t: 0: " .. t: -.;<( ;; CIl t: 0" Q >. E 0 CIl - '" ~ 0: w Q <II V .... a: 10 1:: ~ ;; -';8' '" 0 g :l1g t: :; 0 8- ~o: C( "C "'"C 10 W !P ~ E 0 "C t: 0 " .. 6"~ t! .... " = t: gj ~ ~~ 0 CIl ~ t: .. ,,8' '\ill z Qj 8l:l ::eO: ".r; 0 10 S~ F= ;: u <( t: > 1:: 0 :'i:l 0 " September 18. 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARD #3/98 095 ~ it iIi ,!:! 10 'E B o . .cO f '5- i: 0"0 ~ CD> ,g >= - " '"' III CD c III .. .2)8 z "2 ,Q Z ,~ CD",_ 0 ::J 10 0 i 8.~ -= '" :a -= " ~ U a. a. U ~fi -Bc c( ~ CD c( ~ 0 Ii; li.al ... ,\I~ sg,r; ~ .~ '5 III Dc a:: c a:: ::J '" CD 5 it ::J cg it a.'" 5-c E ~ :;; Slg' ~ j':: e ::J"2 .i'E :ii CJ)~ 8 ::J ~a .., Ou. :!lad! r-- - .. '" CD l!l a. a. cia ~ ~ ~ 2'c .a' e 2:- '5 '5 ,- g i! c"'c i: o " Z :;)OQ) [ Ol~ C " all!! :5 ~ ElOEN ~ o C , E c 0.- CD " ~8 a. 0l0l . c( S'E..2-g.2 8l c( c" " 0 0 '<=... en " a:: CJ M8i:i - CJ ~~~~ "0 ~ 0 0 ,6 ,,- == 2.0_0 a. a; " ::J "0 U ~~€ .... a.'" " o '" !Z .c -8. ~ E~, .\!! ~ ~~ ~ ! 0 .... o " CD .8 :0 :l1 :I UU(ij ::J a. ::E.:L:2o aiOa. a. c Ol ~ f: ::J i: ~ e :I N " en 0 .., ~,,!! "0 .c C ~, 'iii u z ~ CD CD 0 I III _u.a. .... .... u. . a. - 011 - X III .... <Il C a. en (3 a. ::J .2 a:: ::J <: 0 ::J ..J <( < c( 0 ~ U ~ 0 c( U U == a:: III a:: a:: Z a: a: .... CJ iii .... 0 CJ 0 .... .... .... ... .. 0 .... en ui ui en Z c a:: 0 " c ~ a:: a:: " " 0 o " 0 .... " Z a. a. OJ a:!:!' a. a. OJ OJ <( a. en a. , ::J a. <; a. a. .... en ::J a:: Q ci <Ill ::J Q Q en en c ::J U.c en a. c c .... ;.; ::J 0 a: 0 ::J ::J ::J Z ::i:c. ....co 0 ::i: ::i: .... f.- a. - a:: a:: ::J CJ < 0 .:'" == a:: 8 :;; <( CJ ~.c ~ a. :;i a. " ~E " c ~ ~ ::J .c ::J ., Z 0 ::J 0 E '~"2 ~ ::J a:: N a:: E ::i: CJ "0 ::J CJ "'. " ;= " " 0 :I C ...." C 0 '" 0 ~ 0 ~ ."0 ~ 2:- " ~ 0 " " 5' 8.- , u :au i: J: !!l ..J ~ ~2 ~ :;; l!! <( ~~l3 U - " a: 8 " ~ <<1....._ a.u. .... a.wo - t-- ~ en ~- " tu g~ ::J '" CJ CJ !!l a:: a:: "2 '0' 0; c( ~ F .... '" Ol 0 a. C .~ cn5 S a:: ~ a:: ~~~ CD c( <( c U 2:- U Q..!!! :G 0 .... i: t:: .... ~~;= ~ a:: ::J 8. a:: i~:!i " 0 E " 0 i5 a. E a: a. "0 E !!! "0 .... 0 CD .... ~~~ " a:: 0 Ol a:: g en CD ~ III ~ ~ cn~ c III :;; III Ol .... .... a:: J: a:: ::l~it iij CD a. C N " c ti ~.! ~ c Q .c C <( :0 .\!! <( " " ~ 0 ::J :0 0 ro:;; (; .... a. ::J .... ei 1-. '[ en "0 a. en oC-l!; Z C "0 Z ~Q" " C " 0 " " 0 c:(iiQ.. a. -= ti ::J ~ ~ g it ~ " " 0 u "8 " a;~ Q; <( ;; <( > cl: " o 012 " a: u~a.. 0 D96 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 c: '" 0- ~ '" - '" ffliio ~'" c: c: .. ;~5 ~"- :; ..,,,, u'" ~ g~ tG5~ '" u '" :;-!!! 0 .. 0.. ~l:l 'hg ~ ~;. u~o ca~c: ;I '" uw- o...c~ "'.!: w lio os; o.s_ ~ - VI ~O15 ~~ ~sCIJ_ '" 0 '2 c: z ;I~~ ~ ~ E " III ~-Il! ;;;.2~ -5' 0 .a~~~ .~~~ ~~ 8.0i~!l ficas a. 1= ~;gl:l~ ""'U -2Eo~ ~~i! '" u alc:~ " :; <l: c: .c 8. a. ~~~ ~~ >::::JQt: 15 ~ t-' ~g~~ ~ 8 0 '" -~ VI ~~~E :a ' ~ ii.. '" '" '" li:; " a: e 5 ~ ~ ~g~ ;I '" a.!! -a ::::J a; '" u:: '" '" ~~B: :!~",'5 ';:8. 1ii ~ ~!~~ u'" - -P.l~ .. ~~i '" 0 oa.!j:2 u i5 ii~ii~ c: ~ ",,, > .! 8 ~a. ~g,"2~ 8~~~ ::lEg 8.'2c3 ,Sg u - '" :l '" '" 0 '" ~ ~ '" " Oi .c '" a.. c: ~ c:" ~ ~ '5 N~ ,~ 8~ '" c: 0.._ ~ ~ ~ -c: a. ~~ ~ '" z 15 ~ ~ g. '" :s VI 0.9 " .... "'c: '" a. r~ '" '" a.. <l: 1ii c: 0 c: ~~ _!!l '" ~ OIl :II: 0 c: ~ ~ '" c: U ... a: t:J 0.. 8 ~ ,2 ,,'" ~"2 '" .c 0 o..W '" '" E 5' '" :;: 'C ;;; c: D'" il ~ "'.. .g J ~ 8' g t:: " .c c: a. VI U. c: " . w 0 1ii u "8 8. :Jl !!l '" '" a.. w a: .2101-5 " !! Zi'2 !:! 8l e 8 " C.~ ;;; ~ <l: o 9- 0 '" ~ " " " " ~ o..w o...c" 5 D."'D o..u. c: Ol :i ~ ~ ~ '" C. ~ Ii: - " 0 z ~ in .Qc:w -iii Q; w Co cD cD aj 0 8l c.t::o '" > :Ii Ol 8l Ol 8l u .n ~~ '" '" Ol Ol <l: -' 0 lL - , - , - - lL - Z 9 :;: 0 ;: w VI C1i 0 0.. i:! ..( a: ::J ;: Uc: .,; <l: c: 0 <l: 0 e:. ~ .~ ~~ a: ~ VI a: ~ w w t:J c: E ;;; .... E 0 t- t- o '" '" 9-;1 ~J Z VI a: Z ~~ II '" c: ::J 0 "'u 0 <l: ill::; c: ~ 0 ~~ ~ Z 0.. VI " E <l: lL ~ ~ ~,E 9-;1 <l: VI ::J VI . <( '" u .. <( a: <( <( <( <( w '" VI Z ~'C wuU 'c ii U l!! U U U U w iii u:i Oa:u " c: a: a: a: a: a: Z ::;....::; ::;<( .... <l: .... .... .... .... w - ::J :Ii a: al <l: on 01 '" ~ 0.. 5 ;I !!! <l: ::J Cii '" .. > (; ~ 0.. 0 '" :; ~~ a; ::J a: iii .. c: Z 0 t:J .. lL '" c: '0 ::J a: <;; oX . " E 0 8 .. '" '" ::; t:J c. " "0.. " cCiilt) ::; 0 .c ~ C c: u 0 u u '" lil~~ 0 it! w", ;I ~ ~ in "" U "" .. '" ~ ~ D u Cii '" .... g'" ';:", ~ ~ ~ll c2~::E .. iii '" E '" .. '" c: ~€i E <( OlE 5 ~ E1:J -- " " U ~8 .9~ Eo ::;.;'lo g a: -,0 w> .... - VI " c: t;; c: 0 '" !.! '" :!1 ~ 01 Cl '" .. a: a. nI 5 .. ~ <l: ~ c:D c: 1ii t- al o U) aJ iii 0 Ui a. u " '" .. a: c: ~~~ Dc: a; :; <l: 0 ~g '" .c U l:l a~8. - '" '" g N _ '" .... '" -g~~ ~ ~ .. cD >- , a: c: i1 .c 0 iii D .. " a. " '" c." " 01 lii '" lL D E '" 01 c: C.!! .E ,~ w ~ '" '" 5 n:l o .m Cii Cii "- a: g. ..~ '" 0 '" VI E 1ii ~ ~ ~ - c: '" 1ii :0 '" VI " a. '" 0 :2 0 Iii ~ , OIl " 2~ > lL W g. 5 .cQ.~ " .... a: E 19~9 c: c: .. .. 0 ~-~ 'ii:; 0 0 .c Z 0 0: c > '" E c: 0 0 '" g <l: ", c: .. "''''''' co';; '" '" Cii 0 ~ iE~ 8.~ ~ ~- a. a. a; a. -'" 0 0 :: ~ t- o ~ ~~ Cii m 8 '" a. ~ .s Q; VI u g~ > g 8 z w 5"'W ~8. .. 0 "" :~iS oct I';~ 0 ;: ~ - E ~ ~~~ U 01 ~"'= eEl?' ~ II <l: lii ea..9 ~8j ...c -' 0.."" 0;1 - N co; ... .' September 1 e. 1998 WA TERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 097 5 E ~ ~ c; ~ l'G € al $ ~ J!lB , ~ g i ~ ij , en ~ a. >0 ~ = ~ 's z - 0'0 _ 8'lil "1::.. o I!! -;3 0 0" .!:l~0l 1=" i;j<ll J!l- c;a lij lJl u Q) CD G) '= ca .- 0 ~ c( ~ 10:' !8. fila 6'5~ Iii g ~:;; .8e:~ 5l,1ij.l!l s CD ~J: -50. ~.s CD-;j= / u.. 2 .2~ ca; ~s t=G~ l3, !;!;3 5la. 2>8> ,g.,~~ a c3~ ~a ills :!~8 CD 8l - ::: 12 ~ ~o 8, $ ~~~ a ~ u3J!J .. ~ ~g'2 ~"ll" ~!! ~ " ~'O.... ~ o'll 'iCilS !!Ii n. !! &:fi c:'1ii J: 0 ~ g ~.::. E '5 >- 0 E :2 8. .. ~ .. - - ,..-;! .. ~ " "1;1 J .;; CD a. ~5~Jll 5~-g:::u 1!~lil c3Oilo slij,~ ~ :!'02ii 1aCiiwi 1ii.Q~ oi~"i go ' t:: _CDfJ)- Z~Q) 'Zi ... - CIa;) ...a::J ~ .!! lil .. 8. ~.. 10 ,~8 '= ~ ~ - !! ~ ,\!l E .. CD ;:. ~ a a.iS 0"6 .2 Q; '-E Q CD! lD 0 0 8, (/'I ... :; ~ ~ 0 g c ~;; ~ _ ~ Q. ,!;; 'a Ol - ~ ~;; "'"ll:! 0 .. 'll ,!;; Q; G)2I~~ c:aa;csc,g o.E~ ~cacao 5= S ~ il S _ t: ~ u g 'cu.Q 1:: Q. nJ Q) '5 ~ ... ~ S '0 .!! ~ ~ g.~~~ Q)~!Eg8. ~8.~ :E'O~~~ ~C:~:S;! z "ii E>_~ ~-g.!!-oa. iio~ !!i;ZUQ 0,2(/'11:: :5 :: 8t2~ ~ ~U58!::3 a.~ 0 a.E ~ t:o ~~ Q:'~ 8.~ a.. " " \ ~ !!i!S! mCll CD CD CD 8 CD CD 15 0 ill illSl Sl Sl Sl!il ~ Sl ~ - 13 UJ UJ UJ u !: !!i ~ 8, S. ~ lE c( c(~ e 8 Cl e ~~ ; ~ :%~~~ &l5 ::> ~ III l!!...,.. '€ E.. ~ a.. <( sz~ 1iiEGi c( ::> X j '00 9-8!!c ~ en... ~(3 ~'g c:~~ o a.. ~~ ::E~8g~ ~ - is z a: " ~ CJ ~ui~ U Q. ~~~ :J ... ca :::l o 4)0 fO a: a; ca a.. CJ CLs>. '.. .. c !a.~ ~ 8.;u ....I ~ ~ Qj ~u ~ .. " ~ 00" a:c::O - ~ cnii~CD ~~ Cl '0 ~i50)! 160 IX ~ - to c: Ca ... "D ~ U 8.c:'~.... ~ ..~ C t: Je,2cci 0 5 IX ~ fIi ~ ~ ari 'i 8-.9 5 ~ ~ ~~[5 ~ g:j '; ~ ~ ~8oco (ij -g~ 5 o .. Jo-~ .i3 lil8. 0 n. € g>;lil!;; e. .0" € ~ XJ~ '~E;.E 8. ~o ~ en -=2 )(.=~", - o~ t: ~ '" a :~~q; E -gta CD a: -g.. ~C:l"g> !! !II-g € c ~a:; cu>og-,::s 2' tea ii c .. ~ UE~'O 0 6- .c: c( J g ....'l:~ _ -~ I!! o ., '0 <;;IIC~ lil!! .. :;; :e ~ 'fiE.gt: ~ E>>oE ~ z ::l;; -g '~-g ~ !! g - !II € o 8.J "1O"~ .. .c:$t: .. J= ~ ~ ~5 ~ i -5 ~ ~ ~ Q o c.'- c: - Q) E c: co (IS Q) E:: 4( ~ ~ ~~jB ~ ai~-8 ~ ",,-- 098 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18,1998 .. !C 6 j 2' Gl _ ~ C .0 Q, ~ 2 ~ ~ _ Gl..B _ E ,.;;. en -- ....- en lS "'C Z .c ~ C:5 Z C!J C o ".. G> EO" 1= .g C> ~E 1= ~ 6.>C o ~ ~ i!!S ~ ~ iij ~ c( lD U )( '" ~ o.!Ii! 4D Iii III ~ !! -" .. Ul e 'is. iJl e: a. ~ .l,g~ e: 'fi;ij~ l!l I&. .~ i1i ~ !C.!!! :: I&. 8 ..&.~ '2 Gl"_ ~8G> a. ~ .. ~~l i5~ ~[O d - - -g ~ Ii E ~" 'Iii ~~2 ~ ~ "0 ~S ,," "a;B ~ .. :20 ..a. -=>'-..oS s:; ~!ii Qj::! .00 0m~ ~c U = ~m :;Q) >".- CJco ~ 0 Q.ta o~ 8'.9.21 5:€ -:; j" ::la. C" "-o,s ,," l!!o oS ;l!ll ~;l BG>"2 22,2& Ul u Ole U(a c:! C:"'C -co ~ i.!!!. c: ~ ~.. .l!l.21~ :~16~::l 40 'is.e 8~ o G1Q) ... ii '-__oll) coe. ~ Cl lllill "~"2 Oli!!llla.E Cl -0 0;.; ... ,!!2 '0 co 6. 111 g:c CD i a. en ~ i a g~1;; ~1;;l!l .Q5l',,:;j~ CoG> .9:2,5 "C Q) =,Q)GJ m00Q)Q) .!!.oi!! ~.- ~ 6 ~ ~ III ~ ~ o~ lllE"2 5 ~ ~u.a;! ~ 5 ~ ..J Uucn a:cn.- (00_ _ C:S :>0 lL o. 0 0 ~ en O':l CD a. co CD ~ lL ~ III 81 5 ~ ~ 3: -5 -:3 W a: _ f- l':! Cl -0 4 G> ~ lLa: ~ lL!:.c ;;; ::l W ~ ::l III 0 .. 0 > 11'" 0 4 :::. :Ii a: 0 iilS" a: J: .c .. o ClO Clz.a.c o f- W ~~lD ~ ~ <I: ().a w a: w ".c..G> a: a: la= u a: 0 I!: G>liig,~~ ~ 4 "28-'8 ~ a. Q)~ 70:1 a. a. :Jea'iCl oct ~ N u:~~g.o ::I a: ouEiii Z en a. lD e tV ~ > '" .. c: ca ~ ~ a: ::I <D-O"CCC C'1 cog;'O o ~ Ji.lili8 ~ diets", ~ -Cl I-~ ~ Cl ~ ~ ai ~_ o a. m a. ~~ :::J ~ :::J i C') ~ ~ ~ ~ (ij Cl lL~ Cl ~~ C e~ ~ ~g ~ i~ ~ 2" ~ "- ~g ~~~ , .\1 .. ~ 0 lil "- ...... wou ' _ WI&. I- "- " ~ ~ ~ e ~ j ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ lE .9 ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~.- ~ .... 'ii a: ~ ~ ~ 16 ~ ~ in lL a. '" UJ :J (IJ lD w.c co cz: ~ 8. ~ a: ~ .~ gJ ~ fJ... J!! ~ ~ ..Q UJ c: Q)o:a Wa: 0 .. a: to 0'_ d Q) c u s~ OJ e ~ ,j c C '0 ~ Q::) 3 c:( ~ ~c ~ c:( OU) ~ g ~ ~~ 5i g ~~ ~ en co go!! ~ O'~ 0 ~ ~ ~5 ~ Q ~a ~N - co 3;> '" ~ OC ~a. l:i -g G>gli!! 0 a;:! ,," Cl ~ ~B ~ Cl ~~ !ic3 September 18. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 099 \ " -5 .2 oS: CD - i ~8 ~ ;;; "C .E en .. en .. z ~ g~ l'.l z CD u 0 " 0 0 1= ~ ~~ 01 G Q. u o 8 Q, Q, c ~ ,;.w.E ~ c Qj Iii ... oS: " -g CD c: :< en Ui II: t--102 c;; CD II: .. ii: Cl"'r::- ii: CD it,~ ~ g ~ ~ g iii'~ ~~8 i ~.2 Q. 0 - '" c: g 0 ~ - - "C o fil) u; 0 ~ c: -ijj iiio~ ;;E~ ~2'E '0 .. ~ ~ .~ _ .a ~ .. c: !~-o ~E'-S! 1J~ ~ CD .>CC:" .. 8'~ ~"C .2.8 ~ 0 "C lOr;!! '" 8 c;; gQ.....~-~g~.. c:CD c: ~ 0'" G; '0 o CD viO.!~ ' g' ~ ~ ff'O"C !!l -g~ oS: 0-5 g.-g ~ '~-8!!,g ..1O~-'" <5 .. 15 0 l(l1O .2 " o a:I Q) II) -0 en - CD ~l(l~~ ~ S-",,52'gi!! i!! .D~ " ..J c: c: Epc:~!!~iil i~ l!l Q, C 010 ~~~~ C CD en 0 ~~ 0 E ca.g~.s...c 01 .. \ o CDC:~C:8'CD J9~g' J9 -5 Cl 5f.~.~ Cl u Q)... ~ 0'- , .. c: ..-5~ _5~a.-g~ oS: CD o;!l ~~~ a g.!! il.'O ..';;; 016 Cl ~.:::.-= .. Gi ac; Qj~"CD,~E''''G;J9 -l!l0 ~ca1i.>- z E !l' ~~~i i)e~~8.-g5~ii ~:;2 ssE-g :s 8'e z oa.co.!!!wco:Ecn&n ~ ! ~ ~~8~ II: D.. W II: c:o c:o U c:o 81 Cl II: en Cl 81 z 81 Cl 0 II: Cl 0 ~ ~ w - ~ f-- ii: f.- u w II: ... w C 0 e: l: D.. ~ <{ <{ D.. en <{ ~ w :i ::::l U U ::::l 13 U c: 0 ~ go go 0 go 0 ~ II: II: W ~ 0 Cl ED Cl D.. c: U ~ CD CD en -g w I- ;; ~~ l- e " w II: II: ~ a: 0 :r c: 0 z -5 .. ~ D.. en -0 .. U D.. C 0 ~o D.. ii: ::; -::; D.. en z "'.. C ::::l ::::l Cl Z en . CD Q,CD en 0 Oia:c-g 2 s'E II: D.. ;;; II: cz2Q) 0 ::::l ~ " ... :hgoE m elm ... - 0 f-- on Cl II: D.. Z Cl ::::l ii: 0 c cD cD II: c: U " " Cl D.. ..J ..J D.. '" 0;; ::::l '8 ~ ::::l 0 0 g.;t 0 a: CD II: II: ~~ Cl ~~c ,,;, Cl e ::l c: e ~ Qi _ > 0 >- iil ~ SUil!!. L3 u- ~~ " .ges ..J GiD.. UU; cu ai :rUen Ol~ oS: c: c: c: c: ;;; 8 ii:c38 o 0 00 ::;::; I-- f.- en G; en '" Iii c: ~ Iii Cl !l Cl D.. c: II: ~ II: C cD C l- e: CD l- e u e CD c: II: U .. a: c CD oS: C 0 .. u c: U c: g " .. :3 ::l ... '" s ... Ol '" :l a: -u II: ,g ~ -g 0 en .c 0 .2 D.. ,; ~ D.. .. .. w w CD II: "C c;; II: Ol <;; i5 c;; c: 0 en c: ~ en 5 '" en 0 en '" ;;; w e. w '" .E a: ::l II: c: -5 ;, ~ e l!! en e l!l 0 e ijj e CD '" 11 c ~ :!. c c: e' 0 ~'i) 0 'ij S l!l I- " I- " g g 8' Ol en .a en CD S .D Z ... i '2 Z " '" 0 :; 0 oS: oS: 1= ~j ;:: 0; !!l .. ... Q. :l'i :l'i u ~-i oS: u c .. c E CD CD " CD ~ 0 10 10 a:D.. U w w 0100 WA TERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 ",E - g 2'E2 gJ ~ l!l. '" - c: 0 = l!! ,- c: EO""E- c: \I." ..".. E 9 Z is.~.!/ E c: CD - E t: 1Il "'w8: 8 ~ 0"21ii -.. .. z 8lCD" ~ 0'5:<<1"0 c:E CD 0 ....=~c ~ c:",g o!!! .eE ~ 0'0 " o Wt:CD c:'" >- 0 -", E < g8.u ,90 eg' < C:'OC: E I- C:!,! Iii lil Q. B'iii I- ~Iii~ 8 tn e Q) "C G c:: en ::. f/) CD';:: a: OlUe (1)0 wen a: "CLL j - l-eO -aE 0.. "" CDCD8' ... ~Eo. c: OCD - OJ~ !!e! ~~ -eii c.[W li ~oo Q)~ i5'~ ~~'2 CD a:Uu m... ...~._ a.a..cu 2 CD E E " 1Il. t-- t-- 6 '1ii ~ ,~; ~ ~ cO 2'" i -fi [ ~E ~g -[ ~ g lD Q.:,'l -= ug!~ Oru ~m i ..Qcn ~s ! ui':'~~ CD'" -a. CD = s;!",..,o " c: ~ q) 5' ... c: >o,'s:l CD C .- ~ ~ ru c: E, 5 ~ c L1j ~ ~ ~'3 e ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~: E C5 ~"~g CD!!! ~E "Mal Olil 1Il ",;;;is. eng 8i!!::l ca 0 en en :z:: U._ >- >- :J ~ 0_C:6 -CDCD _'0 CD ~'" .... "'1ii.. .~'O" 08.", <C oc.2... Uta:J aO GJa.. CDCD ~ "Cc~ cOG) -ell) g ~Ei~ ~~.~ 0.& QO ~~ g ~~:ii E~: [~9. a.acnJ::B.cns'O caClU)EC7I.cg' '~'t]Q) Ecu- C:G)~ e~~IE=a.! a.jQ)<<lS ~.- <<li~ oe5 ~E"C a.i::JCDE~(ij~ ~Q!:!~~ ~.t! Q.Q) UES '2;ra z .g.w g.~ E'5 Q S ~ 5 ~ S; ~ 5 'E ~ ~ ~ -2"8E ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ :3 :f. a ~ .3 8 3: :a; ~ 0.. o..~ ~ 3: 8 .... ~ UJ J: a. Ii: u 1;; Q. ., :.:: '" '" 8l '" 8l '" '" '" '" '" ~ e 8l ~ e ~ 8l ~e e 8l ~t-- -~ lli > ~ ~ a. CD ~ a. CJ c('iij ~~ ~ f3 1: ~ :Ii is is ~E ~~ 0 ~ c -E ~ ~ !3 ~ ";'E ~E !3 ffi ~ ~ is u ~ to ca ~8 .... a. E S (..) w a: (0= c( U) a: a. J en CD'" ~ ~ ~ ~~CD~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~2~ ~ a. ~ ato~5~~ ~ ~ ~ 5E~~ Z iil e" .!!g~n.~ en;:) !'!\5H~~ ~ ~oo8~~ ~ ~ocooE~ ~ t-- <o:o-U en::> t-- e" o-UUW::> e" , Z ~ - CD ~ ~~ " u a. tt1~:J Q. :J 0.. '- ttI :J o .;8~ 0 "- ~ ~~l3 ~ Q Q)~~ 0 0 ~ .c: '" u <t Q; ~oc W ~ ca:~ -I n:I ~;~ ~ ~ > ! ~ n:l I'C ttI ... ~O~ w r-- f.- en >- CD ~ . tii CD '" [ij g fa t: ~c: :& ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ O!l ~8 91 c( m~ 0 ~ <c c:, EUi t: ~ Q,l0l - ~ lUlU a. Q ~; ~ ~ c ~ g.~ ~ a: <<1- '- Q.l a: 0 -Q,l 't) (j 2~ ~ ~ ~ Q. "28: fa ~ ~g- ~ O'J I- E ra::> ~ a:: IDa. ~ ~ a: E ;~ en ~:sg. ~ ~ ~ Q.l .c:~ (G '" 1! .c: '1ii '" c: '" g g'.- :5 a: Q)~ ~~ 8 a: 2 ~E ~ en Eo CCO c: en c: c:~ Q.l en "'.c ::'lea 0 f3 Q)1I'l 8~ D..lI) ~ ~~ Ea 6 cc lH' CDQ. ..~ c Ell 12.. U g ~E =.c: .Eo ~:J~ g~ III c( ~a o~ co. o M.cB eCb ~ o~.;.: "'~ !!g I- ~aiQ.) 0.(5 S I- ora ~:J 8GJ en ~~~ "20.. ~ en u;'5 5lo u~ z 8. c: .. .. 0.. is Q) u '~ ~ .s :!2 ~ ~g~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3 lD5 u ~!!~ 8:'y BgJ (.) 8.~ ~~ ~~ <C ~a~ ~8. c5~ CI: gel) ~8 ul '-- / September 18. 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 0101 E ~ S e: Qj 0. "O~ 8 ~ .. ;! ~~ u ::> '" s.c: <n 0 5 S .,g> '" .Il e;, .~~ " ~'" ., 010 5 j5 1;; oa: ., "'u >. iH ~ ~.!!! ::> 10 ~ i ~ .~~ .... 0. G) C en'~ ~ f ~ ~.~ .~ ~ g~ ;'5 - 8 0 -.:1: R :~ Ii! ~i _I) u'" .. .- g "0'- CDC mas il. ~'2 ::>Sa ; .B2 ~ .. G) 0 ... lU ~ ]i~ !i 00 .. ~ a1j" >. ~.!!! '" ;;2- III III M 5 g-~ ~il '" 1l E e:.c: z "'a.8..... a. '" - ~ C5 e ~~ 0 :sl:ila. ; ~lS ! ~ '" .[8 '2~ -u.. 5 f3 e~~:'" a: ::> 01 ., C: ~.- <n", u d 0..1:: 0 ~ 0 ~ i ,S,E ~ ~ ,~~ ~~ "0 < o~- UlD 16"= Iii im~ ~ ;~ Eg' f~ g>~ Ii! II u '" ~ ~J: ~.o .2ls ..5 .0 ::> a: ~,g5 3 g'j ~.~ g'8 '2 ~~ ii: ~ ~_ S ~ e:.c: 8.8." .. .--tJ .. ~ .-! ~~ ~ ""8.~'= 25~ '2 '2- !!!Qj ~.c: C:"~ ....g. I- S .~ &~ ~~ eCl i: '" ~ ~ C5 -t; e =- ~.. 0':5 s~\i~~ s~w '2 .. .. u ::> ., ., ~ '0 5 ~~ e :g ;; _ g'5. ~~ ~s~~"o ~~8 ~ Ii! 5 u.... !l~8.=",~~~a '5'2E~~ -'5.0. ~ -,,,,u.. ., .,~ 0"'> 0'0: i; g'Jga.., ~~~ > o;.c: ~~~ ~c7io8~! ~,Hl~ ., :if o<(...~i!! 0 - ~~ ~~6 :i!", ~ u; " "il. .. '" e: 5 - il'- '" 0; .. g; n8. 'E ~~ ::> ",.c: .~ '!l Sa:o'2 ., '8 u gs ~g ~"'-",i E .. E~_....a.o ~= '" ::> .. ~ '5 z fJc:~g(Q- e2 !:as 0802 - :sl .. ., S S ~ !!~'~i~& ........- T!_ .. s~ a.g> ~:U. .. - 8. u ,!l! " .. "- ~~CDca:C~ -ge ~~~~...~ ,,. e.. ., ~ ~ ~ e e: j';!a: & :.: '-g5",0I::> ...c: lI)"O":Jl!~o ::> ~ a: ".,a. ~ ~~oo~8 ..; !CCD " !!c a. 0 ai!:'g--o 8. 0 ,Q en ~ < [~-;; ~ ~ 5i _ ~'" ~2 ~ g-u ~S5 ~~ is. 0 OE~ocG).~ 8 ~ a. '5 ., Ii: .- <s..c: en c: 0 !8> s ~ Cl (OCt:: ...... E Il iSU6~:i S.o" ~ ., ., s_.QU9!Q a~ .,.. U tl < ~~~ ., ~ '5 EJ!]a;EE(; Ole: j ~ a: l:;E!!~~G)"'-= ~B~~E~ '" '" '" .. 0 <~.f10e:0l.8" .. e: ~ g~~ ::> '" ~~ '2 ~ ~~ o U)\j;-:!eE .- Q) Q) ':;i!!:e-t!8.~ ~5 ~! W 088.=~~"" ~ 8. ~ o " ~ e: ~~o~ g-e cr .5 - ., w > ..., ~5 "-.... "-Ill t: 0 i < ' a; '" ~ a; ., :::E ;; 8l 8l 8l 8l 0 "- - - - - - 0 f- ;;;) a: o .. W a: >- ~ Cl 15 <( a. <n ~ ;;;) tS~ .( 0 <( <( <( ex: a: u 0 0 0 0 Cl ~2 a: a: a: a: u.. ~ ta ~ ~ ~ Cl o ., .; 0 .; .; a: -0 E", E z 0 e ~ ., ., ~ ii: o ., -2 0 -2 "- ~ ., (; "- o ;: ~:::E a a a \ <I: ;;;) I-IIl a. I- a. a. 0 III o.:ai - .. 'y "0 'Q :Q 0... i!:''' i!:'e: e: i!:' e: e: - ., ,_ 0 ::> ::> ::> O~ urn ~ c3 :::E ~ - Q; .; u - Q; - '" '" >. ., '" u -' a. ~5! cO '" Q; 0 5 '" ;;;) e:'" '" ~ € ;;: 0 >G)> .. -. e: a: "'>-' e: ~ '" " c~ Cl ~ 3i.s :; > ~ '" .0 ., ~9 0 '" ., in ~ ~ ~ ~: - '" 0 .; ., !E .,...- !! :a oj Ui 8 !?~ .... :::1:'" ~:I: ~~ ",-3 ~2 ::> .2l -' ~ -' ~~~ ..!! d .. 0;.0 j:cf 90 i= ~ :i~ - ~ ,5 .. '" t -(j ex: ~~ " 0 .. s ~ "- '" ~ .. ~ii tl '" ., ., =>-a.lIi W e: ~ '" ~~ ., 5:2~ ::> ~6[ ~ .c Q) Q) 5' "- ~1;;q a: 16 ~,~ > ~~~ 0 - ~ II) a:J wCl ... ~W ~:J!Qjis. ... ex: a: -g ~.~ g. ~~ ::> !! a :-2 il ~ g' ~ 0< in "- :; ., 0 ~ 8>-a, 01- . .. 00.- raUII)~ <n Ii! S ~ - .. <0 ~ ...a: rn-a, ~ ! 0 Q-ali '" Oa: 0 -g... '0 s: ~ "- ~ '2"O~ .! 1-<1: u: (;5 Co > .. C'2g=' u IIlU ~ ~a. e: '" ::> 0" ..~'" ~ ", " ,,. g~::!: - ... 0 z ., ., <!ill) ~ ~.~ l~!~ 0 10 1;; g ~ c: tv '" 1= ., 8.::>., ...'" ~ 8. ::> :sl :: b ,. ~ '" 0 ~r- '" '" ~ ~ I ~ at) iU ~ < ~ gQ) o '" 'S: 'S o-a,,,, ~o.f ., ., cd ~-g!i.8 <n-=- a: a: a: 0102 WA TERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 m ~s ~ ~ 8l .- ~ 8. S ;,.; ~ ,,- g '" .--g U JJ Q ::J 3::~ U_ E '" S ~ E ~8 5l~ s~ s ~-g 8' ~.gs jjj~ 6~=g> l8 '" Q. ~ ii c '2 J2 ......:: ~ ..Q ~:: Ql -;;; i;!il "',.. 5J:e:.s ~ g> Ii e: .- - '" J: .i;'i Q '" '" 'a 0 ~ '" !' '0 - E:U ~:j1 .'t:: ~.96, ~c: S J: > ; t: III ~ - "''' oQ ~ ,110 III '" VI....<( ,E :CJ:a:'C Z >- Zo c: ~_ .S.c Q.!.lc:Q.J 0 C ~ o -", "'\I -a:._~ ~- F ~ 0 E,,'C "il:: !<le:ij5,g FEe: l.l - " ~ :;;,- ~ 0.- 0 <I !!l ~ E U .0.,5 ,2j1!? <1"2 '" 0'"<( E -= ::J CD VI Q) .... en i" t; tU ru g~ c:8 -8'5.9 en Q) a: _a: '" "0 -~ IDo,.ll a: 0 lOt- Q) 0 Q,Ja:s UlO _... G: ~G)'" UU >-2 ~"9:g- ~ !! ~=; g.! .....n (ijcaG3~ .9 u '~ ~ '" 0 12 ~ 8. 8 ~ ~ ,~ ~ i ~~ ~ o~ a)~ Q)u~Q. VI eg. VJ ~g~ ~~'" ==..Q.9~ ! - c: 1::: - .::i::J::J c: - en g- ~ ~ .iij e: '" ,'" '" 10 .i i ~ Iii i :u 8~ ~ ~g~ FEU; ~~~:2 ri.c& -5 o ~ !i1 ~.s 5 ~\i ;;: li E 'B e: 15 6~ ~ g. ~ c It) ~ a ~ e... i ~ c: z E e [ c; .c ~~ .g VI 6 c ~ c ~ j ~o ~ 8 -= ~ .sE om ~ ~~ ~~ Go i~ ~ ~m.6 ~ g~ ~ra Q) ~-5 :gJ c: ~ 'Cg.5 lOm!Z. ::~s'" J:~ ~* SQl III CIl::! 2' o ~ 12e: ~ 'C.~ ~ g:~~~ -ge: -g~ e:1i", ~ 'B~ ..~ ~ <10 .5g E "'8.~" E~J", Q12..'C og\j o,.,e t s~ E !!l" .20.120 E,...o~ -l!:l;; CI ='" ~ Cl~ .~~ ~2'~~i ~'~~~cn~~ i3~ ~~~ i c3~ ~ o Z "'cr ,,-ji; "Ua.as E ,..,. .z:.1O III !}. ~ a: ~m "Oc.~.St::Q)::JE5g.rU~~ E~ C ~ w 0 Oca 8C:E~~~ea;ooi)e::J7U Q).g a: _ Q,J ~ i D: ~ m.c:"C.= 0.00:::> ",en cn1n :E en ~ ~ &f ~ :i~ 0; III .oSlO; co co eO ~ co co ~.. Sl 01 Slm81 Sl 8l Sl ~ Sl Sl of\ll......... ---.....- ..... f')........ l.l 0. 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ '" <I Clo. E Cl~ ~ ~ is tl, <I 00: <( a: a:~ :g U ~ a:-g U o CI '" a: a. Cl.. g: u. ~ E I- to ....... o a:.s:", ... '" u) ....8' a:.8 u) Z 0 g'9! S 9! 9! _ 0 E .~ ~ ~ E~ ~ ~ ~ 2 8: :fen ! (J ~ ~ Q <( < a.Q 'Q ~ ~ <g Q a?5~~ ~5S 5 ~ ~.! 5 I-~~ I- I- c.~ ~ I- 1-;;: ~ . . u) ~~ ~ 8 ~ ~ .o~~ ~ ~ ~~ 5~ o c o~ Q) 0 0 -... '~:I: ~ ~ ~~ ~~o. ~~ ~ ~!::~.-g... o Q) Q) 5~ Q).35 =~ 0 ~3~5=~ ~ en g 'aE ~ en OC: <( :C-=!Q~... 51 0 8~" "::1-.. otl.2 ~ 'I!..;;:'i"~ "CIl '0 ~I-;;:" 0 ci"';;:.,; ~ ~ u~ C~cui!!~ gQ)~~ Q) ns ~o ~ns~o ~8 ~ o~.2Q) , ii) ~ a:O ~OWO;> !.Lua: W...:::~ ~"g' ,~~ ~~ ~ g' ~ ~ W ~ E 0 c: W a: U 0 '" e:" a:lIl '" U)U)<t ~ C .2 g' U)~:a 0. lilt g> ~ g 10 a: ffJUl e: .c: ~~5 ~ ~ ~ '0 a:~a.~ c.-E 8;!"g C:J! ~!! ~ ~ ~ 8:!~~ ~; <C(O:E Q)a::l a to Q):2 ",0 <C(o"'Oce:~'C", 0a:15 (U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ;: I-tJe: ;;:", '" '" ~ CIl "",II lIll.l".~E"E ~ 2 ~~ ;;: ~51 S Cl Oa Z iiii"'iiio 010 2.5 :u.5 u. 8. -g "'~ 0 ::!CIll.liijJ: F 5 ::! s "'" ~8' F '" l5 o"E Q) 5 i e "'O_en 0 s;: f <I ~ e '0 0" i3,g~ <I!!l" c:s ~. > C U a:~(t) CD. ~. September 1 e. 1998 WA TERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 0103 ~ d I~ re c :;;; ~ >- Q CD GfO .~ lS ~ g 5.. ~ Il "" ~c: a: g i;~ ~ ~ .. s::o ~ - ell Sl 2 ~GJ 0 ~ ~::I ~ Z Q) > Gi OCD ~ .:.:~ E .E E 1:.>- Q. :c E E e <,:;:::lS - ::Eal '" E !I! E - U a ..'" ~ .. - Z 0 =0 cpo.. a: en c:>. ~ >>- o U aU ""1l I::. !'l -=l-g '" lS-g ~ l ;.! ~ E ~ ~ !fen m cncn ~ is ~g:! ~ 'g ~! I i~ t; ~ ~j .~~ ~ " Q:~ ~ U)~ !!: ~ :g5j i:~ 6'~ '!O_lii~",~~ LL. u l.If,/) - CI) c::: ~CD'" -- co C:ll) 0" .- =:2~M>;~ 5 ~ c. :; ~ ~ Z ~ 'f,/) ~ N S E ;: "'8. ~ ~ g ~ .~ giD~~8~~g~ Q) 2m ~8 ~ ~1Q) a: ..., (I) ~ ~.s CG.8 ~ ~ ::: .!!! 1ij 1ij a i!! 8- <( C)::E::E>- 0.. '" " , " 9 ~ ~ Z 0.. ~ :3 -gill .e :: aJ.g ~ ~ a: U) 5(1) ,....cn '3 !2 cJ. -;~ MID ~~ -g E ~ 0>> NN :JD ~ :J t:: ~.!!!-g;;~ 609 l;l in ~ ~Iii <::E ~1:l 1l 8. a: CULL c c: c:J E o z ~;: a a a"8 9 {;; ~ 0 .5~ ~ ~ ~ a. 6 c: ~ ~ >"'....- -'iii!'l'" a ~ CJ ~5 ~~ ~~~~ C _ :::I - '0 Q) Q) IV C !I! '" .. :::E c ~~ en", cn"fi"cn "C :::E w <<Is:: e! !lD::!! 0 8 ~ :::!:co Q.a.. a..~coa.. :I: a: W U.I en CD ~ ~ Q. ~ ~c: ~ ~ :;) a:_ C.!!! ' a: 0 ~o ~= c( o a: '~ ",::E U ~ ~ ~u g~ ~ _ e" a: ::;:....:!: en Q) Z 0 2~ C2 ~ : it Q. UfO gcu ::: .D < g; :;~O$a [ g o U) c:.EEa:c( 'y,:.:ut c: t:: 0':':: U C Q) cu ~COooa: :Jcpco Cl::E>->>- ::E::EO ~ o . ., ~ .. ~ '" III ... .8::E .Q 5 E .~~~ a: ~ CD > ...J ~ ~ ~~.5 ~ ~ 51 ai: ::l ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 "" - -' ~$dS ~ ::E~~ c _ Ii: !q o ~ ~ ... >- a: E W '0 - "" ~ a: .a -ii oS en \II ~ >'" llltii ~ Iii 1 '0 ~~ ~ !! ~:; ~ 04 .... co .-.9 a 0>- 1 ~~ C'C '" 11 ~~ ~ 0-[ ~~;13 g", 1-4 3: U5CO ~ ~ih-5 ~~ cnU a; c:~ ~~50 ~.~ ~ :: .g~ C~QCD 13~ ~ ~ ~~ .2;S!~ a:~ !rl ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~ 11 ~ >- >::; .......l!!a: 0... / 0104 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 RES.#D30/98 - FRENCHMAN'S BAY WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT Town of Pickering - To outline the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project be received; THAT staff be directed to initiate the project in coordination with the Town of Pickering; THAT the Authority extend its appreciation to Environment Canada for funding this initiative and indicate the importance of continuing these funding partnerships to ensure the health of our watersheds through community-based initiatives; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Pickering be so advised .................. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Frenchman's Bay watershed is located in the Town of Pickering. It is 2,200 hectares in size and houses over 47,000 people. The Bay itself is a shallow lagoon on the Pickering shore of Lake OntariC! separated from the lake by a natural sand and gravel beach but connected by a navigational channel. The lagoon is fed by four main urban water systems, the Dunbarton, Pine, Amberlea and Krosno Creeks, and was historically surrounded by wetlands. Krosno Creek runs through the "Hydro" Marsh into Frenchman's Bay at the south-east corner, and provides significant marsh habitat. Due to extensive urbanization since the 1970s, the health of the creeks and the bay system has deteriorated significantly. The quality of the water has been substantially impacted by development of major transportation corridors and urban areas, and there are now 54 storm sewers contributing pollutants directly to the water system. The Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project will focus on the following goals: 1) Promoting the Frenchman's Bay watershed environmental interests at local and regional levels by educating the community and generally raising watershed awareness; 2) Providing to the local community experience and knowledge that will allow them to tackle environmental challenges on their own; and 3) Improving the quality of fish and wildlife habitat in Frenchman's Bay and in the creeks that feed the bay by developing and coordinating community based environmental activities. September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 0105 This project will also help to implement broader environmental strategies that have been developed by local and regional organizations, complimenting environmental and community initiatives of the Town of Pickering, the Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro, and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. This broader approach to watershed planning is very important in ,maintaining and improving the health of ecosystems. A potential project to become involved within Year 2 will be the development of an environmental interpretive trail extending around Frenchman's Bay, which incorporates educational signs and lookout points. This would provide a greater opportunity to educate the public about the importance of the Bay, and the effects of human activities on the health of the environment. Creeks Since 1972, more than 50 percent of the tributaries feeding Frenchman's Bay have been modified through channelization or put through culverts and their natural functions altered, with the remaining water courses effectively cut off from the Bay by the major transportation corridor encompassing Highway #401, Kingston Road, Bayley Street and CN Rail lines. The four main creeks that flow into the Bay - Amberlea, Dunbarton, Pine and Krosno Creeks - are characterized by warm summer water temperatures, eroding banks, deforested riparian zones, grass lawns mowed to the top of the banks, and culverts under roads and pathways, all contributing to very low water flows during dry months and intense flooding and erosion during storm events. There are few areas that have a healthy, continuous forest or vegetation cover, and the ones that do exist are isolated patches, Environmental activities that will help return the creeks to a healthier state include: plantings along the banks to provide shade and create a continuous vegetation corridor, bank stabilization to decrease sedimentation, garbage clean-ups, and the raising of bird boxes. Marshlands In 1954, marshes and other wetlands formed almost a continuous ribbon around the entire Bay, providing valuable habitat for fish, migrating shorebirds, waterfowl, turtles, songbirds and small mammals. Approximately 70% of these wetlands have disappeared since 1940 due to urbanization. Much of the wetland areas have been filled in or impacted by sedimentation, leaving only the Hydro Marsh on the south-east corner of the Bay and small patches mainly on the north side of the Bay in a naturally functioning state. This puts into jeopardy significantly rare marsh plant and bird species, and important fish and waterfowl habitat, Studies of fish have shown that there has been a reduction in the fish populations over the past 25 years which can be attributed directly to the loss of wetland habitat from outright destruction to heavy sedimentation and erosion. Another problem affecting the marshes is the establishment of purple loosestrife, which aggressively competes with other 'wetland vegetation. It is estimated that purple loosestrife covers approximately 30% of the remaining emergent marshes. There is a very important marshland at the mouth of Krosno Creek, called 'Hydro Marsh', which is designated as a-Provincially-6ignificant-Area;-It-is--approximately--40"hectares in size, and is an important site for migratory shorebirds, spawning fish, and upland songbirds and raptors. 0106 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 1 B, 199B This and other marsh areas of the Bay need to be protected and enhanced to their former function and productivity. Community based activities that will be undertaken through the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project include reconnecting marsh fragments through plantings, improving wildlife diversity by building tern habitat structures and bird boxes, removing purple loosestrife, cleaning up garbage, and planting a vegetation buffer along the shorelines of wetland areas. Frenchman's Bay Water quality analysis of the open water in Frenchman's Bay indicate that it exceeds the provincial guidelines for parameters such as nitrogen, phosphorous, cadmium, lead, oil and grease. Chloride (from road salting) and suspended sediments (from bank erosion and poor construction practices) are also found at high levels. The water quality of the Bay can slowly be improved through the rehabilitation activities that will be undertaken in the creeks and marsh areas of the watershed. Further water quality improvements could only be attained by changes in storm water management practices, which would be a large infrastructure initiative. Project Activities To address these above environmental issues, several management strategies have been or are being developed for the Frenchman's Bay watershed by local agencies: Waterfront 2001 - Mayor Arthur's Task Force on the Pickering Waterfront Interim Report, 1997; Frenchman's Bay Watershed Management Strategy (The Town of Pickering, 1998); Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1996), and the Durham Region Lake Ontario Waterfront Report (1996). The Town of Pickering Official Plan also outlines policies that protect and enhance the natural environment such as the retention of watercourses in an open and natural state, encouraging stewardship practices, increasing awareness of the Frenchman's Bay ecological significance, promoting uses and activities that protect and enhance ecological systems, exploring opportunities for natural habitat restoration and expansion, and developing a linked natural corridor around the Bay and along the streams in the watershed. Unfortunately, at this time there are only a few on-site environmental activities being undertaken that would implement the actions of these strategies. Efforts currently underway include two yearly planting event on the Bay shoreline and one conservation seminar, both organized by The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and the building of black tern rafts by the Conservation Authority in the spring of 1998 (this is a single year project - the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project would like to take this work and build upon it). Several individual efforts take place usually around Earth Day, which are important to the watershed but do not mobilize the community on a large scale. A Project Coordinator will be hired for the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project to coordinate the environmental initiatives developed from these above strategies. This will help to realize the goals-and..objectives.ef,the-leceJ-management~tategies-wrnle at the same time will involve members of the local community in beneficial environmental activities. The Project Coordinator will be based in the Town of Pickering municipal offices. September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 0107 Community Interest in the Project Town of Pickering representatives are strong supporters of this project because it will assist with the implementation of the Town's Official Plan Policies of promoting and enhancing the natural environment. There is also a strong community interest for involvement. The two previous environmental activity days organized by the TRCA in partnership with local community groups brought in between 100 and 150 people each time, to plant trees and shrubs, and build bird boxes. Community groups who have already expressed interest in participating further in environmental activities within the Frenchman's Bay watershed include: Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club, East Shore Marina/Pickering Harbour Co. Ltd., Swan's Marina, 1st West Shore Scout Group, Pickering Naturalists, Vaughan Willard Public School, Frenchman's Bay Public School, Bayfair Baptist Church Youth, Bayview Heights Public School, 13th Ajax Scout Group, and the 2nd Pickering Scout Group, totalling almost 500 people who will be involved in the Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project. Community education is a large component of this project. Activities such as growing their own aquatic plants, participating in the Yellow Fish Road Program, monitoring marshes for amphibians, attending environmental workshops, presentations and events, will all contribute to providing community groups with the skills and knowledge they need to develop and implement their own environmental activities once Action 21 support has concluded. Project Objectives Educate the Frenchman's Bay watershed community about the importance of the watershed and the bay. - host 2 public environmental workshops - implement the Yellow Fish Road program with 4 community groups - implement a community based amphibian monitoring program - provide project information at local and regional environmental fairs, seminars and workshops Enhance 4 kilometers of riparian habitat along the creeks. - plant 300 native Great-Lakes St. Lawrence forest region tree and shrub species each planting season, totalling 1,200 plants - put up 100 birdlbat boxes - clean-up garbage along the creeks Enhance 9 hectares of wetland/marsh habitat around the Bay. - establish a vegetation buffer of 200 native trees and shrubs around the wetlands each season, totalling 800 plants - put up 100 birdlducklbat boxes - involve-4-schools in the 'Aquatic-Plants-program - remove purple loosestrife from 3 main infestation sites - clean-up garbage from the wetland/marsh areas Assist with the implementation of common tern and black tern recovery plans. - place 1 common tern raft at the south-west corner of the Bay - place 10 black tern rafts at the north section of the Bay. 0108 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 RATIONALE A proposal to the Environment Canada EcoAction 2000 Community Funding Program was submitted on May 1, 1998, for $69,730 to be applied toward a Frenchman's Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project Coordinator's salary, an accounting audit, a common tern raft, and miscellaneous project expenditures. The proposal was approved by Environment Canada, for project inception on September 1, 1998. The benefits of the project will be to enhance the community's participation in environmental activities through~ut the watershed and to further the resource management objectives within Frenchman's Bay and it's watershed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The first task to be undertaken is to hire a Project Coordinator for the two year contract. The Project Coordinator will prepare a detailed work plan, with technical assistance from Authority staff. The Town of Pickering will be providing office space and a computer as well as administrative assistance. The opportunity exists to kick-off this project in October, 1998 with a major clean-up and planting event. FINANCIAL DETAILS The project has a two year term, beginning September 1, 1998, and ending August 31,2000. The total cost of the project is $ 156,556., and it is anticipated that the Project Coordinator will expand the program through the development of new activities, fund raising; and additional partnerships, To date, funding for the project has been raised from the following sources: Source In-Kind Cash Authority $ 4,400 $ 15,000 Environment Canada --- $ 69,730 Town of Pickering $ 35,280 --- Community Groups $ 27,146 --- Canada Trust Friends of the - $ 5,000 Environment Foundation Funding from the Environment Canada EcoAction 2000 program has been managed through The Conservation Foundation, due to a charitable status requirement by Environment Canada. The Authority is donating both in-kind and cash funding. The in-kind funding includes consultation, aquatic plant kits, and fisheries monitoring data. The cash donation to the project will be applied toward capital expenditures, such as the purchase of aquatic plants and the construction of a common tern raft. The money is available from Authority account #225-50. Expenditures beyond 1998 will be incorporated into 1999/2000 Authority budgets. For information contacb-Kristin-Geater;-extension -316 Date: September 10, 1998 September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 0109 RES.#D31 198 - ARSENAL LANDS 1400 LAKESHORE ROAD EAST, MISSISSAUGA Site Remediation Plan and Park Master Plan To outline the work program for the site remediation, receive the Park Master Plan and circulate it to the partners for comment and approval. Moved by: Irene Jones Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the project report on the Arsenal Lands Site Remediation Plan and Park Master Plan be received; THAT staff be directed to implement the site remediation plan in accordance with the work program outlined in this report; THAT the Park Master Plan be received and circulated to the partners for comment and approval; THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on the partners approval of the Master Plan and in particular on the recommended arrangement for capital development and park management (operation and maintenance); AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto, the City of Mississauga, the Regional Municipality of Peel, the Province of Ontario and the Canada Post Corporation be so advised CARRIED BACKGROUND The Arsenal Lands (former Canada Post Property) is located at 1400 Lakeshore Road East, on the shore of Lake Ontario in the south east corner of the City of Mississauga. The property has a frontage of approximately 440 metres on Lakeshore Road. It is bounded on the east and south by Marie Curtis Park, to the west is the Lakeview Water Pollution Control Plant (MOE), and the Lakeview Generating Station [Ontario Hydro] (see attached Site Plan). The site (approximately 16 -ha) was originally developed by the Department of National Defence as a small arms and munitions manufacturing facility during the Second World War. Post-war years included a variety of manufacturing uses, with the site's final use as a Canada Post sorting facility from 1981 to 1992. The site's history of military and manufacturing land uses and operations over a long period of time, have resulted in a site that has lost most of its natural qualities and has been fenced off since the 1940's, Years of neglect and difficult land uses have resulted in soil and ground water contamination on parts of the site, raising issues of public health and questions as to the best method of remediating the site for future ~se. Following environmental auditing of the site, the property was purchased in 1991 for the purpose of parks and open space, through a joint collaboration involving the City of Toronto (formerly Metropolitan Toronto), The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Regional Municipality of Peel, the City of Mississauga, and the Province of Ontario. The acquisition is a significant asset in the development of a waterfront parcel that together with Marie Curtis Park comprises 41 ha of parkland. 0110 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 The acquisition process was initiated by the Authority at its Meeting #3/91 held on May 3, 1991 by adopting Resolution #A 102/91 : '7HE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the .Project for the Acquisition of the Canada Post Property", Appendix WR.263 herewith, be adopted; THA T the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the project, including provision of a grant for 50% of the purchase price and associated costs; THA T The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve the project and agree to a levy of 25% of the purchase price and associated costs; THA T the Regional Municipality of Peel be requested to approve the project and agree to a levy of 25% of the purchase price and associated costs; THA T, pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested; THA T Authority officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to complete the transaction including the execution of the necessary documents; . THAT upon closing of the transaction, staff be directed to coordinate a detailed planning study of the property with the involvement of MetropoHtan Toronto, the Region of Peel, the City of Mississauga, the City of Etobicoke, the Province of Ontario and such individuals and groups who have an interest in the site; THA T staff be directed to report to the Authority upon completion of the study with respect to the proposed plan and the recommended arrangements for development, operation and maintenance of the site; AND FURTHER THAT the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to accept the site for operation and maintenance, under,the Waterfront Agreement, immediately upon receipt of vacant possession of the property in 1993." The Province of Ontario under MA C01 /92 approved the project (acquisition) with the condition by letter dated January 14, 1993 (attached). The Region of Peel approved the Project by adopting Resolution 92-73-1 of February 27, 1992 (attached). The City of Mississauga- approved ~he ~cqtlisition-at. its-C-ouncil1T1eeting on March 9, 1992 (attached) . On August 12/13, 1992, Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now City of Toronto) approved the project (attached). The property transaction was completed on October 30, 1992, and title was transferred from the Canada Post Corporation to TRCA (formerly MTRCA). September 18, 1998 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 0111 The total cost for the acquisition was $18,000,000 including the purchase price ($14,500,000), taxes, fees and other ancillary costs associated with the transaction. Through the agreement of purchase, up to $5,000,000 was set aside to prepare the required remediation plan and implement the Site Remediation Plan. All costs and expenses incurred in carrying out this work including permit fees, consultants' fees, contractors' charges and removal, haulage, tipping and storage fees for remediation, correcting, treating, removing, containing or capping the Adverse Environmental Conditions, shall be paid as follows: . as to the first $2.5 million of eligible expenses, by the Authority . as to the next $2.5 million of eligible expenses, by Canada Post . as to the balance of all eligible expenses and all other expenses, by the Authority. At its Meeting #2/95 held March 31,1995, the Authority adopted the following resolution to prepare the Site Remediation Plan and Park Master Plan: Res. #A47/95: "THA T the consultant team led by Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited, including Raven Beck Environmental Ltd. and Angus Environmental Limited, be retained to prepare the integrated park master plan and site remediation plan at a total cost of $173, 775 (excluding -GST); THA T the Authority express its thanks to the consulting teams led by Golder Associates Ltd. and Senes Consultants Limited for their efforts in preparing and presenting their proposals; AND FURTHER THAT the members of the 1400 Lakeshore (former Canada Post) Steering Committee be so advised. " The purpose of this study was to determine the nature and extent of contaminants on the site, identify methods of rehabilitating the lands to permit public uses, and develop innovative ideas for the incorporation of the site as a major regional attraction along the Lake Ontario Waterfront. A technical steering committee was formed by the partnership of participating agencies to oversee the study and ensure that all public interests were addressed in the development of the park and 'site remediation master plan. Community Consultation During the preparation of the integrated Site Remediation Plan and the Park Master Plan, several public forums were provided for-progress review~ planning and technical information, and evaluation of the proposed concept options. Three newsletters were published and distributed to keep the public abreast of the technical findings and site remediation recommendations and to solicit comments and ideas on the park programs and concepts. 0112 WATERSHEO MANAGEMENT AOVISORY BOARO #3/98 September 18, 1998 Phase 1: . preparation and distribution of Newsletter No. 1/questionnaires (over 1,000) circulated throughout the Region at city halls, libraries, recreation centres, and a location waterfront community festival; over 100 interest groups contacted through a direct mail-out, including environmentalists, naturalists, historical societies, community resident groups and citizens action groups. Phase 2: . distribution of Newsletter No. 2/questionnaire through mailing list, indicating park program options, site remediation and risk assessment recommendations; . Public Open House (September 21, 1995); . distribution of neWSletter/questionnaire through Mississauga, Ward 1 constituency mail-out. Phase 3: . distribution of Newsletter No. 3/questionnaire through mailing list, indicating phased park development plans, preferred site clean-up solutions and risk assessment recommendations; . Public Open House (ApriI1?, 1996); . distribution of newsletter/questionnaire through Mississauga, Ward 1 constituency mail-out. The results of this community consultation and input has provided along with the technical analysis, support for the site remediation approach and direction for the park master plan. Site Remediation- Plan The following is a brief summary of the site remediation plan. The attached Executive Summary provides a more complete outline of the remediation activities. A series of investigations and tests have identified areas of the site where levels of chemicals exceed Ontario Ministry of Environment (MaE) soil clean-up guidelines. These areas have been identified as requiring specific treatment and management, and are primarily concentrated south of the former buildings where industrial activities took place. The majority of the site, including under the building slab, has been identified as generally meeting the MOE's soil clean-up guidelines. Since the area is to be developed as a park, the clean-up guidelines being used are more stringent than those required for industrial sites. As an added level of protection, a process called risk assessment is being used to further access soil quality and the risks posed to human health. What are the contaminants on the site and how will the site be cleaned up? Lead contaminated soil in the vicinity of the former firing range, and soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic compounds at the south end of the site will be excavated and disposed of at an approved landfill-site. Low level radioactive soil and associated heavy metals along the southeast corner of the property will be stored on -site in a containment engineered facility by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to be appropriately integrated into the park design. The dry trash zone along the eastern fence line does not significantly impact envir~nmental conditions at the site, This area will be isolated on site and capped with clean soil and vegetated. September 18. 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0113 Four areas contaminated with fuel oil, motor oil, and gasoline are scheduled to be remediated using specialized vegetation and natural processes. This technique is called phyta-remediation. Research has shown that over time certain plant species are capable of breaking down organic compounds to innocuous products as a result of cellular function in the plant root zone. The pond sediments will be remediated by on-site isolation. A layer of clean sand will be spread over the existing sediments and a new benthic regime established. How will environmental conditions at the site be managed? Each area of the site will be remediated by excavation will be subject to verification sampling to ensure that the remaining soils meet MOE soil clean-up guidelines. Those areas where contaminated material will remain on site will be registered on title, and will be capped to prevent access by humans or animals. Capping is a common method of isolation and was used as Marie Curtis Park, which is a former landfill site. A monitoring program will be established for groundwater, surface water (including the pond), vegetation and soil to assess the effects of the remediation program to ensure proper management of the park in the future. Park Master Plan The Landscape Foundation provides a basic conservative landscape rehabilitation approach which responds to the site remediation proposals, integrates the surrounding landscapes of Marie Curtis Park and the Waterfront Trail, and provides the essential components for the development of a recreational park. The concept focuses on the establishment of a diversity of wildlife habitats that can be explored through a passive trail system and utilizes educational opportunities provided by remediation proposals. This park framework can be expanded or altered over time as additional park program requirements become known. 0114 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 . utilizes specialized landscape . provides opportunities for community treatment for site remediation areas, and interest group involvement, e.g. e.g., phyto-remediation plots, naturalization and wetland planting, naturalization of isolation areas, trail development, fund-raising: creation of wetlands in excavation areas; . incorporates existing infrastructure (internal roadway, parking lots, . integrates site remediation with entrances) for interim uses and as development of specialized habitats, framework for future park themed experimental planting areas, development; demonstration plots, for interpretive and education purposes; . establishes trail framework (walking, establishes the natural framework for cycling, nature, etc.) and a diversity of . trail experiences, linked into the long term site restoration and habitat existing Waterfront Trail and facilities creation, e.g., wetland and drainage at Marie Curtis Park: corridors, rehabilitation of existing pond, establishment of hedgerows, . provides flexible opportunities for park meadows, rock piles for hibernial programming, e.g., seasonally mown habitats; meadows for group picnics, community festivals or events, . provides opportunity for interpretation temporary art exhibits; and observation of site restoration over the long term, e.g., evolution of . establishes street tree planting phyto-remediation plots, wetland along Lakeshore Road park edge development, naturalization techniques, water quality monitoring: as framework for a Lakeshore Greenway. The attached drawing reflects the Landscape Restoration Foundation. This plan provides the opportunity to implement longer term concepts which build on the Landscape Restoration and offer flexibility and choice in both design layout, program alternatives and park management strategies. These additional park layers include the following (attached): (1 ) The Meeting Place - Management Level 1 (2) The Forest Meeting Place - Management Level 2 (3) The Forest Meeting Place - Management Level 3 RATIONALE The Authority has received public support for the site remediation plan and have addressed all the following issues: 1. All conditions as outlined within the agreement of purchase and sale including conditions set out in the Partners approvals. September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0115 2. Carrying out all field investigations and site characterization in accordance with MOE direction and addressing the issue of responsibility for low-level radioactive waste. 3. Completion of a risk assessment and peer review. 4. Acceptance by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to carry out low level radioactive waste containment. 5. Peer review of site remediation plan completed by Canada Post consultant. 6. Agreement with Canada Post on remediation approach which will be the most cost effective. TRCA will be assuming overall responsibility for the works assisted by a consultant. The Authority will utilize our own equipment supplier and technical staff to supervise the remediation. The portion of the works to be tendered will be for the haulage and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The Park Master Plan has been integrated with the Site Remediation Plan and reflects the comments of the Working Committee and the community and interest groups. In accordance with the Partners approval of the Acquisition Project and conditions, the Master Plan requires their approval and agreement on the specific arrangements for capital development and site management (operations and maintenance). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Site Remediation Plan, Risk Assessment and Peer Review and commitment from AECL for the low-level radioactive waste containment will be forwarded to the Partners, Canada Post and MOE. I nearly 1998, Canada Post and TRCA came to agreement on implementing the site remediation plan in a cost-effective way which would allow for the sharing (50/50) of any potential savings on Canada Post $2.5 million. Authority staff will forward a signed copy of the letter of agreement to Canada Post providing for the 50/50 sharing in any potential savings. In accordance with our understanding with Canada Post, the Authority will proceed to implement the Site Remediation Plan to include the following activities: . Hiring a consultant to assist the Authority with expertise and direction during the excavation and segregation of hazardous and non-hazardous soils. . Authority staff will be preparing the site, i.e. site office, site survey and project sign. . Preparing a tender for haulage and disposal of the hazardous and non-hazardous waste. With the Park Plan received by the Authority, the Plan will be circulated to the Partners for comment and approval. Authority staff will be workin~ with the Partners staff to prepare a strategy for the capital development and site management (operation and maintenance). 0116 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Authority staff will prepare a subsequent report for Authority consideration on the Partners approval of the Park Master Plan and capital development/site management strategy. FINANCIAL DETAILS The site remediation plan implementation is being carried out in accordance with an approach concurred with by Canada Post to be cost effective. Any savings under the $5,000,000 remediation funds will be shared equally between TRCA and Canada Post. Funding for the site remediation work is available and approved under Account No. 004-06. Funding for the Park Plan capital development will be outlined in a subsequent report to the Authority . For information contact: Larry Field, extension 243 Date: September 9, 1998 Attachments (11) September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0117 Attachment 1 J - c - 41 ~ 1 !:l - "6'o~ ::'0 .~ r.- 0 .5 '0 ] ""' .... :s! ~ = 1 .- 'Ell ~. ~ Cf.) =.:e .. ~ .. t;cs .s"':E E ~ .~.8 i &- III 9 4 []. .- -~ . .. I ....J o i< ~ .- z f 0 E- .. ~ .. 1~, _ -i or _]','1 . . ~ I , " I - ~ ," I 0118 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Attachment 2 PARTNER APPROVALS . Province of Ontario . Region of Peel . City of Mississauga . The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now City of Toronto) September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0119 Attachment 3 "" ~ Ministry of Ministere des c.. .;)(' 7 ~ Natural Richesses ICXI' . Resources naturelles .:.~ ~---~ Ulllano '''0' ~Q\"'~ , ., u ..,,,,,~ 50 Bloomington Road West 7337 Z7 R. R. #2 Aurora.: Ontario L4G 3G8 January 14, 1993 RECEIVED Mr. Craig Mather - . Chief Administrative Officer/Secretary-Treasurer JAN 22 i993 Metropolitan Toronto and Region M. T.R.C.A. Conservation Authority . 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 - Dear Mr. Mather: SUBJEcr: Treasurv Board Aooroval of Canada Post Purchase This is to inform you that at its meeting of September 22, 1992, Treasury Board approved your Authority's request for the acquisition of the Canada Post (Arsenal) property at 1400 Lakeshore Road West, Mississauga. The approval was subsequently ratified by Cabinet, with the following conditions: i) The Province's contribution to the purchase of the Canada Post property. shall be limited to $9,000,000. ii) Funds transferred will be used for the development of "passive use" facilities only. iii) As a condition of the Province's p~cipation in the purchase agreement, it is the understanding of all parties that the province assumes no liability with respect to properties transferred or to any environmental claim, current or future, on . properties to be purchased by the Conservation Authority with funds flowing from the City of Mississauga. If you have any questions, please contact Jerry Smitka at (416) 841-9318. ~/"~ G. W. Price Supervisor - Advisory Services Conservation Authorities Program, Operations Aurora (416) 841-9316 JS\lu - - 0120 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 . Attachment 4 Il~cn of Peel RESOLUTION 92-73-1 PASSED BY REGIONAL COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 1992 - That the Regional Municipality of Peel approve the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Project for the acquisition of the Canada Post Corporation property at 1400 l.:1keshore Road East, Mississauga and a general levy of $4,500,000 as identified in the Project and as contained in the draft 1992 Peel Region capital budget to be financed by debentures, subject to the following conditions: l. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("MTRCA") agree with the Region of Peel to present to Regional Council and the other funding partners in the Project, within three months from the date of this approval, a proposal for the funding and a work schedule for the preparation of a Master Plan (the "Master Plan") for the development and use of the Canada Post Property (the "Site") so that the proposal can be considered and dealt with in conjunction with the approval of the 1993 to 1997 capital budget and forecast. 2. MTRCA agree with the Region of Peel that the adoption of the Master Plan be subject to the approval of the Region of Peel; . 3. Because it is understood by the Region of Peel that its approval of the general levy of $~.500,OOO for the acquisition Project is based upon the assumption that the ultimate development of the Site will be for major open space and auxiliary supporting purposes and purposes which will be consistent with the Regional Open Space Strategy once it is established, MTRCA agree with the Region of Peel that: a) if the Region of Peel determines that the use or development of the whole or any part of the Site under the Master Plan is a use which is consistent with the regional open space uses in the Regional Open Space Strategy or is otherwise approved by the Region as being a regional open space use, then the appropriate use or development project shall be submitted to the Region of Peel for consideration in its five year capital budget and forecast; and, - _A"CXW Jc.t.LD1~ ~ J~ I OF d. ,.... ,."..~ at,... .. -- ~ H AAC..:t1 '<e-.. '91~. -.- J i I , September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0121 . ' Re;pion of Peel ,.,. - b) if the Region of Peel determines that the use or development of the whole or any pan of the Site under the Master Plan or any other project is nm a use which is consistent with the regional open space uses in the Regional Open Space Strategy or is .!l!ll otherwise approved by the Region as being a regional open space use, then in any arrangements between MTRCA and any other person, corporation, municipality or public body ("third panies") for the control, development, use and operation of the Site or that pan thereof MTRCA shall use all reasonable effortS to: - i) include provisions which are mutually agreeable to both MTRCA and the Region of Peel for the recovery from those third parties of the Region of Peel's portion of the land acquisition costs (the levy) and any Master Plan costs and all debt servicing costs, for reimbursement to the Region; and ii) include provisions which are mutually agreeable to both MTRCA and the Region of Peel for the assumption of the total cost of the development and operation of the Site or the pan thereof, by those third panies or by parties other than the Region of Peel and no notice of apportionment or levy shall be made on the Region of Peel for those costs. 4. MTRCA agree with the Region of Peel that any change from the existing uses of the Site or any part thereof to ones which are not of a regional open space nature or reasonably contemplated during site remediation under. the Project or the sale of the Site or any pan thereof shall be subject to the ~pproval of the Region of Peel; And further, that the Regional role in major open space systems, as described in Appendix B of the report of the Chief Administrative Officer dated February 20, 1992, titled "Acquisition of the Canada Post Property"; namely, the "Report on a Regional Role in Major Open Space Systems" be approved in principle and that staff be directed to produce a Regional Open Space Strategy as a basis for future Regional plans and decisions; . And further, that the City of Brampton, the Town of Caledon and the City of Mississauga identify any major open space systems and parcels in which they would like to see Regional involvement, either directly or through the conservation authorities so that they may be properly considered in relation to the proposed Region Open Space Strategy. ,,' ;;Z OF ~ -- - '2- 0122 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Attachment 5 _ ~." M~ \\(' ,( \ H.t:~~LU r~UN NO. '/'I.-Y .l,~~ - '. ~j'c . DPf" :~992 ~ u" ~ . MOVED BY: ,. - .s...~. - - SECC'DED~b-- ~~~ - !: - (a) That .a by-1aw be enac:fed to ~oriz9 ~e exeartion of an AgieSment of Purchase and . - ----Sale between Her M;esty th~ ~een ill right~ O;;~ as ~~rasen~ b~th; Mi;ister of . -. -. - - Government SSrvicas, ~d Tne!Corpo~~;;;tt;; c"it of Mississau~ for ;;~~ of , . - - - - 78.106'h~ (approx. 193 ac) of r4nd at'an approximate value of $1.Q~2.500:00, with' - --. prevision fo~'ad~~ent based bn a fi~l-;;:;-rvey of the are~i'tlt~ iand~~~'~~~g of the . , -'-o~~__._...__..f~~owi~~~l~~~~~d: __._l~_ L .._.._._-".~'.' ...------...0..: _ . (i) Parkway Belt West Iancfs IO~ west of Hwy ~ _S~~~.f H~ ~.~: .~~ _n.~rth of . . Matheson Soulevarcl d8sCllbed!as Part of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Concession 2. E.H.S. I _ (property No.1). e. - I ~ . ____.e_._.....~-~:.~~. ..~.~~ .....~...-.. (ii) Parkway Bett West Ian~, located west of Hwy 403, south of Matheson Boulevard , . o. and north;t Egfi~n AVenue ~descnbede~ P~~fc;ts 1, 2 ~d'3: -. I . . ...-. ..-......r'____......_. ._.,_......j.___...__.. .... ...._. . Concession 2. E.H.S. ~ropert'f: No.2}. . . - -... (iii) Pat~~;seiiwest Ian$, i~~~-o~ the-east~d~'of Mi~~g-; R~~d: ~~st of i . - . -. the Credit ~er, ar.d north of HWy 401d~;crib;.d ~p~ ~f ~3 ~d-4, Range 5, : . - - . NOS cesignated furtherlas PartS 1, 2. 4, 5,' 6~d 7 incl~e, Plan 43R.3736 ! , ., - (Prop;rty No. 3):- -T ---r- -.. ..-- --- .. . ..... . .-- ... I ' -- ,*h_ 0_ ..._____ '_0. __0.__ (VI) Parl<way 8eit West lands. Icc:rt=d east of Hwy <W3 and south of Egfirrton Avenue I , - - - East-desc.ibed as Paiof Lot 10: ~;ce~k;~2:-N:D.s" (P-rop~rty'NC;:4). .. - I : ...-- -__ ___..__._ __.._... ___. ....._ ........ ._~..._ .. o. j . ! .: . ..... ._-----1.. .--;------ - ...- . i : -_... ..-.------ -.. .- --~_._._. - .. -. ..- -.... -- I _._-===~.~ - .~._~--._:. i I :":\.~'..:~~~ . _' 111 _ , .._.__ _u '__ u._ _ .___ _ ._..; ~~._::..~~:.~... IMYOR .rf ;i'[~ N'O~' _.~.-- .- . . ... I . L'. ! I' . ! '. I . ... '" ....:Jlc.;.~'. ~ .-..... -.-:: ... ,"-'-" ..... 'J "'j ....... ..-. '... ... .w'll. September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0123 ..T~.-t ,..~ 'l~-.JI"'-" · ,....." '''I.J. . , . r- "'it . . 66 CA;~E:" March ,9. 1992 . ~ '1 'f - .., . I" ~. .u' MCVED BY: . f}. ~~ . I ,/1 - .. - : .tr, ./ A:.- r" <..-J L- SECOl\:CEOBY: ~. ~ - i i (v) Parkway Belt West rands, !ocat9d east of Missis:s:wga Road, south of Hwy 403 and I . . ......---...... I - I -..--.. ...-.-.....-.. east of the Credit RivelJ descn~ as Part of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Range 4, N.O.S. . ______._.. ....._..____-~-.-~..-----.. _.0.' :. _. . designated further as ?art 5, pran 43R..Q439. Part 1, Plan 43R-5061 , Part 1, Plan . I . ..-..--.- - -'-'---"'l.._~---'-'- . ....- .-.- 43R-5821 and ?art 1, ~Ian 43~-5550 (property No. 5). _.____., . ," ...._.... __'0 .....0._' ........__ ___......... . . . .. subject 10 the approvaI by the Office of the CiW Sorrdtcr to the fonn of the said - I ; .......--.-...........-.... . ...1......... . agreement and any furtper do~ents required pursuant to the tenns of the said .' .. ...... agre~~ent."" I .. ..! . (b)--- Tnarth; 1992-~pfraI Budget b~ arit;~~.to d~I~~;~ pj'nchin '(MGS-Lan~) rr:109) , I .-:--- a~Sitio" project and return the funds in the SUm of $2.300,000.00 i thi bt;dg~ - ! . . . .. e.__ ...- .....---.-r.--.-....--.-...--...-....-. -...__...... .... accoroingiy. I, , : - (f)- Tnat the gross and net budget ~ $11,8tO.ooi)be- estabfiShe~it;;pciyment'lO the' . -.. I .. - -.- MetroPolitan To~rrto and Regior Cons~rva:tion Auth~rfty and Her Maj~sti th~ ciu'~~ in .... -- --right of O.rtano as represented?r the ~nistar of Govemment.Se~c;~~.co;.;;p-ISte the - . Canada PosflP~ Belt WeSt lands ~cquisffi~n .prol~d.- .- -..-.- - .- " ~~_ __ That ri1~.ooO be ~ ~m lheMajor~a;;ci~.~~n ~~~.neraJ ,. Municipal Deve!ooment Reserve Fund and that the necessary by-laws be enac".ad. . t ~ . .-..- -_._.. - . .-. I . --.- .---.00-- --..--.--... -.... I I I - -.---.. ., ----I--j ---.- --- ...-..---.-. - -..- ..- . '--r I .- -- - .. .-.. --- . -.- ... .- - --.---.. .,. . . ._!...-.------. . ...-..- -. - . . : i I ; .-. ---. . ---.. ...- .-. -i- ... .. - . - ---- ---.-..----.--..-. I ---00_'-"'---" I : I , , "0 .- _._- .. ..0._._. -.....' i : i -- - - -.--.-. Fire No; .__ _ '. . ... _. i i i I ; .! i _ ....... .--.-.... ..._-----;~........~~I'\:......-_.. - '. ._,.......-......~..... 0124 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Attachment 6 ..,; ,. Clause embodied in Report No. 27 of The Management Committee adopted, as amended, by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at ~ meeting held on August 12 and 13, 1992. 4 ACQUISITION OF CANADA POST PROPERlY . 1400 LAKE SHORE ROAD EAST, MISSISSAUGA. The Management Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Parks, Recreation and Property Committee embodied in the following communication (July 28, 1992) from the Deputy Metropolitan Clerk: Recommendatlon: The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee on July 27, 1992, recommended the adoption of the report dated July 13. 1992. from the Commissioner of Parks and Property respecting the acquisition of the Canada Post Corporatlon property at 1400 Lake Shore Road East, Mississauga. (Report dated July 13, 1992, addressed to the Parks. Recreation and Property Committee from the Commissioner of Parks and Property.) Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1 ) the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Authority) be authorized to complete the acquisition of approximately 38.768 acres from Canada Post Corporation, within the total project cost of $18,000.000.00, of which $4,500.000.00 represents the Metropolitan Corporation's share; (2) following the acquisition, staff be authorized to participate in a detailed Parks Planning Study with the Authority, the City of Etobicoke, the Region of Peel. the City of Mlssissauga. and such Individuals and groups who have an interest in the property, and report back, upon completion of the Study. with respect to the proposed plan and the recommended arrangements for the development, operation and maintenance of the site; (3) financing, in the amount of $4,500.000.00. to be debentured [rt necessary) be approved; and (4) the appropriate Metropolitan Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: The 1992-1996 Capital Works Program adopted by Metropolitan Council provides for an amount of $4,500,000.00, in the 1992 Capital Debenture Quota. for this project, of which $4,500,000.00 is now being requested for approval. - September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0125 .. -- 2 , The Commissioner of Finance has certified that. subject to Ontario Municipal Board approval, expenditure. in the amount of $4,500.000.00. for this project can be financed by the Issuance of debentures. In considering the 1992-1996 Capital Works Program. Metropolitan Council adopted the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority project for the acquisition of the Canada Post Corporation property, 1400 Lakeshore Road East. City of Mlssissauga. and funds In the amount of $4,500,000.00. representing the contribution by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In considering the project, the Management Committee made the following amendment .(i) that funds, In the amo.unt of $4,500,000.00, be included in the 1992 Capital Works Program for Proiect No. 405, land acquisition of the Canada Post Corporation property at 1400 Lake Shore Road East. City of Mississauga; and further that no expenditure be made untft the appropriate Officials of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have reported to the Management Committee and Metropolitan Councft on a better funding formula for cost-sharing the capital acquisition of this project, and on the negotiations in respect of the future operation costs of this facility, insofar as it relates to Metropolitan Toronto." Metropolitan Council, in adopting the Capital Works Program, amended the Management Committee recommendation by inserting the words .Includlng environmental clean-up costs. after the words in respect of the future operations costs.. and further recommended that the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to re-examine the benefitting municipality designation to Project No. 405 - land AcquisitIon, Canada Post Property, Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Capital Works Program. Authority Resolutions: The Authority at its Meeting No. 3/91. on May 3. 1991, adopted Resolution No. 102 as a project for the acquisition of the site, with a 50 per cent Provincial/Authority contribution and 25 per cent. contributions from the Region of Peel and Metropolitan Toronto. This resolution formerly directed Authonty staff to proceed with the negotiations for the purchase of the property. Officials of the Authority's funding agencies were made aware, at that time. that the Authority had not yet obtained a final agreement with respect to the purchase of the property and that no formal request for approval of the project would be made until such time as a firm agreement was at hand. The Officials of the various parties have now agreed on the terms and condltfons of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Authority at its Meeting No. 9/91, held on January 10, 1992. adopted the following Resolution: Resolution No. 285: "THAT the 'Project for the Acquisition of the Canada Post Corporation Property, 1400 Lake Shore Road East. City of Mlssissauga'. as amended on December. 1991. be adopted; - 0126 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 .. - - 3 .. THAT the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve the project and a levy ot $4.500,000.00 towards the cost of the project; THAT the Regional Municipality of Peel be requested to approve the project and a levy of $4,500,000.00 towards the cost of the project; THAT the Province of Ontario and the City of Mlssissauga be requested to approve the project and contribute $9,oeo.OOO.OO towards the cost of the project; THAT pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the approval ot the Ontario Municipal Board be requested, if required: THAT Authority OffIcials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to complete the transaction, incll;ldlng obtaining any additional approvals which may be deemed necessary and the execution of any necessary documents; THAT, upon closing of the transaction, staff be directed to co-ordlnate a detailed planning study ot the property, with the involvement of Metropolitan Toronto, the Region of Peel, the City of Mlssissauga, the City of Etobicoke, the Province of Ontario, and such individuals and groups who have an interest in the site: THAT staff be directed to report to the Authority, upon completion of the study, with respect to the proposed plan and the recommended arrangements tor development, operation and maintenance of the site; AND FURTHER THAT Resolution No. 102 adopted at Meeting No. 3/91. he,d on May 3. 1991, be rescinded.' Acquisition Process: The Authority, at the request ot the funding Agencies, has played a leading role in co-ordinatfng negotiations, will assume title and will take a leading role in the planning process to determine the ultimate park development The negotiations have been lengthy, complex and have included Officials and staff of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, staff and solicitors ot the Authority, OffIcials and staff of the City ot Mississauga Officials and staff of the Regional Municipality of Peel, Special Advisor to the Premier, Toronto Waterfront Development, The Honourable David Crombie. and staff and Solicitors representing Canada Post Corporation. Canada Post initiated planning studies, in 1988, with a view to selling the lands tor development in a manner similar to the Cities of Toronto, Scarborough and Mississauga In early 1990, at the urging of the various public agencies represented in this project, Canada Post agreed to withhold the public advertising of its request tor proposals, which had already been fully prepared and was ready for distribution, to allow the public agencies a reasonable period of time to negotiate a suitable purchase arrangement Canada Pos: was e.<pecting compensation tor the site, substantially in excess of the amount being paid by the Authority, and had, in fact, expended substantial funds on a planning study, legal costs and other consultants reports. for the purpose of obtaining suitable rezoning and Official Plan amendments under the current Official Plan for the area Canada Post had independent appraisals, prepared by qualified appraisers. estimating the value ot the land at amounts in excess ot three times . - September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0127 4 ... r the value being paid for the property under this transaction. If Canada Post wishes to develop the land for some other use and public bodies are unable or are unwilling to purchase the lands. a request for an Official Plan amendment by Canada Post must be considered by the Municipality. In a letter dated June 14. 1991. Mr. Duncan Allan. Special Advisor to the Premier, Toronto Waterfront Development. advised that he had been authorized by Minister Grier to confirm that the Province of Ontario would contribute an amount, not to exceed $9.000.000.00. towards the cost of the purchase in the form of a land conveyance to the City of Mlssissauga. for nominal consideration in exchange for Mlssissauga contribming $9,000,000.00 to the project. The City of Mlssissauga, upon receipt of the conveyance from the Province of Ontario, will then provide the Authority with $9.000.000.00 on/or before the date set for closing for the Canada Post purchase. The detection of soil and ground water contamination on the site. through an environmental audit undertaken by the Authority. has resulted In a significant reduction in the purchase price and provisions for a portion of the costs of dean-up of the site to be assumed by Canada Post, If necessary. Agreement of Purchase and Sale: A summary of significant details of the proposed purchase are as follows: (a) the lands to be acquired consist of a total of 15.7 hectares. more or less (38.768 acres), being Part of Lots 4 and 5. Concession III, S.O.S.. City of Mississauga. Regional Municipality of Peel, designated as Part 1 on Plan No. 43R4461; (b) situated on the property is an industrial building with a gross noor area of approximately 21,368 square metres (230.000 square feet), an office warehouse building with a total of 4.087 square metres (44,000 square feet), together with other industrial warehouse out-buildings containing approximately 2.322 square metres (25.000 square feet); the total area of all buildings is estimated at approximately 27,777 square metres (300.000 square feet); (c) the purchase price is to be the sum of $14,500.000.00, payable $50.000.00 five days after execution of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the balance due on the scheduled Closing Date of October 31. 1992; (d) the Agreement is conditional on the obtaining of all approvals required from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Minister of Natural Resources. Management Board of the Provincial Cabinet, the Regional Municipality of Peel. the City of Mississauga and the Ontario Municipal Board. If deemed necessary, prior to September 30. 1992; approvals are now at hand from the Councils of the Regional Municipality of Peel and the City of Mississauga; (e) possession is to be given December 31, 1993. except for one building which is leased to Ontario Hydro and Cadet Organization Police School, and one other Lease for a sign, which lease arrangements will be administered by the Authority upon dosing; (I) Existing Leases: (i) Ontario Hydro - this is a Lease of about 24,000 square feet of the office warehouse building, representing a substantial portion of the building at the west entrance to the property from Lake Shore Road East; the Tenant pays utilities, maintenance and rent of approximately m.ooo.OO per year, to July, 1993, and for the next two years. sas.680.00 per year, either party can terminate the arrangement on one year's notice. at any time; . - 0128 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 , , ... 5 (Ii) Mediacom - this is a Lease to place a sign at the east end of the lands, on a year-to-year basis; rent is at $1.500.00 per year, approximately; and (iiI) Cadet Organization Police School . this is, basically, a Lease of, approximately, 10.000 square feet at the rear of the premises occupied by Ontario Hydro; it is a monthly tenancy, at $178.00 per month, with the tenant responsible tor all taxes, utilities, ete.; (g) Site Remediation . the eS1imated cost to clean up the environmental conditions is between $3,000,000.00 to $10,000.000.00, depending on disposal and/or treatment options acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment; it is expected that substantial portions ot the site could be used tor public park purposes, within a $5,000,000.00 expenditure; a remediation plan for clean-up, subject to consultation and comments from the Vendor, is to be prepared by the Purchaser and the first $2,500.000.00 of costs is to be paid by the Purchaser; the next $2.500,000.00 by the Vendor, and any remainder by the Purchaser; as invoices tor remediation work are received, the same are to be remitted to the Vendor tor payment within thirty or sixty days; the Purchaser is entitled to include, In the costs, its own employees' time in the clean-up, additional costs of development. as a result of the environmental conditions, and $30,000.00 of costs incurred, to date, tor environmental studies; (h) Indemnity to Authority Prior to Vacant Possession - Canada Post agrees to indemnify the Authority from any claims arising prior to possession, except for the Authority's negligence or tor the remediation costs; the Authority is specifically excepted from any claims by the Vendor's employees; (i) Resale and Rezoning - in order to satisfy the concem of Canada Post that they are. selling below current marketvaJue and that the Purchaser will not up-zone the property for high rise residential use and profit on a flip. it was agreed that the lands cannot be resold for flve years from the Closing Date. other than to Metropolitan Toronto, Peel or Mississauga and only if they agree to be bound by the terms of the Agreement; for ten years following the Closing Date. the lands can only be used for uses permitted by current zoning, public parks or conservation areas and limited retail and office uses; breach of this provision gives rise to the right of the Vendor to repurchase, at the original purchase price. or to a payment equal to the increase in value as a result of the breach. It is felt that. due to the broad uses permitted under the existing zoning and the proposed park uses. these restrictions are not a significant impediment to the Purchaser; and Q) Indemnity Agreement - gives the Authority a right of access. on reasonable notice, prior to December 31,1993, and also provides an indemnity to Canada Post. from costs incurred by it. as a result of Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty's acts or omissions in connection with the lands; Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority agrees not to release any information relating to the property received from Canada Post or information gathered by Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding environmental conditions prier to the Closing Date. other than to Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's funding agencies and the Ministry of the Environment; Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty must give 24-hours' notice of public meetings disclosing this information. . ~ September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0129 6 l~ Discussion: During consideration of the 1992-1996 CaPital Budget as it. relates to the acquisition by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, staff were directed to report on a better funding fonnula for cost-sharing the capital acquisition of this project. Discussion regardll'lg the overall funding relationship between Metropolitan Toronto and the Authority had been ongoing for some time. Metropolitan Council, by the adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 25 of The Management Committee on July 2. 1992. adopted a report from the Chief Administrative Officer with respect to recommending a revised tonnula, and this properf'/ acquisition Is in accord with the revised funding relationship. Additionally, discussions have occurred with the staff of the Authority respecting the Metropolitan Toronto share of the total project. While the total amount remains unchanged at $4,500,000.00. an understanding has been reached whereby $2.000.000.00 of the Metropolitan Toronto share will be required. in 1992. to complete the acquisition, and the balance of $2,500,000.00 required, in late 1993 and 1994. to fund the InitlaJ site clean-up program. With respect to the future operating cost of the facility, it is noted that this parcel (38.768 acres) is immediately adjacent to the existfng Marie Curtis Park (62.216 acres) which Is owned by the Authority and operated by Metropolitan Toronto. It Is proposed that the funding partners, being the Authority, the Region of Peel and Metropolitan Toronto, together with the City of Etobicoke and the City of Mississauga, and such individuals and groups who have an interest in the site. will participate with the Authority who will co-ordlnate a detailed planning study for the site. This study will result in recommendations respecting the future operating costs, in addition to a revised master plan for the overall enlarged park property. Considerable investigation has been undertaken by the Authority with respect to the environmental condition of the site. As a result of this detailed investigation, the estimat~ cost to clean up the site is between $3,000,000.00 and $10,000.000.00, the latter representing the Very worst scenario. As a result of the foregoing, the overall purchase price has been reduced by $2,500,000.00. In addition. the agreement requires the Vendor to be responsible for the actual clean-up costs. in excess of $2,500,000.00 (Purchaser's responsibility). to a maximum of SS.OOO,OOO.OO. While it is anticipated that a substantial portion of the site can be cleaned up for SS,OOO,OOO.OO, clean-up costs over $5,000,000.00 can be funded through the sale of portions of the property located in the northeast comer fronting on Lake Shore Road. This site includes a two-storey office building currently leased to Ontario Hydro. Conclusions: The site has many advantages as a Waterfront Park. It is readily accessible to the residents of Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding area by major road and transit facilities. It is immediately adjacent to the existing Metropolitan Toronto-operated Marie Curtis Waterfront Park and could readily be incorporated into that established park framework. A portion of the property is a woodlot which straddles the boundary of the site with both Marie Curtis Park and the Water Pollution Control Plant It provides a rare opportunity to link a major, regional public open space on the lake with Lake Shore Boulevard and the surrounding community. It is large enough to accommodate a range of waterfront-oriented uses. - . 0130 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 ,'~ .. 7 ""' The acquisition Is strongly supported by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and Metropolitan Toronto, In the preparation of its new Waterfront Plan. has recognized the potential of the property as a rare opportUnity for a malor. regional. public open space on the lakeshore. In my opinion, the terms and condftJons of the acquisition are fair and reasonable. - Councillor Blake Kinahan, Etobicoke - Lakeshore-Queensway, appeared before the Management Committee in conneciton with the foregoing matter. (A copy of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's report entitled .Project for the Acquisitton of the Canada Post Corporation Property. 1400 Lake Shore Road East, CIty of Mississauga., dated January, 1992, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Management Committee meeting of August 4, 1992, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the Metropolitan Toronto Clerk.) (The Metropolitan Council on August 12 and 13, 1992, amUlded the foregoing Clause by: (1) adding the following words to the recommendation of the Management Committu: ," -nJbject to no additional monies, beyond those idcuified in this Clause, being erpended by Metropolilan Toronto for site clean-up:; and (2) adding to RecommUldation No. (3). onbodied in the report dated July 13, 1992, from the Commissioner of Parks and Property, the following words: -and further that .lJetropolitan Toronto' s financial contribution be conditional upon restrictions on use of such property for passive open space and parle/and, and ancillary uses thereto only. -) . - September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0131 Attachment 7 - it Remediation Plan - the Arsenal Lands '" ii II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Remediation of contaminated materials at the Arsenal Lands will be completed in accordance with a Remediation Plan that has been developed for the site, and in a manner that will be protective of human health and the environment. II The objectives of the Remediatio'lPlan are: II . identify areas of contamination and estimate the amount of contaminated material . identify and assess appropriate remedial methods, and recommend preferred methods fJ . prepare a schedule for remediation . prepare materials to obtain the necessary approvals from the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Regional Municipality of Peel if necessary II . estimate clean-up costs . develop a list of contractors who will be able to undertake site clean-up j The scope of work to develop the remediation plan involved a review of previous field investigations, the completion of additional field activities, discussions with regulatory agencies, discussions with contractors, and assessment of remedial options. II A number of separate environmental investigations have been conducted at the site since 1989. I Canada Post, the fonner owner of the Arsenal Lands, undertook investigations in 1989 and 1990 to assess environmental conditions prior to the sale of the property. The MTRCA conducted a series of environmental investigations in 1991 and 1992 as part of due diligence prior to acquiring I the site from Canada Post. All of the available environmental data have been included in the development of the Remediation Plan. I The MTRCA conducted additional site characterization in 1995 in support of the Remediation Plan. A total of sixty-one backhoe test pits and twenty boreholes were completed outside buildings to sample soil and to refine the volume of contaminated soil. Thirty-five backhoe test I pits were excavated within fonner building envelopes following demolition of the buildings, to assess soil quality beneath the fonner buildings. Forty-three backhoe test pits were excavated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to assess the extent of low-level radioactive soil. At the I request of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE), additional sampling was conducted to investigate soil conditions in the vicinity of the only remaining building that is currently leased I to Ontario Hydro, and along the edge of the property between Lakeshore Road East, the fonner main Canadian Arsenals building, and the fonner gravel parking lot. A total of seventy-five boreholes were drilled on a total of fourteen grid blocks each having dimensions 30m x 30m I around the building. A total of fifty-eight backhoe test pits were excavated in thirteen grid blocks each having dimensions 60m x 60m, along Lakeshore Road East and the fonner parking lot. I Surface water samples from drainage leaving the site was conducted at five stations on the property and at the mouth of Applewood Creek which drains the area to the west of the site. . I I INTERA Consultants Ud. 95-045 0132 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 ... Remediation Plan. the Arsenal Lands ill D Four grab samples were taken of groundwater that entered test pits in the southern portion of the - property, and one grab sample was taken of pond sediment. Contaminated materials at the Arsenal Lands include soil, surface water, groundwater and pond I sediments. Based on previous work, and the additional soil characterization work, a total of nineteen areas of I concern were identified as containing levels of contamination that exceed existing MOEE soil I clean-up guidelines for parkland land use. Contaminants of concern in soils include: heavy metals, particularly lead with lesser amounts of copper, zinc, arsenic, nickel, antimony, selenium, beryllium and cadmium; a range' of light to heavy petroleum hydrocarbons related to spilled , gasoline and diesel fuels, fueVoil and heavier lubricating oils; and low levels of PCBs associated with existing and former electrical transformer enclosures. Two types of soil contamination were identified on the Arsenal Lands. The first type is called I "defined" contamination and predominates the site. This type of contamination resulted from specific former land use activities that included the firing range; the disposal of liquid hydrocarbon I' waste; the disposal of slag, ash, trash and low-level radioactive soil. These areas are well defined and can be identified by field observation or by chemical sampling. The second type of contamination is called "random" contamination and results from the random f distribution of contaminants over a localized area. This type of contamination is difficult to locate and is associated with the imponation of contaminated fill onto the property from other sources I such as the use of ash material from a local municipal incinerator to infill potholes or ruts in the unpaved parking lot. I A total of 27,211 m3 or 48,980 tonnes of contaminated soil is estimated to be present at the site. Approximately 17,700 tonnes of waste material has been classified as hazardous. I Surface water within the pond is degraded and exceeds MOEE Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) for aluminum, boron, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, vanadium and zinc. TCE I or other VOCs were not detected in the pond water samples. A drainage pipe, which discharges to the pond, drains the marshy area between Area 11 and Area 16. The water quality was compliant with PWQOs except for vanadium. TeE was detected at a concentration of 3.0 J.1g/L I and is consistent with low background levels that have been identified elsewhere on the site outside Area 2. The sample from the south side creek exceed PWQOs for boron, cadmium, copper, vanadium and zinc. TCE was detected at a concentration of 6.2 and 5.3 J.1g/L. Water I quality in the creek is improved over the quality in the pond but is degraded compared to the drainage pipe sample. - Water quality in Applewood Creek exceeds PWQOs for boron, copper and vanadium. It is not I known whether these metals are derived from up gradient sources or result from drainage through I contaminated areas on adjacent lands. . I INTERA Consultants Ud. 95-045 I September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0133 k Remediation Plan. the Arsenal Lands iv . Pond sediments were found to exceed the MOEE Lowest Effect Level of the sediment quality ~ guidelines for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel. Groundwater contains elevated concentrations of cis-l,2-dichloroethene which exceed MOEE " groundwater remediation criteria by less than two times. Cis-l,2-dichloroethene is a breakdown i product of trichloroethene which is a common metal degreaser and was likely used when the site i was a manufacturer of small firearms during the Second World War and into the 1950s. I - There are a variety of technologies that are suitable for the treatment and management of ~ contaminated soil and groundwater. Many of the technologies involve engineered processes. Some technologies take advantage of natural processes. Treatment technologies can be categorized according to how the contaminant is treated into the I following general classes of technology: . destruction . separation I . isolation . integrated - Destruction technologies treat contaminated material by causing a change in the chemical structure of the contaminant, creating harmless degradation products. Destruction technologies - are only suitable for organic contaminants. Contaminants consisting of heavy metals such as lead, copper or nickel cannot be treated using destruction technologies. II Separation technologies involve the application of changes in temperature, electric current or chemical reagents to separate the contaminant from the matrix (i.e. soil or water) resulting in a concentrated contaminant waste stream and clean matrix. The concentrated contaminant waste - stream is subject to further treatment which could include recycling, destruction or isolation. Separation technologies can be used for both heavy metal and organic contaminants. - Isolation technologies are methods of containing contaminants to limit the mobility of contaminants and decrease the rate at which the contaminant can move through the environment. a Integrated technologies are combinations of technologies or processes that are used at sites where contaminated materials contain both organics and heavy metals, and/or the matrix is complex, and - where a single technology is insufficient to meet clean-up criteria. Contamination at the Arsenal Lands includes heavy metals and organics, alone and in , combination. The following is a list of technologies which are commonly applied to soil remediation: . isolation (metals and organics) I . landfilling (metals and organics) . bioremediation (organics) . . . aIr spargmg (volatile organics) I INTERA Consultants Ud. 95-045 :.. 0134 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Remediation Plan - the Arsenal Lands v I~ . soil vapour extraction (volatile organics) I . soil washing (metals and organics) . thermal desorption (organics) I . in-situ washing/leaching (metals, organics) . thermal reduction (organics) I . electrokinetic separation (metals) Groundwater treatment, if required, could include the following methods: I . air sparging D . advanced oxidation processes . filtration processes . reactive barrier walls I The application of controlled natural processes could be utilized in conjunction with ongoing I research at the site to provide cost effective remediation of selected areas at the Arsenal Lands. . wetlands ~ . phytoremediation .. composting I The clean-up at the Arsenal Lands is driven by the following guiding principles' . contaminated materials will be managed in such a way that there will be no significant i impact to human health or the environment . all material classified as hazardous will be treated or removed from the site I . acceptable engineered processes or methods will be used to manage contaminated materials. Natural processes will be explored in those areas where there is a likelihood that these methods will be more cost effective than engineered solutions, or where the use of I the natural processes provide added value to the Park . it is believed that treatment of surface water and groundwater, other than for compliance with the Region of Peel Sewer Use By-Law during dewatering operations, will not be t necessary at this time. It is believed that removal of significant amounts of contaminated soil will lead to improvements in groundwater and surface water quality over time. I . verification sampling will be conducted to confirm that remaining subsurface materials do not provide significant levels of risk to human health and the environment. . on-going monitoring will be conducted to monitor residual contaminant levels in soil, I groundwater, surface water, pond sediments, and vegetation. Based on the above list of principles, the following management options are recommended: I Areas 1, 2, pan of 3, 4, 9, 10, pan of 11, 12, 13, 18, and 19 will be managed by . 1. excavation and off-site disposal in an approved landfill. I INTERA Consultants Ud. 95-045 I September 18. 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0135 II Remediation Plan - the Arsenal Lands vi ... - 2. The low-level radioactive soil in the shallow soil in Area 3 will be excavated to allow II excavation of underlying soils contaminated with .heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. The excavated low-level radioactive soils will be placed in a below grade, I lined, engineered facility in Area 2, and capped with a plastic cover, and clean soil and vegetated. i 3. Areas 5,6, 16, and 17 win be fenced and planted with species of plants that are known to W:ilitate natural biodegradation. This work will be part of an active research program and will be managed by a recognized research institution. II 4. The dry trash zone of Area 11 will be isolated by placing a cap of clean soil over the area and planting with dense vegetation. - 5. The pond sediments will be managed by placing clean sand over the existing sediments and planting the edge of the pond with dense vegetation. II 6. Clean-up of the Arsenal Lands will be implemented in accordance with a Remedial Plan. The Remedial Plan will address the following issues: ~ . health and safety . scheduling - . regulatory approvals . site preparation I . management of soil . management oflow-Ievel radioactive soil . management of pond sediments . . management of surface water . management of groundwater . real-time monitoring I . verification sampling . long term monitoring a . environmental site management . report preparation I The costs to complete site remediation are estimated to be $4,710,000 which includes a 15% contingency. I I . I I INTERA Consultants Ud. 95-045 - 0136 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Attachment 8 . .;:; I " ;" ~ .s ~ gQ I" e I .. II d I j ~ I ~::Jl!J (j) i I I w ~ A I '- L:J ! w I . ~ -l ~ ; , ~! I I II , , '.1,' I Ilil'i I ~ II = " .. , . ~II I!!',!II~I il.llli i - .' .H:. ",I...,... . 'II . N ....... .~,. . ....... . c;: II 2. It fj . ~~Yd S llllllJ J I~\'W . . . 0, 0 , I~....... . , . . . . . I I , \ I \ I \ \ ,. \ \ , \ '> I I . , I " , " . I I I I ~ i!, . ................... September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0137 Attactlment 9 ... . ., .~ \ 'IL c !11 \ ~ 'I J I .9 Jlh 'L (ii ..) ,e 't:l T c :l uH & 1 c .9 - ll:I ~ ... 0 - '" , e Qj . \ r::t::: Q Qj ! c.. z B I~ '" 11 't:l c fj 'C j C It. ,]} I 1 ~) t ! i I 0 \ , 0 ~ \ = () ;- \ ~ ---' L -, '"< ",. i I" ::Ii~ I t I --' \ \ i . 0138 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Attact:lment 10 "" IL , ' pI I 1'1 , -- I' f:1 8, ~ . I J111 o ~ . Ql uU i 1 ' tJ 1 d2l l".30 ClI ~ CXJ @~ i 0 f!iO s: j bO- <<! ~~ .5l J O!l~ ~~ -;:: Ql - I, It ,~ ~ I Ql ;> .c - fj E-~ . ~ September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0139 Attachment 11 - . JL !] I OJ !11l t.J ~ E: . co uH .5 1 Qj OJ j ::E .:: u;] t ~.,. z o ii If """ ;j OJ !!' ..c - fj E-~ ,;t"! .... 2 ;;; i~ 3<~ as . . 0140 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 RES.#D32/98 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #3/98 The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meeting#3/98 are provided for information. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed AUiance meeting #3/98, as appended, be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #4/97 held on May 30,1997 by Resolution #A66/97, includes the following provision: Part 1. Section 1.1 Mandate The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on the progress of implementing activities. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 Date: September 3, 1998 . RES.#D33/98 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL The Minutes of Meeting #3/98 held June 18, 1998 and Minutes #4/98 held August 20, 1998 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #3/98 held June 18, 1998 and Meeting #4/98 held August 20, 1998 be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0141 BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238 Date: September 3, 1998 RES.#34/98 - CITY OF TORONTO (SCARBOROUGH DISTRICT) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1001 Ontario Municipal Board Referrals (Ontario Hydro/Graywood Investments Ltd.). Status Report Including Comments on the Recent Study for the City of Toronto, Entitled "Ontario Hydro Corridor (West Highland Creek) I nvestigation of Stormwater Management, Naturalization and Open Space Opportunities". Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff continue to work with and provide assistance to the City of Toronto for the protection and enhancement of the resource features as outlined in this report; THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority on the Land Acquisition Strategy once more information is available; THAT staff be directed to make a presentation at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, to commence October 5, 1998, with regard to the Authority interests as outlined in this report, as they relate to those Hydro Corridor lands north of Highway 401 ; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to report back to the Authority prior to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to commence February 22, 1999, on the status of the Board proceedings and for those Hydro Corridor lands south of Highway 401 .. ...... CARRIED BACKGROUND Ontario Hydro lands within the €ity-of -roronto (Scarborough f>istrict) .were declared surplus by Ontario Hydro in March 1996. The location of the surplus lands extend north west from Kennedy Road north of Lawrence Avenue, to Birchmount Avenue; then Warden Avenue to Highway 401; and then north from Highway 401 to McNicoll Avenue. See Attachments. 0142 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Two previous staff reports on the issue of the Hydro Corridor lands were considered- by the Authority. One staff report dealt with the background of the Hydro Corridor from a planning and environmental perspective and the events leading up to the Ontario Municipal Board referral; and the second was a staff report on the possible participation of the Authority in the purchase of surplus Ontario Hydro land. At Authority Meeting #3/98 held April 24, 1998, Resolution #A60/98 was adopted: II THA T the staff report on the Ontario Municipal Board Referral- made by Ontario Hydro/Graywood Investments Ltd. related to Official Plan Amendment 1001 be received for information; THA T staff continue to work closely and provide support to the City of Toronto in order to prepare a strong case in support of the Open Space designation; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the status of discussions with the City of Toronto and the position to be taken at the Ontario Municipal Board with regard to support to the Open Space designation. Amendment #1 THA T the Authority attend the prehearing conference of May 1, 1998 of the Ontario Municipal Board. Amendment #2 THA T the Authority seek participant status at the Ontario Municipal Board in this matter. Amendment #3 THA T staff be directed to report to the next Watershed Management Advisory Board on the Authority's participation in the possible purchase of the surplus hydro lands in the former City of Scarborough, indicated by this report. Amendment #4 THA T Authority staff be directed to forward a copy of the staff report and relevant recommendations to be placed on the Agenda at the next meeting of the City of Toronto's Urban Environment and Development Committee." In response to these Authority resolutions, staff offer the following information. Ontario Hydro has now sold the surplus lands north of Highway 401 to Graywood Investments Ltd. (Graywood) and south of Highway 401 to Norstar Development Corporation (Norstar). To date there have been three~ntario Municipal-Board iOMBtPrehearing Conferences. Authority staff appeared at all three Prehearing Conferences and requested to be a Participant to the Hearing. This request was granted by the OMB. As late as the last Prehearing Conference (PHC). held September 8, 1998, the OMB decision was that the Hearing will commence on October 5, 1998 but will only deal with issues as they relate to lands north of Highway 401. For the Hydro Corridor lands south of Highway 401, the Hearing will commence February 22, 1999. September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0143 Staff will continue to work closely and provide support to the City of Toronto for the protection and regeneration/enhancement of the environmentally significant portions of the Hydro Corridors. However, because the Authority has asked to be a Participant to the Hearing, we will be making a statement/presentation to the Board which relates to the interests of the Authority; primarily as related to the protection and enhancement of the Bendale Corridor and other related water management issues. On April 28, 1998, a letter and copy of the staff report with relevant recommendations was sent to the City of Toronto to be considered by the City's Urban Environment and Development Committee. This documentation was considered by the Committee on May 19, 1998. It appears that no further action was taken. Following the April 24, 1998 Authority meeting, a second staff report was considered by the Authority as it related to the possible participation of the Authority in the acquisition of surplus Ontario Hydro lands. At Authority Meeting #4/98 held May 29, 1998, Resolution #A89/98 was adopted: '7HA T the staff report dated May 4, 1998 on the surplus Ontario Hydro lands located between Lawrence Avenue and Highway #401, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough), be received; THA T the Authority's interest in participating in the acquisition of surplus Ontario Hydro Lands, in the former City of Scarborough, be limited to those lands which meet the Authority's criteria for defining lands which are suitable for acquisition as outlined in the staff report; THA T staff report further on the environmental sensitivity of lands in the Hydro Corridors between, west of Warden Avenue, south of Highway 401 and north of Highway 401, up to McNicoll Avenue; THA T staff report on the Authority's interest in participating in the acquisition of the Hydro corridors within the area as noted above. as well as those already indicated in the staff report dated May 7, 1998; THA T staff also report on the effects that the proposed development will have on the T erraview Willowfield Concept site; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be asked to comment on the City's interest in the Hydro Corridors already declared surplus by Ontario Hydro and the remaining corridors within the former City of Scarborough. Amendment THA T the last paragraph be deleted and replaced with the following: AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto be asked to comment on the City's interest in all the Hydro Corridors already declared Surplus by Ontario Hydro and any other hydro corridor . lands across the City of Toronto." 0144 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 And further, under New Business, at Authority Meeting #6/98 held July 24, 1998, Resolution #A 143/98 was adopted: "WHEREAS the City of Toronto Council at its meeting held July 8,9, and 10, by Resolution, Clause 27 of Report No.6 of the Scarborough Community Council, is seeking the cooperation of the Provincial and Federal Governments, the TRCA and other potential partners, to develop a Land Acquisition Strategy for the surplus Ontario Hydro lands within the former City of Scarborough; AND WHEREAS the Authority has identified certain lands within two of the Ontario Hydro Corridors, north and south of Highway 401, (Res. #89198 and #A90198), which would meet the Authority's criteria for defining lands which are suitable for acquisition and, subject to further study, there may be additional lands within other surplus Hydro Corridors; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT staff be directed to participate in the Land Acquisition Strategy to ensure that the lands which are of interest to the Authority are identified and included; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the results." The City of Toronto Council, at its in-camera portion of the meeting held on July 8, 9, and 10, 1998 in con~ideration of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Ontario Hydro (Graywood/Norstar) appeals, issued instructions to staff which, in essence, were two-fold: 1. that staff prepare plans of subdivision for the purpose of establishing value, which provide for low density, single family development with appropriate City parks and stormwater quantity and quality facilities, all of which would be compatible and complementary to the adjacent residential communities; and 2. to initiate a Study to determine what lands, if any, are required or desirable for acquisition by the City or appropriate public body, to implement modern stormwater quantity and quality standards and opportunities for renaturalization. Such study was to be prepared in cooperation with the TRCA. The plans of subdivision being prepared by City staff will be considered by Scarborough Community Council on September 16, 1998 and then by City of Toronto Council on October 1, 1998. The XCG Report The firm of XCG Consultants Ltd. together with Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster and Anthony Usher Planning Consultants was hired by the City, in cooperation with TRCA staff, to carry out the requested- study~ntitled;-"Gntario'Hydroeorridor-(West-HiQhtand Creek) InvestiQation of Stormwater Management. Naturalization and Open Space Opportunities". September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0145 The purpose of the XCG report was to investigate the issues and opportunities represented by the surplus Ontario Hydro corridor lands in all aspects of stormwater management, channel renaturalization and open space systems and linkages. The report went on to identify the use of the entire hydro corridors for broad range open space uses, as well, the report identified those essential open space areas as the basis for determining which lands should be acquired for stormwater management improvements, watercourse renaturalization, trail connections and opportunities to expand existing parks. It is important to understand that given the tight time frame imposed by the pending OMB Hearing, the XCG Study was focused on the Ontario Hydro surplus corridor 1ands. It is a conceptual study where the level of detail was based on existing information only. Further studies are recommended to implement the recommendations of this Study. The TRCA in cooperation with the City of Toronto has initiated the Highland Creek Watershed Strategy. It is important to place the Hydro lands in the context of the watershed. A small portion of the hydro corridor lands, north of Highway 401, drain to Massey Creek, a tributary of the Don River. Most of the hydro corridor lands drain to the Highland Creek. Actions in the watershed basins are not isolated. Activities such as watercourse improvements, naturalization, stormwater management improvements, etc. ultimately assist the Highland Creek as a whole. The XCG report through study of the hydro corridors, concluded that "the existing Hydro Corridors, with featureless open fields, channelized drainage and engineered stormwater detention facilities, at present offers little in the way of ecological significance or habitat". However, the Hydro corridor lands offer opportunities for renaturalization of the tributaries and retrofitting to reduce existing downstream erosion and flooding. The XCG report went on to determine those lands that would be essential or priority open space components. The corridor was broken down into blocks which were evaluated. The report concluded that the parcel of lands with reaches of the Bendale and Dorset Park branches of the Highland Creek ranked as top priority open space components of the Hydro lands followed by blocks with a significant park and open space content (ie. existing stormwater management facility). From the Executive Summary of the XCG report: "The Hydro corridor lands represent an unique opportunity for the City to undertake channel renaturalization, establishment of a continuous trail system and enh,ancement of parklands. In keeping with recent City initiatives, such as Highland Creek - Markham Branch Natural Channel Design, Centennial Creek Eco-Park and T erraview/Willowfield channel renaturalization, the protection of the corridor lands, or essential parcels, will not only benefit the local communities but the entire Highland Creek watershed and the City overall, demonstrating the City's and TRCA's commitment to the environment and quality of life". The study identified that the width of the entire hydro corridor for its length where it is adjacent to either the Bendale or the Dorset Park Branches of the Highland, should be protected from development purposes. Included in this open space area would be such activities as channel renaturalization, water quality and erosion control, protection for downstream flood vulnerable areas, integrated stormwater management for any development, integration with the park system, extension of park and playing fields. 0146 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18. 1998 Funding mechanisms were briefly discussed in the report. Among other things, such mechanisms as density bonusing and density transfers were suggested. Through parkland dedication, it is recommended that open space lands be secured adjacent to the watercourse corridors thereby fulfilling the parkland requirements and also providing for additional open spaces to link and enhance the watercourse reaches. From the XCG report it does not appear that there are any additional existing environmentally sensitive portions of the corridor, other than the watercourses. The Authority has made a commitment, through resolution, to participate in the acquisition of the stream corridor lands for both the Bendale and Dorset Park Branches in accordance with criteria as set out in the "Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1996-2000. The Project defines the stream corridor lands as being a minimum of 1 0 metres from the regional storm floodline. The previous staff report which dealt with the Authority's participation in acquisition of portions of the Hydro corridor identified dedication of these lands to be at minimal cost. Although the XCG is conceptual and is done in the absence of a watershed/subwatershed study for the Highland Creek, staff concur with the recommendations as set out in the report. It is recommended that efforts should be focused on assisting in the securement of those portions of the hydro corridor adjacent the tributaries consistent with the XCG recommendations. Staff opinion is that the XCG Study should form the preliminary or conceptual criteria that should be satisfied prior to the recommendation of development scenarios. Staff are recommending continued support to the City of Toronto in implementing these recommendations. Other than the Bendale and Dorset Park Branches, presently, the Hydro corridor lands offer little in the way of environmental sensitivity. The rationale for protecting the hydro corridor lands from development, is the opportunity and benefit the lands offer for renaturalization and reduction in downstream erosion and flooding. If these lands are lost to development, the opportunities for such activities as renaturalization and retrofitting opportunities will be lost. TerraviewlWillowfield Conceot Site One of the Authority resolutions was that staff report back on the effects of development on the Terraview/Willowfield Concept Site. Staff have had an opportunity to review the Functional Servicing Reports for the proposed Graywood development, north of Highway 401. Surface water drainage to the Don River Watershed is being controlled and treated to meet Authority stormwater management criteria, that being post to pre control plus water quality. The servicing reports identify that after surface water is controlled and treated it will flow into the west Metro trunk sewer, which is an underground pipe that travels on the north side of Highway 401 westward to the Wishing Well Major System stormwater management facility. The water which flows south from the Wishing Well facility flows through the TerraviewlWillowfield Concept Site. However, the surface water leaving that portion of the Graywood site which drains to the Don River watershed will be controlled to predevelopment levels and will be treated for quality. Therefore, the water from the Graywood site will in fact be cleaner than existing flows and will not increase the rate of water flow to the Concept Site. In addition,-aIthough 'Staff;'to-oate, have not reviewectservicing studies for those lands south of Highway 401, which drain to the Don River Watershed, Authority stormwater management criteria will need to be satisfied, similar to that of the lands north of Highway 401. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that from a water management point of view, there would be no detrimental effect on the Terraview/Willowfield Concept Site. --- -- -- - September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0147 Further, we identify that one of the recommendations in the XCG Report is the implementation of a pathway system through the community to provide a connection from Warden Avenue to the Terraview/Willowfield Garden Park to the west of the community. This pathway system would assist in enhancing the recognition of the Concept Site by inviting people of the community to view and experience the Concept Site. Review of the Graywood Prooosed Plans of Subdivision Because the OMB Hearing begins on October 5, 1998, for those lands north of Highway 401 only, (excluding the 1st Alliance Church lands which will not be heard by the OMB until May 1999), Authority staff have been requested to comment to the City on the proposed plans of subdivision and their accompanying functional service studies. The reports, do not, in all instances, meet the Authority's stormwater management criteria. As well, the information on the proposed stormwater management facilities do not provide enough technical detail for staff to recommend their approval. Staff have also recommended that additional lands should be considered for stormwater management purposes and the elimination of some of the proposed stormceptors and underground super storage pipes. Further, we have recommended the public acquisition of the lands adjacent to the stable channel of the Bendale Branch of the Highland Creek. We identify that given previous staff reports, the Authority's criteria, as a minimum, would be 10 metres from the regional storm floodline or stable top of bank. It must also be understood that the Hydro corridor lands south of Highway 401 are not being considered by the OMB at this time. The Hearing for those lands is scheduled for February 22, 1999. Therefore, the City has not circulated proposed development plans nor servicing reports for comments to date. City of Toronto interest in other Hydro Corridors On June 15, 1998, Authority staff wrote to the City of Toronto requesting comment on the City's interest in all Hydro Corridors already declared surplus and any other hydro corridor lands across the City. We advise that we have not received a formal response from the City on its position. However I on July 29, 1998, the City of Toronto Council adopted and endorsed the conclusions of a report from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, entitled "Status, and Recreational Use, of Ontario Hydro Corridors in the City of Toronto". The conclusions of this report identified that the remaining Hydro Corridors in the City of Toronto are going to remain active for some time as transmission corridors. It felt that these corridors also provide secondary uses that meet the objectives and have benefits for both business and residents. There are opportunities to the City to secure passive recreational walking, trail and cycling facilities within the current planning environment. A further report was submitted to City Council from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism which concluded that there were clear benefits from current uses of the hydro corridors and potential for additional parks and recreational needs. However, the costs of acquisition -oHarge -tracts-of these-surplos-hydro 'corridors is likely prohibitive. The objectives of the City would be advanced by focusing on selective acquisition, potential pUblic/private partnerships and dedication of lands through the development process. 0148 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 City of Toronto Land Acquisition Strategy It is not clear to Authority staff how this Strategy will be undertaken. Staff have not been made aware of which other partners have been contacted and whether they have made any commitment to the acquisition of a portion(s) of the hydro corridors. Before staff could comment further on the Land Acquisition Strategy and whether the Authority is being asked to make any additional contribution, over and above our prior commitment, we need to seek further information and details from the City of Toronto. Staff will need to report back on this issue at a later date. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is recommended that staff continue to work with and support the efforts of the City of Toronto with regard to the recognition, enhancement and securement of the natural heritage hazards, features and functions related to the Hydro Corridor lands as recommended through the XCG Study. Staff will prepare a presentation to be given at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to commence October 5, 1998. Such presentation will focus on the Authority interests as identified in this report. Staff will report further to the Authority on the Land Acquisition Strategy and the status of the Ontario Hydro lands south of Highway 401 prior to the February 22, 1999 OMB Hearing. For information contact: Janet Foster, extension 282 Date: September 16, 1998 Attachments (2) , September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0149 Ictt ... Maryvale Community I I i ! , i I f 1 :25000 . Figure ES.l South - Kennedy Road to Hwy 401 0150 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 September 18, 1998 Auacnmem ~ .... I L 'Amoreaux I Community I I I I I I ~w.*~. >0";' Study_a.shp Ptants.shp I Scarpr1t.shp Proprty.shp Contors.shp I 1 :25000 I I Figure ES.2 . I North - Hwy 40110 McNlcoll Avenue I i I --- September 18, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/98 0151 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10: 18 a.m., on September 18, 1998. I rene Jones Craig Mather Vice Chair Secretary Treasurer Iks -- - -- - ~ , THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 Page D152 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/98, was held in the Humber Room, Head Office, on Friday, October 23, 1998. The Chair, Irene Jones, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PRESENT David Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair lIa Bossons ............................................................... Member Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Irene Jones ............................................................. Vice Chair Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member Denzil Minnan-Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority REGRETS Pam McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Maja Prentice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Mike Tzekas . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES.#D35/98 - MINUTES Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/98, held on September 18,1998, be approved . CARRIED 0153 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 PRESENTATIONS (a) Moyra Haney, the Toronto Remedial Action Plan representative to the Ontario Public Advisory Council will provide a brief presentation on the purpose of the Advisory Council and an overview of its work. Supporting materials will be available at the meeting. RES.#D36/98 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THAT the above-noted presentation (a) be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED RES.#D37 /98 - CORRESPONDENCE Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THAT the following correspondence from Gord R. Weedon, General Manager, Rouge Park, dated October 20, 1998, in regards to Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative - Rouge Park be received; THA T staff be directed to develop a Rouge Park Land Acquisition Project, which could implement an acquisition program by providing matching funding to the Provincial contribution of $2,500,000.00 over a four (4) year period commencing in 1998; AND FURTHER THAT the Project and a staff report be on the agenda for the Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting scheduled for November 20,1998 . . . . . . . CARRIED October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0154 Correspondence 1 - . R. Rouge Park 361A Old Fmch Avenue Tel: (416) 2S-ROUGE Scuborough. ON MlB SK7 Far. (416) 287-2425 October 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Denney Director. Watershed Management Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive I .-. Downsview, Ontario I i M3N 1 S4 I I . Dear Brian: I i i Re: Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative - Rouge Park I I At the regular meeting of the Rouge Park Alliance the Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative I I was discussed. In this initiative the Province has identified funding for the purchase of priority sites i within the Rouge that meet the aiteria for funding and that also meet the Rouge Park Alliance criteria I i I for acquisition within the Rouge Park. I ! , In relation to the above initiative the Rouge Park Alliance passed the following resolutions: I i 1. The Provincial Natural Areas Protectipn Initiative - Rouge Park \ ! ~ .oj KEY ISSUE - t . . Report on the Natural Protection Fund established by the Province for the protection of natural areas in the Rouge Park, Lynde Marsh and the Niagara Escarpment. through acquisition of environmenta1lands. RECOMMENDATION THAT the Rouge Park Alliance support the Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative; . . THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to prepare a Rouge Park Acquisition Project that will implement an acquisition program by providing matching funding to the Provincial contribution; AND FURTHER. lHAT based on funding up to Sl.0 million being available in year one, the Authority direct its staff to begin to negotiate the purchase of a priority property(s) within the Rouge Park. .. . I , I : 0155 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 ~ October 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Denney .. Page 2 Res. #122/98 Moved by: Doug Dickenon Seconded by: Steve Gilchrist THAT the Rouge Park Alliance support the Provincial Natural Areas Protection i Initiative; ! r THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to prepare a Rouge Park Acquisition Project that will implement an acquisition program by providing matching funding to the Provincial contribution; AND FURTHER THAT based on funding up to $1.0 million being available in year one, the Authority direct its staff to begin to negotiate the purchase of a priority property(s) within the Rouge Park. . CARRIED BACKGROUND On June 24, 1998 the Provincial Government approved the Natural Areas Protection Initiative of $20 million over four years established for the protection of natural areas through acquisition. This fund is to be distributed between three geographic areas: the Rouge Park, the Niagara Escarpment and the Lynde Marsh (Town of Whitby). The Rouge Park and a small ponion of the Niagara Escarpment is within the TReA's area of jurisdiction. The following is the maximum level of funding for each area: . Rouge Park - $2.5 million . Lynde Marsh - $4.5 million . Niagara Escarpment - $13 million The $2.5 million will be allocated to the Rouge over ,the next four years provided that the Rouge Park Alliance and partners can match this amount. The Province has agreed to I provide $1.0 million immediately, to be spent by March 31, 1999. Although this amount does ! not have to be matched initially, it is understood that. there will be an agreement to match these funds over the four years. All reasonable costs such as legal, survey, appraisal and environment audit expenses associated with the purchase of propenies will be funded by the project. Up to 100.10 of the funding can be used for capital expenditures such as signage, trail improvements, and regeneration of the properties. ! October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0156 - - 0ctober 20, 1998 Mr_ Brian Denney Pagel Staff feel this is a remarkable opportunity to protect natural heritage features within the i watershed. The Rouge North Park Plan has identified the protection of the Little Rouge Corridor between Steeles Avenue and Major MacKenzie Drive as major ecological and public use link between Rouge Park South and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Assuming both the Federal lands and the Provincial lands within the Little Rouge Corridor remain in public . ownership, it is felt the use of Natural Areas Protection Funds within the Rouge should primarily be focused on filling in the gaps in public ownership within the Corridor, together with acquisition of critical linkages and consolidation of public ownership in other areas of the Rouge River watershed. i To implement this initiative, it is felt the Authority should be requested to prepare and adopt a Rouge River Acquisition Project which would outline the purpose and the program and provide a mechanism to raise the matching funding. WORK TO BE DONE Under this Project, Authority staffwill arrange for survey and appraisal information for the candidate sites and will negotiate the purchase of suitable properties. The TRCA will be acquiring ownership of the lands and staff will report to their Board in connection with any proposed agreement. A Pool of Priority Acquisitions List will be developed by the Rouge Park Alliance and the TRCA that will be used to guide the acquisitions and will take into account the Rouge Park Management Plan, The Rouge North Park Plan and the criteria for land securement recently approved by the Rouge Park Alliance. FUTURE BENEFITSIPROBLEMS Given the funding that the Province is making available in year one of the Project. it is felt that the Authority should accelerate the acquisition of the high priority sites within the pool of ! acquisition sites to the level of funding available and begin negotiating immediately. I I FINANCIAL DETAILS The terms for receiving these funds are that they be matched. Therefore, over the next four years an equal amount $2.5 million, must be provided for land acquisition within the Rouge. 0157 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 - .. October 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Denney Page 4 ; ."2. Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative - Pool of Priority Sites for Acquisition , ~ , . - ..... . , r -. KEY ISSUE Pool of priority sites for acquisition within the Rouge under the Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative. RECOMMENDA nON THAT the Pool of Priority Sites for Acquisition be approved and forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources for their endorsement; AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to consider the pool of priority sites when implementing the program to acquire sites under the Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative. Res. #123/98 Moved by: Bas Balkissoon Seconded by: Randy Cho THA T the pool of priority sites for acquisition by approved and forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources for the endorsement; AND FURTHER THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to consider the pool of priority sites when implementing the program to acquire sites under the Provincial Natural Areas Protection Initiative. CARRIED BACKGROUND On June 24, 1998, the Provincial Government approved the Natural Areas Protection Initiative and allocated $2,500,000.00 to the Rouge over four years, to be matched by the Alliance and partners. The Province will provide 100% funding, up to $1,000,000 for 1998, (to be spent by March 31, 1999) and will require it to be matched by the end of the Program. To implement this initiative, the Minister of Natural Resources, in a lener dated July 13, 1998 requested the Rouge Park Alliance or other appropriate organizations, to develop a list of candidate properties in accordance with clearly-defined criteria and priorities. The Rouge Park Land Securement Comminee has had a number of meetings and developed a Pool of Priority Sites for Acquisition, which as presented at the meeting was based on the criteria established in the Rouge Park Land Securement Strategy, approved at Rouge Park Alliance Meeting #2/98 dated April 6, 1993. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0158 . - . . ~ October 20, 1998 Mr. Brian Denney . Page 5 RATIONALE WIthin the terms of the Natural Areas Protection Initiative using these criteria and terms, the Committee has prepared a pool of priority sites. Assuming both the Federal lands and the Provincial lands within the Little Rouge Corridor remain in public ownership, it is felt the Natural Areas Protection Funding within the Rouge should primarily be focused on filling in the gaps in public ownership within the Corridor, together with acquisition of critical linkages and consolidation of public ownership in other areas of the Rouge River Watershed. DETAn..s OF WORK TO BE DONE Authority staff will arrange for survey and appraisal information for the candidate sites and will negotiate the purchase of suitable properties. The TRCA will be acquiring ownership of the lands and staff will report to the Executive Committee and the Authority, in connection with any proposed agreement. FINANCIAL DETAll..S All reasonable costs associated with the purchase of properties in 1998 will be funded at 100% by the Province. After 1998, the Province will be requiring the program to have matching funding. In total, the Province wishes to have the $2,500,000.00 matched. The Rouge Park Alliance looks forward to working with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in implementing these recommendations. Yours truly. ~ Gord R. Weeden <ieneral ~anager Rouge Park GRW/am cc: Mr. T. Farrell, MNR - Aurora 0159 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#D38/98 . CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed Status of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals. Status report regarding Ontario Municipal Board referrals by Marbloom Investments Limited and Wilderton Investments Limited to rezone and obtain site plan approval for a proposed golf course in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report regarding Ontario Municipal Board referrals by Marbloom Investments Ltd. and Wilderton Investments Ltd. to rezone and obtain site plan approval for a proposed golf course in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed be received for information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The rezoning and site plan applications for the proposed Crooked Creek Golf Course have been in front of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) since mid-1991. The Authority has had a substantive involvement in this matter since 1990 when the original applications were being prepared and submitted to the City of Vaughan. The discussions and directions over the last seven years are directly relevant to the current status and actions being taken. The following provides a summary of the key facts in this matter in order to apprise Authority members of the current status and actions being taken regarding these appeals. The Property The applicant's property is located in the City of Vaughan just north of Kleinburg. It consists of about 95 hectares, about 48 of which are valleylands of the east branch of the Humber River. The valleylands are regulated by the Authority pursuant to its Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158). The valley is characterized by steep and deeply incised landforms with unstable and actively eroding slopes. The valleylands are heavily vegetated except where slope erosion is occurring and where there exists a grassed plateau (or "lower meadow") on the western valley slope approximately midway through the site. The woodland portions of the valleylands themselves were designated in 1993 as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) pursuant to the Authority's 1982 ESA Study criteria and the ESA designation was again confirmed under the Authority's updated 1993 ESA designation criteria. There is good fisheries habitat and several identifiable points of ground water seepage along the slopes indicating groundwater recharge. Planning Chronology . In 1990, the applicant applied to the City of Vaughan for rezoning and site plan approval to establish a 27 hole golf course, clubhouse and related facilities. These original applications proposed a considerable portion of the golf course in the valley which the Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources were opposed to. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0160 . In 1991 the applicant referred the matter to the OMS as Vaughan Council had not decided on the applications. Lengthy discussions both before and after the referral did not result in a resolution; therefore, in 1993, Authority staff was directed to obtain party status and oppose the applications at a hearing that was scheduled for June 1993. The City of Vaughan and the Ministry of Natural Resources also had party status in opposition to the applications. . The June 1993 hearing was adjourned to January 1994. Although all of the case preparation was completed, this January hearing was also adjourned as matters related to the City's comprehensive Official Plan Amendment 400, also referred by the applicant, were not ready to be heard. . In January 1995 the applicant requested a meeting through the Provincial Facilitator's office. No settlement was accompUshed at that time. At or about this time the applicant also withdrew his referral of OPA 400. . In March of 1995 the applicant requested a new hearing date but the OMS did not schedule a hearing as the position of the Authority and other parties was that it remained in conflict with the scheduling of OPA 400 appeals. . In August of 1995 a meeting was held with the applicant and staff of the Authority, City of Vaughan and MNR to discuss a new Concept Plan (#10) prepared by the applicant. This plan reduced the proposal from 27 to 18 holes, located primarily on the tablelands and lower meadow, avoiding areas prone to flooding, erosion and slope instability and minimizing intrusions into the woodlands, riparian communities and ESA. It was felt that this was a significant improvement that could reasonably meet the requirements of the public agencies and the developer. . Various technical and administrative planning details were worked through to arrive at a proposed settlement, prior to staff of the public agencies bringing it forward for approval by their boards. . There are various pieces of correspondence from the applicant confirming, their support of the proposed settlement agreement. . Vaughan Council endorsed the settlement in October 1995 as did MNR around this same time. . The Authority endorsed the settlement in November 1995 having considered, two detailed staff reports (September 22, 1995 and November 24, 1995) relating to same. This second report .was~.prepared ..at-the. A~thority's-directio"-and . provided further detail on the environmental impact associated with the proposed encroachment into the ESA and riparian habitat. . With the form of the zoning by-law approved, the consent prepared and draft order for the OMS, the only thing remaining to complete the settlement was a survey plan of the development limit. The applicant was aware of this. 0161 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 . The developer did not undertake this survey work until late November 1996 and the matter of a reference plan was then the only outstanding "paperwork" to be finalized to complete the settlement. . I n January 1997 the applicant submitted an application under the Authority's regulations (based on the concept plan agreed to through the settlement) which staff began to process. It was then left on hold pending further detail from the applicant. . As far as the Authority was concerned, this matter had been settled. Current Status . In March 1998, we suddenly received from the applicant a concept plan referred to as Concept Plan #14 and a letter to the OMS asking that a hearing be scheduled as soon as possible. Although several months earlier, the applicant had suggested to Authority staff they no longer found Concept #10, as was settled, to be "economically feasible", the new submission and request for a hearing was unexpected. It is staff's understanding that this revised site plan has not been considered by the City or been circulated to other interested parties and that no public hearing has been held on this plan. . The applicant also gave notice of his intent to bring a motion arguing that these development applications should be heard based on the "rules" that applied at the time of application ego prior to OPA 400, etc. . The new plan is materially different from Concept Plan #10 which formed the basis of the settlement. It places holes, fairways, cart tracks, bridges and construction equipment in the valleylands including the ESA and areas prone to flooding, erosion and slope instability. This concept will require extensive flood, erosion and slope stabilization works which will result in significant environmental and hazard management impacts. It is akin to the previous concepts rejected and opposed by the Authority. . In September we received notice that the hearing of this matter had been scheduled to commence November 23, 1998. The. Authority's solicitor, who also represents MNR, also filed a motion arguing that the hearing in these files is, in fact, settled in accordance with the details and approvals of Concept Plan #10 and otherwise to adjourn the hearing of this matter to a later date for various planning and scheduling matters to be resolved, including issues relating to OPA 400 and the York Region Official Plan. . As of October 14, 1998, staff was advised that the hearing has been deferred at the consent of all parties, until January or February 1999 and that a date for the hearing of all motions will likely be scheduled for mid-December 1998. Actions . Staff will proceed with its motion that this matter has been settled and in the event that the hearing proceeds, Authority staff will oppose the applications pursuant to the Authority's previous direction in this matter. For information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 315 Date: October 13, 1998 October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0162 RES.#D39/98 - PROPOSED SPECIAL POLICY AREA DESIGNATION Etobicoke District - City of Toronto. Pursuant to the Provincial Policy Statement (1996) the City of Toronto (Etobicoke District) has requested a review of the current One-Zone approach to flood plain planning respecting portions of the Mimico Creek extending between Dundas Street and the Gardiner Expressway, with the possibility of utilizing a Two-Zone or Special Policy Area designation. Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Jim McMaster THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT approval-in-principle of a Special Policy Area for a portion of the Etobicoke District as set out in the accompanying staff report be granted; THAT Authority staff continue to work with the City of Toronto (Etobicoke District) towards the final approval of the Special Policy Area, and report to a future meeting of the Watershed Management Advisory Board; THAT Authority staff be directed to evaluate development applications made pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 (Fill, Construction & Alteration to Waterways Regulation) in accordance with the Interim Procedures identified in this report; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Toronto (Etobicoke District), Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing be so advised .................. CARRIED BACKGROUND In the Fall of 1997, the City of Toronto (Etobicoke District) requested the Authority review the current One-Zone Approach to flood plain planning for portions of the Mimico Creek extending between Dundas Street West and the Gardiner Expressway, with a view towards utilizing either a Two-Zone or Special Policy Area designation. The City's request was brought forward as a result of a development application for a proposed two storey side/rear addition to a single family home on Bonnyview Drive in south Etobicoke District. The subject property was situated within the Regional Storm Flood Plain of the Mimico Creek, and designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan. Pursuant to both the policies of the Authority under the Valley & Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) and the Etobicoke District Official Plan, only minor additions (less than 50% expansion of existing structures) are allowed within the flood plain. While staff at the Gfty. and-Autherity-commenced-a review of-flood plain management alternatives for these areas, a second development application was received for a replacement structure on Van Dusen Boulevard. Once again, the circumstance was identical to the application on Bonnyview Drive in that the proposal exceeded the 50% expansion provision as set out under the VSCMP and the City's Official Plan. -------- 0163 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 Flood Plain Management Alternatives In 1980, as part of its Watershed Plan, the Authority designated a portion of the Bonnyview Drive area in south Etobicoke as a Flood Damage Centre and adopted policies to allow infilling and redevelopment to occur. A Flood Damage Centre was defined as a flood plain area on which there is a concentration of development which forms an integral part of an existing community. Following the 1986 approval of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement under the Planning Act, the concept of a Flood Damage Centre and its associated policies were presented as alternatives to the One-Zone Approach, those being Two-Zones and Special Policy Areas (SPA). In 1987, the Authority updated its Flood Susceptible Sites Policies to be consistent with the new Provincial Policies. Also at this time the Province agreed to grand parent existing Official Plan Flood Damage Centre designations and policies. Through the 1992 update of the City's Official Plan, Etobicoke adopted a One-Zone Approach to flood plain planning throughout the municipality. At that time, the City did not want to include Two- Zone or SPA policies for the TRCA Damage Centres. The One-Zone Approach to flood plain planning as set out in the Official Plan generally prohibits infill development and limits re- development and/or additions to 50% of the existing structure. This is consistent with the Authority's policies. Following these two development applications, the City decided it needed to re-assess the One- Zone Approach for these areas. Authority staff in consultation with staff of the City of Toronto (Etobicoke District) carried out a review of the two areas in south Etobicoke and concluded that a SPA designation would best suit the flood plain management needs of these areas. Given the time lines and work associated with such an exercise, it was recognized that interim procedures would need to be adopted to address current development pressures. RATIONALE Pursuant to the Authority's policies and the Provincial policies, exceptions to the One-Zone Approach may be permitted where it has been demonstrated that the prohibition of new development would have serious impacts on the economic and social health of an existing flood prone community, and that this potential warrants acceptance of a higher level of risk and approval. The SPA concept allows for selective development/redevelopment to occur in the floodway and flood fringe of an existing flood prone community, subject to an agreed upon level of flood proofing which can be less than the Regulatory Storm. The Authority in cooperation with the municipality and the Province has the option of adopting the SPA concept. Special Policy Area Concept Preliminary mapping of the two Flood Susceptible Sites in Etobicoke has been undertaken (Attachments 1 & 2) along with a preliminary technical assessment. For the most part the two areas are situated in the flood fringe with depths-of flooding less than 1.0 metre; however, in one instance along Bonnyview Drive a number of properties proposed for inclusion within the SPA are subject to higher flood depths and velocities. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0164 The intent is that following the approval-in-principle, staff will work with the City to finalize the boundaries of the SPA that will be recommended for approval based on a detailed technical assessment of flooding, erosion, regeneration, and community planning needs (these factors are set out in Section 4.2.1 of the Authority's VSCMP). Policies will also be developed regarding the type and extent of permitted uses, development and redevelopment and flood proofing requirements. The final SPA approval would the be presented through an Official Plan Amendment and implementing Zoning By-law. Interim Procedures While it is staff's intent to work with the City towards the approval of a SPA, there is also the need to respond to current development pressures. Therefore, interim procedures for reduced flood plain planning standards are also being proposed (Attachment 3). This approach has been adopted by the Authority in other planning areas where SPAs were being finalized (ie. City of Toronto-Lower Don, Richmond Hill-Lake Wilcox). For information contact: Luch Ognibene, extension 284 Date: October 14, 1998 Attachments (3) 0165 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Bonnyvlew Drive - South Etoblcoke (Toronto) . '\. , "'" .' L__ I - 1 I I I ,.... -.- NOTE: THESE ARE CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARIES SUBJECT TO FURTHER TECHNICAL EVALUATION & REFINEMENT October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0166 Attachment 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Thompson Avenue/Van Dusen Boulevard/Allan Park Road - South Etoblcoke (Toronto) ., - - i .:r~ I I ! I I . i'_ 0167 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 Attachment 3 . . , ~ ATTACHMENT 3 South Etobicoke Interim Approval Procedures - City of Toronto - - . Development will be restricted to those areas of the f100dway and flood fringe where the associated depths and velocities are non-life threatening and property damage can be minimized. In all instances, ingress and egress shall be safe. . Uses associated with hazardous materials/sewage; institutional uses; and emergency services shall not be permitted in the flood plain; . Regulatory Flood protection will be soLight for new development. Where it is not technically feasible and/or impractical to flood protect to this standard, then a lower level of flood protection not less than the 1 :350 year flood event may be allowed. . Iii no instance shall development be permitted if water velocities or depths create L ~acceptable hazard to life; major structural damage would result from flooding; flood protection measures would negatively impact adjacent lands. . Additional factors to be considered include riverbank erosion and slope stability, riparian habitat protection, provision for local and/or regional trail linkages, and protection of significant areas, . The City of Toronto (Etobicoke District) will not issue a foundation and/or building permit for any development proposal situated ,within the proposed Special Policy Area until such time as approvals have been granted by the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority pursuant to the Fill, Construction & Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158). . These interim procedures shall apply to the lands identified on the accompanying maps, and will be superseded through the approval of the Special Policy Area in the City's Official Plan and implementing Zoning By-Iaw(s), or re-evaluated by October 2001. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0168 RES.#D40/98 - WILKET-MILNE CREEK REGENERATION PLAN Lower West Don Watershed. The implementation of regeneration/restoration measures in the Wilket-Milne Creek Watershed. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to commence the implementation of the restoration measures as detailed in the Aquafor Beech Regeneration Concept Plan for the Wilket-Milne Creek Watershed in consultation with City of Toronto staff; THAT up to $118,000 be provided in 1998 for the initial phase of the work which will include restoration of a 100 metre stream section immediately south of the formal gardens in Edwards Gardens; THAT staff be directed, in consultation with the City of Toronto, to seek additional funding in 1999 and subsequent budgets to continue this work, including upstream ponds and lot level controls throughout the tributary watershed; AND FURTHER THAT a public education/involvement program be established in conjunction with the City of Toronto staff, local schools, business, and ratepayers association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Wilket-Milne Creek (Wilket Creek) Sub-basin is one of the most heavily urbanized drainage basins in the Don Watershed. Wilket Creek drains an area of approximately 1,450 ha of which almost all is in some form of urban development. All of the development occurred before the advent of stormwater management and as a result flows are completely uncontrolled, save for potential lot level measures. A large percentage of the valley land along the main tributary is in public ownership and has been set aside as greenspace for recreation. The parks located along Wilket Creek include, Wilket Creek Park, Edwards Gardens, Banbury Park, York Mills Park and Windfields Park. The majority of the parkland is managed by the City of Toronto, including all TRCA owned valley lands. Many of these parks are heavily used. Wilket Creek has been the focus of many in-stream works over a great many years. Historically, sections of the creek were lined with gabion baskets and numerous gabion drop structures were put in place to dissipate the stream's energy. Today, many of the old structures have failed due to undercutting or lateral movement of the creek. As a result, the creek contains many erosion scars, a number of which are threatening pedestrian bridges and pathways. Of note is the fact that-tR&-upper portion'~f-Wilket Greek is'piped, -beginning near Finch Avenue, between Yonge and Bathurst. Wilket Creek surfaces at York Mills Road and flows through the above mentioned parkland and some private lands to the West Don River just north of Eglinton Avenue. Given the highly developed nature of the Wilket Creek drainage area, it is unlikely that extensive storm water management approaches can be employed. Therefore, while storm water management should be considered, the primary focus should be on other initiatives and approaches. 0169 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 In November of 1996, Aquafor Beech Ltd. were commissioned to develop an overall conceptual regeneration plan, of the improved health of Wilket Creek and associated valley lands, using a "subwatershed" approach. The Plan incorporated the regeneration steps outlined in the Watershed Strategy "Forty Steps to a New Don" and attempted to integrate concerns relating to water, nature and community. Fundamentally, the purpose of this work was to identify options to reduce erosion and the effects of flooding and enhance habitat. The Plan was comprised of three components. The first component of the Plan dealt with potential control options for the entire watershed, including the piped sections, the publicly owned lands, the valley lands and the table lands. The second component of the Plan dealt with a conceptual plan for the valley and stream corridors south of York Mills Road (public owned lands only). This conceptual plan was based in-part on input from a public meeting and on discussions with the Steering Committee, the TRCA, other agencies and interested partners. The third and final component of the Plan dealt with the provision of a detailed design and construction drawings for a potential implementation site (concept site) within Edwards Gardens. The design of this site was consistent with the approaches identified in components 1 and 2 (particularly component 2). The restoration work will include a partial channel realignment, the replacement of gabion basket walls with river run stone; the cross-sectional widening of channel; the creation of an overflow channel and wetland; and extensive riparian habitat enhancements. RATIONALE The extensive park system created along the Creek corridor, including Wilket Creek Park, Edwards Gardens and Windfields Park, is considered to be a valuable community resource and attracts people from across Toronto: This valuable park system must be protected but in a manner which helps to improve the natural environment as well. Currently aquatic habitat has been classed as "moderate" in the lower portion of the watershed and "poor" to "fair" in the upper segment of the open channel system below York Mills Road. The degraded aquatic system is partially due to poor water quality, excessive flows and the lack of riparian vegetation and fish habitat. These issues should be addressed while protecting the valuable public amenity system. The Consultant's Regeneration Plan estimates that the surface flowing portion of the creek has achieved "approximately half of the anticipated enlargement necessary to achieve its stable ultimate form". A doubling of the creeks dimensions to support its new urban flow conditions would result in dramatic alterations to valley use. Consequently, the protection and enhancement of these resources is regarded as a priority. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding will be through the 1998 Toronto Remedial Action Plan Capital Fund allocation. A budget of $118,000 has been allocated for the implementation of the initial restoration phase. For information contact: Nick Saccone, extension 301 Date: October 14, 1998 October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0170 RES.#D41/98 - DON VALLEY BRICK WORKS MUD CREEK RECONNECTION Detailed Design and Implementation Program. To develop detailed design plans to enable the passage of desired fish species from the Don River into the wetland spawning areas of the Don Valley Brick Works, by way of Mud Creek. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to develop terms of reference and solicit proposals for the preparation of a detailed design to enable the passage of fish species from the Don River into the Don Valley Brick Works; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to select a consultant to prepare the detailed design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRI ED BACKGROUND The Don Valley Brick Works Regeneration Project began in 1993. During the cultural heritage investigations in 1994, the location of Mud Creek channel was discovered on historic maps. The channel was originally constructed to redirect the flow through the industrial site to provide water for the brick plant. Buried underground for many years, the channel was opened during the site rehabilitation, and reconnected to Mud Creek via a low flow pipe/waterfall diversion at the upstream end of the Brick Works property. The regeneration of the Brick Works included the development of over 3 hectares of open wetland. Presently the low flow in Mud Creek is directed through a series of wetland ponds situated in the former quarry, and then to the Don River by way of the historic channel. Approximately half of the quarry wetland was designed to provide for fish spawning. Mud Creek leaves the Don Valley Brick Works site by way of a culvert and is partially piped to the Don River. The culvert passes under the Bayview Avenue extension, numerous service rights-of-way and the CN rail lines on its way to the river. The steep grade between CN rail lines and the river presently precludes the movement of fish through to the Brick Works site. I n order to facilitate the passage of desired fish species (pike have been targeted) into the Brick Works quarry wetland, a detailed design will have to be completed. The study area for the purposes of this project is shown approximately on the attached map. The exact location of the new outlet for Mud Creek will depend on the infrastructure constraints of the area and the establishment of the appropriate gradient for fish passage. Public awareness and involvement programs shall extend to a much broader area and will be implemented by the City of Toronto and TRCA. The development of this detailed design and implementation plan must conform with the Conservation Authorities Class EA and may be subject to the Federal Environmental Assessment Process. 0171 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23. 1998 RATIONALE The need to provide habitat and achieve fish passage into the Don Valley Brick Works, was identified in the Master Plan for the overall development of the site. Furthermore, both the Don Fisheries Plan and "Forty Steps To A New Don" have identified the need to enhance fisheries within the Don. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is anticipated that the design work will be awarded at Executive, Meeting #9/98, and that the plans will be completed by February 1, 1999. A public meeting has been tentatively scheduled for the week of January 11, 1999. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding will be through the 1998 Toronto Remedial Action Plan Capital Fund allocation. A budget of $20,000 including GST has been allocated for the design work. For information contact: Nick Saccone, extension 301 Date: October 14, 1998 Attachment (1) October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0172 Attachment 1 .,. "0 . . & I >- I ! ~ 1 ; ~ ~ ---- I ! ~ =::.::: l>< I: ! ~ -== ~ CU - . Q: ::::-c::::::>= ~ .1 i .... ( ::z::; -= 0 it . l~ I ... ==-=:: c....:> J 88cu Ii! - ~ :-:::: ~,J ~ 0:::::1 ~ ::t:: e- ----- .~ ------ 0173 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 RES.#D42/98 - PALGRAVE MILL POND COMMUNITY ACTION SITE Endorsement of the Palgrave Mill Pond Community Action Site Restoration Project. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Palgrave Mill Pond Community Action Site Restoration Project, be endorsed in principle; THAT staff be authorized to seek funding and In-kind services to Implement the project; THAT staff be authorized to prepare a Terms of Reference for detailed design; AND FURTHER THAT the final design and project sponsors be brought back to the Authority when available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Palgrave Mill Pond has been an integral component of the Palgrave Community since the 1850's. The social and cultural values of the pond and dam have been clearly emphasized by community members. Over the past 140 years, the presence of the dam and pond have resulted in alterations to the native habitat and the establishment of a local ecosystem focused around the presence of the pond. Historically (prior to the initial damming), the Humber River was a free flowing system of cold water through the Palgrave area Resident cold water fish species would have migrated up and down the Humber through this area, fine and course sediments would have been distributed throughout the system, carried by the unimpeded flows, and nutrients would have passed through the system as part of a natural cycle. While all of the aforementioned significant functions have been negatively impacted by the presence of the dam and pond, the existing pond ecosystem also has some significant functions and values. In its existing condition, the pond ecosystem includes a wetland community which, adjacent to the open water of the pond and tableland woodlots, provides habitat for a variety of species from waterfowl to wetland plant species. The pond area is also an integral aesthetic component of the Palgrave area with numerous recreational benefits including wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and historically, swimming. In 1996, Ontario Streams, a not-for-profit group interested in the preservation, rehabilitation and maintenance of aquatic communities in the streams and rivers of Ontario, began a study in the Palgrave community-assessing.th~mpacts-oHAe Palgrave-MiII.pond.and Dam on the Humber River. The resulting report was environmentally focussed - it documented existing conditions and recommended alternatives for rehabilitating the area. In order to facilitate coordinated community input into the Ontario Streams process and to ensure that the social values of the pond were considered, the Palgrave Community Action Group (PCAG) was formed. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0174 Since the conclusion of the Ontario Streams study, the PCAG has become the proponent of the restoration project while Ontario Streams has remained a key partner. Other partners in the planning process include The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Town of Caledon, the Palgrave Rotary Club, and local citizens and businesses. The PCAG' s objectives for restoring the Mill Pond, Mill Dam, and Humber River, include meeting the environmental objectives set out in the Ontario Streams report, as well as the social and cultural objectives of the community. For the past year and a half, the Steering Committee has been working to develop a concept which meets the objectives of all the stakeholders. This work culminated in the hiring of Schollen and Company Inc. to prepare concept drawings depicting a design and plan of action that satisfies all participating stakeholders. RATIONALE One of the key recommendations for the implementation of the Humber Watershed Strategy, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, is through the initiation of Community Action Sites. These are actual sites in local communities where environmental, social, and economic regeneration needs and opportunities can be integrated to achieve a healthy Humber River watershed. This is best exemplified through citing the Legacy objectives which are met with the proposed restoration works. Environment Objective 12: Protect and regenerate aquatic habitats. Objective 13: Protect and regenerate terrestrial habitats. Society Objective 1 5: Protect and conserve built heritage resources. Objective 19: Develop a system of inter-regional trails through the greenspace system. Economy Objective 22: Incorporate greenspace in all urban and rural developments. Getting it Done Objective 26: Cultivate partnerships between individuals, community groups, businesses and public agencies in order to implement the Humber Watershed Strategy. Objective 28: Develop educational programs that focus on the Humber watershed. The Palgrave Mill Pond Community Action Site provides the following challenges and opportunities for meeting the objectives of Legacy: . Maintain and enhance the existing pond ecosystem and associated habitat values. . Maintain and enhance the existing vistas the pond provides. . Protect existing recreational benefits afforded by the pond and strive to enhance recreational opportunities, including assessing the feasibility of the Palgrave Pond area being the Town of Caledon's node for three major trail systems (Caledon TrailwaylTrans Canada Trail, Humber Valley Heritage Trail and the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail). . Promote and educate users on the historic significance of the pond and dam. 0175 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 . Re-establish the native aquatic habitat values of the section of the Main Humber River that traverses Palgrave, including migration of native coldwater fish species, sediment transport and nutrient cycling. . Promote and educate users on the significance of the upper Main Humber coldwater fishery. PROJECT DETAILS Schollen and Company Inc. designed three alternatives for restoring Palgrave Mill Pond. The designs are differentiated by the method by which the pond is moved "off-line", including an inset channel, a culvert/channel, and a subterranean channel. The inset channel was preferred by the subcommittee as it best met their natural, social, heritage, and economic goals. The inset channel concept plan is intended to achieve objectives related to fish habitat, water quality, and sediment transport. At the same time, the plan maintains the social and heritage values associated with the pond and dam, and the terrestrial habitat values associated with the local ecosystem. Essentially, these goals have been achieved by taking the pond 'off-line' of the Humber River. This will be achieved by creating a new reach of the Humber River which will convey low flows around the pond instead of through the pond, as is the present situation. As part of the restoration project, the removal of sediment from the pond is recommended. In addition to substantial benefits related to longevity and appearance, sediment removal will provide opportunities to improve aquatic habitat in the pond, allow for a bottom draw outlet to release cooler water to the Humber River downstream, provide for the installation of habitat structures along the shore and at the bottom ofihe pond, and improve water quality. At this time, the Steering Committee is looking to retain the services of a consultant to prepare detailed design drawings and supporting technical reports, based on the preferred concept, and at the same time, initiate the appropriate approvals processes. This will likely take the better part of 1999. Given the substantial funding requirements, implementation of the project will likely occur over two to three years, between 2000 and 2002. PROJECT COSTS Preliminary cost estimates were received from Schollen and Company Inc. A brief description of the project costs for the inset channel alternative is described below. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0176 Inset Channel: Project Costs 1. Technical investigations $ 19,000 2. Design and preparation of working drawings $ 115,000 3. Construction, including: Earthworks $ 72,000 Flowsplitters $ ~O,OOO Channel/rock ramps $ 75,250 Armourstone and concrete walls $ 54,000 Plant material $ 90,000 Habitat Structures $ 12,000 Trails $ 18,750 Observation Area $ 5,000 Site Restoration $ 20.000 Subtotal $397,000 $ 397,000 4. Sediment Removal $ 666,000 5. Construction Supervision $ 36,500 6. Taxes and Contingency $ 213.690 TOTAL $1.447.190 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE . Confirm funding partnerships with the public and private sectors. . Prepare a Terms of Reference for implementing the project. . Continue to seek new funding partnerships. . Issue a "Call for Proposals" to firms capable of undertaking the prescribed works and obtain at least three quotes. . Select a consultant in accordance with Authority standard procedures. . Prepare detailed design drawings. . Develop a detailed work plan for the restoration of Palgrave Mill Pond that is acceptable to the steering committee. . Report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board with confirmed funding partners. . Obtain approvals required under the Environmental Assessment Act. . Implement the project. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Palgrave Mill Pond Restoration works will cost approximately $1.5 million. Much of this money will be fund raised through public and private sources. As funding sources are confirmed, portions of the project may be selected for action while additional funds are sought to complete the project. To date, confirmed fuRding-sour€es-iRcluGe the Palgf8.ve-Rotary-club ($25,000). Great Lakes 2000 for the 1998-1999 fiscal year ($18,000), habitat compensation funding from Highway 407 construction ($40,000). A local construction company has expressed an interest to make an in-kind contribution related to the project. Potential and committed funding partners are detailed below: D1n WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 I POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES I 1996-98 I 1999 I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I Community Groupe Palgraw Rotary Club (pending matching $ $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 from TRCA) Ontario Streams Contribution to be sought Subtotal $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Private Sector Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Contribution to be sought Foundation James Dick Aggregates (estimated in-kind To be determined construction contribution) Other Construction Companies Donations to be sought Subtotal To be determined Other Government Agencies OTIC, DFO, MNR (407 Compensation: $40,000 implementation $) CFIP $3,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Great Lakes Cleanup Fund $18,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Millennium Fund $200,000 MNR $100,000 Municipal Contribution to be sought Subtotal $18,000 $165,000 $225,000 $25,000 $25,000 TRCA Humber Strategy $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Property Acquisition $250.000 Subtotal $10,000 $255,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL $38,000 $525,000 $235,000 $35,000 $35,000 Through the course of the project, the Steering Committee will continue to seek financial support from these and other sources. It is anticipated that 100% of the project will be funded in this way. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 Prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 334 Date: October 8, 1998 October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0178 RES.#D43/95 - FISH PASSAGE AT THE OLD MILL WEIR Proposed notching of the Old Mill Weir to improve passage of fish species, including migratory trout and salmon. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT mitigation of the Old Mill weir to improve fish passage be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be directed to enter into any agreements and to obtain any necessary approvals to implement the project. . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The development of the Humber River Fisheries Management Plan was guided by a steering committee composed of staff from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, non-government organizations, members of the Humber Task Force and the public. The 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. At Meeting #10/97, the Watershed Management Advisory Board adopted Resolution #D136/97: 'THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the Draft Humber River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan, dated January 1998, be received; THA T staff be directed to seek a review of the Draft Humber River Watershed Fisheries Mana'gement Plan by external agencies and groups; AND FURTHER THAT staff work with the Humber Alliance, Ministry of Natural Resources, municipalities, interest groups, the Urban Development Institute and other partners to implement the plan, subject to available funding. ,. One of the challenges to achieving the management objectives of the Fisheries Management Plan is the presence of more than 100 instream barriers. Eleven of these are considered to be critical since they prevent migratory species from accessing upstream areas where conditions are suitable for successful spawning. 0179 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 The weir at the Old Mill, near Bloor and Jane Streets, is the first barrier on the Humber River upstream from Lake Ontario. Some salmon and trout are able to pass over the weir during high flows, but they are completely restricted from moving upstream during lower flows. All other species, including sea lamprey, are prevented from moving upstream into the watershed during all flow conditions. Concerns over allowing sea lamprey additional access further into the Humber River where they may be able to spawn successfully is too great to permit mitigation of the weir to allow passage of all species, but does allow for improvements to be made to increase passage of salmon, trout and white sucker. . A number of different options were examined to allow additional access, including fishways, rocky ramps, notching and weir removal but due to the concern over sea lamprey, notching was chosen as the preferred option. Notching the dam will provide an area of attraction for fish to jump and will lengthen the period of time trout and salmon can pass over the weir. This will result in more fish getting by the structure and less crowding of both fish and anglers below the weir. The notch will be approximately 4 metres in length and 25 centimetres deep and will not compromise the ability of the weir to function as a flood and erosion control structure. Water will still flow over the entire weir during low flow periods. A public meeting was held on September 28, 1998 to discuss the goals and objectives of the Fisheries Management Plan and more specifically notching of the weir. At the meeting, there was support by those in attendance of improving upstream fish passage. RATIONALE This project is consistent with the recommendations of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and the fisheries management plan to improve access to the watershed for fish from Lake Ontario, particularly migratory trout and salmon. The weir at the Old Mill is the first barrier to upstream passage in the watershed and was identified in the fisheries management plan as being one of the strategic barriers requiring mitigation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE . Obtain necessary approvals from regulatory agencies including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. . Request tenders for concrete cutting by October 31, 1998. . Arrange for coffer dam and pumps. . It is estimated that the work will take place in November. FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS Mitigating the Old MiII.weir- wilj..jmprove ul3stream-passage.for trout and salmon and will begin the first step in opening up the many kilometres of the Humber River upstream that are currently unused by migratory fish species. This includes access to areas where reproduction will be successful with the intent of creating a self-sustaining fishery. Furthermore, the crowds of anglers which currently fish at the Old Mill will have access to additional angling locations throughout the watershed which are not currently utilized. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0180 FINANCIAL DETAILS The costs of mitigating the Old Mill dam will be approximately $7000. Funding has been approved through the Toronto Remedial Action Plan, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Community Fisheries Involvement Program. For information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 353 Date: October 9, 1998 RES.#D44/98 - MODIFICATION OF THE LAWRENCE AVENUE WEIR TO IMPROVE FISH PASSAGE ON THE EAST DON RIVER Proposed modifcation of the instream barrier on the East Don River at Lawrence Avenue to improve passage of migratory trout and salmon. Moved by: Denzil Minnan-Wong Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the weir at Lawrence Avenue on the East Don River be mitigated to, improve fish passage; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be directed to obtain any necessary approvals to implement th"e project ..................................... CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1992 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) initiated the Don Watershed Task Force in order to develop a management strategy for the Don Watershed. The report prepared by the Task Force entitled, "Forty Steps To A New Don", is the Task Force's blueprint for regeneration. The watershed fisheries management plan was developed concurrently with the watershed strategy and at Meeting #7/97, the Authority adopted Resolution #A178/97: "THA T the Don Watershed Fish Community and Habitat Management Plan, dated August, 1997, be received; THA T staff work with the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Ministry of Natural Resources, , municipalities, interest groups, 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. " 0181 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 The plan, presently in draft, is embodied in step 16 of the watershed strategy "Improve the Don's stream habitats and connections for fish". The watershed fisheries management plan provides the direction for managing the various aquatic habitats and fish communities within the watershed. One of the most strategic rehabilitation activities identified in the plan is the mitigation of the effects of instream barriers to fish movement. The construction of structures in the watercourse to dissipate energy, monitor flow, or to harness the streams energy for power, has been taking place for over one hundred years. In many situations these structures contributed directly to the elimination of migratory species such as the Atlantic salmon by stopping adults from reaching their spawning grounds in the smaller tributaries. Although the Atlantic salmon will never be reintroduced to the Don watershed, many other species such as brown and rainbow trout and numerous small minnow species would benefit from mitigation of the impacts of instream barriers. The fisheries plan identifies more than sixty instream barriers to fish movement within the watershed. These barriers effectively isolate watercourses and sections of watercourses by eliminating upstream movement. One of these barriers, located on the East Don River at Lawrence Avenue, keeps migratory fish species from Lake Ontario from entering upstream reaches. The Fish Habitat/Barriers Group which includes members of the Don Watershed Council and staff from the Authority, considered numerous options for mitigating the weir. A rocky ramp design similar to the lower weir at Pottery Road, was selected as the preferred option to achieve fish passage. RATIONALE In order to fulfil the goals of the Fish Management Plan, it is necessary to improve access to the watershed from Lake Ontario, particularly for migratory trout and salmon. Having modified two weirs at Pottery Road, the next major barrier to upstream fish movement is located at Lawrence Avenue. Of the two barriers located at Lawrence Avenue, it is felt that the lower one prevents fish from moving upstream due to its height and lack of a tailwater pool. The upper barrier has a pool which is deep enough to allow fish to jump over the weir and continue upstream. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Final designs have been completed and are under review by the City of Toronto and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If necessary, the designs will be modified to incorporate comments. It is anticipated that implementation will occur in November, 1998. FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS Mitigating the Lawrence Avenue continues to implement the goals and objectives of 'Forty Steps to a New Don' and tAe eon River Fisheries.Management-Plan by improving trout and salmon access into the watershed. October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0182 FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of mitigating the effects of the Lawrence Avenue weir is approximately $30,000. Funding has been approved through the Toronto Remedial Action Plan. For information contact: Jon Clayton, extension 353 Date: October 9,1998 RES.#D45/98 - FISH PASSAGE AT THE EGUNTON AVENUE BARRIER ON THE LOWER HUMBER RIVER Preparation of Terms of Reference to Hire a Consultant. Preparation of a terms of reference for hiring a consultant to prepare a design for fish passage at the Eglinton Avenue barrier on the Humber River. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the preparation of a terms of reference for improving fish passage at the Eglinton Avenue weir be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The development of the Humber River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan was guided by a steering committee composed of staff from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, non- government organizations, members of the Humber Task Force and the public. The 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. At Meeting #10/97 the Watershed Management Advisory Board adopted Resolution #D136/97: 'THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the Draft Humber River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan, dated January 1998, be received; THA T staff be directed to seek a review of the Draft Humber River Watershed Fisheries ManagementPlan- by -external agencies and groups; AND FURTHER THAT staff work with the Humber Alliance, Ministry of Natural Resources, municipalities, interest groups, the Urban Development Institute and other partners to implement the plan, subject to available funding. " 0183 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 October 23, 1998 One of the challenges to achieving the management objectives of the fisheries management plan ~s the presence of more than 100 instream barriers in the watershed. Of these, eleven have been identified as having critical importance for mitigation because they prevent migratory species from accessing headwater areas where conditions are suitable for successful spawning. The barrier at Eglinton Avenue prevents all fish from moving any further upstream and is therefore, the major barrier to allowing migratory fish species access upstream. The height of the weir precludes designs such as the rocky ramps used at the Pottery Road weirs on the Don River and necessitates a more complicated design. To that end, staff from the Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Action to Restore a Clean Humber and City of Toronto, Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism are developing a terms of reference for the hiring of a consultant to prepare a final design for fish passage at the Eglinton Avenue weir. The design is expected to be completed by January, 1999. RATIONALE This project is consistent with the recommendations of Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and the fisheries management plan to improve access to the watershed for fish from Lake Ontario, particularly migratory trout and salmon. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE . Completion of terms of reference. . Hiring of consultant and development of concept designs. . Public meeting to discuss alternatives. . Selection of preferred option and completion of final design. FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS Mitigation of the effects of the Eglinton Avenue weir will allow passage of all fish species. This is particularly important for migratory trout and salmon which require access to upstream areas to spawn successfully. This will allow the establishment of self-sustaining populations of migratory species and offer additional angling opportunities watershed wide. FINANCIAL DETAILS The costs of hiring the consultant to prepare the final design will be no more than $25,000. Funding has been approved through the Toronto Remedial Action Plan, Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Community Fisheries Involvement Program. For information contaGt:..Jon Claytonj-extension -353 Date: October 9, 1998 October 23, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/98 0184 RES.#D46/98 - DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting #5/98, September 17, 1998. The minutes of Meeting #5/98 held on September 17, 1998 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: Cliff Gyles THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed . Regeneration Council, Meeting #5/98 held September 17,1998 be received. . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Watershed Management .Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Forty Steps to a New Don" and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238 Date: October 15, 1998 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11: 1 0 a.m., on October 23, 1998. I rene Jones Craig Mather Chair Secretary Treasurer /ks ~ , THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 Page 0185 The Watershed Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/98, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, November 20,1998. The Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10:13 am. PRESENT David Barrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Lorna Bissell ................................................................ Chair Cliff Gyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Jim McMaster ............................................................. Member Denzil Minnan-Wong. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Richard O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chair, Authority Maja Prentice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member REGRETS lIa Bossons ............................................................... Member Irene Jones ............................................................. Vice Chair Pam McConnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member Mike Tzekas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member RES.#D47 /98 - MINUTES Moved by: Richard O'Brien Seconded by: Jim McMaster THAT the Minutes of Meeting #4/98, held on October 23,1998, be approved. . . . CARRIED RES.#D48/98 - TRILLIUM FOUNDATION PROJECT Multicultural Environmental Stewardship. An outreach program to involve new Canadians and visible minority groups in watershed management activities. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Project be received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED 0186 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 BACKGROUND The integration of diverse communities into mainstream environmental activities by agencies and institutions has been poorly developed despite the fact that these communities make up a large and growing portion of the GTA's population. Immigrant communities or new Canadians make up 48 percent of the population in Toronto and 32 percent in the surrounding GTA municipalities. However, they continue to be under represented in important positions of influence and on issues and policies that have an impact on their lives, according to the latest report on diversity in Toronto by the Toronto Star (June 7,1998). These communities are impacted by the local environmental quality of our watersheds, but often are not in a position to become actively involved in ecological restoration activities. The TRCA, in partnership with multicultural environmental and multi-service groups, seeks to address the lack of formal mechanisms for engaging minorities in environmental restoration activities. Obiective: The key objectives of this project include: . initiate ongoing education and awareness of watershed management issues; . identify and eliminate barriers between delivery agencies and community; . develop skills in facilitation, ecological restoration, and site planning; . increase opportunities for employment; . ecologically restore and rehabilitate identified Community Action Sites; and . establish sustainable stewardship initiatives. At meeting #12/97 held on January 30,1998, the Authority adopted Resolution #A315/97: 'THA T the staff report detailing the Authority's in-kind contribution of $40,000 over two years to implement environmental stewardship activities in cooperation with the Trillium Foundation Project be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with the implementation of the Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Project including the execution of any documents and obtaining other necessary approvals to give effect thereto. .. Accomplishments to date A Project Coordinator was hired to plan, organize and implement the project. The Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Project has made significant progress. Many new community groups and individuals are regularly approaching us for information and the opportunity to participate in our activities. We have been able to develop new contacts and partnerships. Many events have been hosted to foster community participation. - Community Outreach Activities . Multicultural Forum - The Authority hosted a Forum on multicultural dialogue on February 12, 1998. The purpose of the Forum was to have individuals and organizations share their knowledge and experience in working with multicultural communities. The Forum provided valuable insight into the issues and barriers associated with integrating minority groups into environmental restoration activities. November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0187 . Steering Committee - An adhoc Steering Committee was identified to provide'support, assistance and direction to the Project. This committee consists of members from various multicultural groups and agencies within the Humber and Don River Watersheds. . Community Action Site Leaders - At present, the project has four Action Site Leaders working with various ethnic groups in different geographical areas. These Action Site Leaders have been hired from within the communities. who have expressed an interest to adopt and restore a site. These individuals have been hired on short term contracts. An Orientation Workshop was organized to train the Action Site Leaders. These Site Leaders also attended the Watershed Report Card Workshop organized jointly by TRCA and the Watershed Report Card Office. . Community Contacts - The Authority has made significant progress in establishing contacts with community leaders and organizations within both the Humber and Don River watersheds. Valuable sources of information were obtained from city officials, municipal parks departments and multicultural agencies. The Project Coordinater and the Action Site Leaders have participated at various multicultural events to promote the project and the watershed management strategies of the TRCA. Events and Celebrations A number of events were hosted to foster community participation. Event celebrations form an important part of our community outreach. We have found that hosting celebration events promotes community participation and these events can be used for hands-on community education. Most of our community events are widely advertised and well-attended. We have also monitored the success of these events through formal questionnaires and informal discussion. These events include: Community Awareness Day - May 7, 1998 A "Community Awareness Day" was held at the Sun Row Community Action Site with the Somali- Canadian Association. Approximately 30 members of the Somalian community participated in planting trees and shrubs to recreate a wetland as part of the planned restoration works. Mr. Claire Brown, Manager Community Relations, former City of Etobicoke also attended the event. It is anticipated that Ms. Farhia Ahmed of Dejinta Beesha will help the project in integrating the Somali community into further restoration activities. Watershed Nature Tour - July 30, 1998 The purpose of this tour was to introduce multicultural groups to the Don and Humber River Watershed Strategies and to provide "hands-on" educational experience in environmental stewardship. The tour highlighted regeneration activities currently underway at the Sun Row Community Action Site, Chester Springs Marsh and Riverdale Farm Ponds. Over 30 representatives from different groups-attended-the tOtlr an&eKpressed-a keen-interest in working in partnership with the TRCA. This event was advertised through various means including newspapers, Cable T.V. and CFRB Radio. City TV and the Toronto Star also advertised the event. The event has been well documented and a video has also been prepared which will be used to promote the project during the next year. 0188 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 I nterpretive Nature Hike along the Black Creek - July 25, 1998 The event was organized in partnership with the Black Creek Project, Ontario Public Interest Research Group and the Community Garden of Friends. Participants were introduced to the numerous native plant species, wildflowers, and edible plants found in the watershed. Hikers also planted trees and placed bird boxes along the trail. After the hike, participants sampled foods made from edible plants and herbs found in the watershed. Ecological Workshop St. Bede Child Care Centre - August 27,1998 Approximately 40 campers and staff members were led to the Morningside Tributary for a nature walk. After the nature walk, a bird box making workshop was organized. Campers made kestrel and owl boxes. Parents were invited to participate in placing these bird boxes along the Morningside Tributary Action Site. The event was covered and aired by Shaw Cable on August 28, 1998. Community Tree Planting and Picnic at Morningside Tributary - September 19, 1998 This event was attended by over 100 people. It was organized in partnership with the Rouge Park and Friends of the Rouge. Among the community groups that participated were the Korean Seniors Health and Bowling Association, Sikh Community Temple, Chinese Church and the Hindu Temple. Councillors Raymond Cho and Bas Balkissoon also attended the event. Over 1,500 trees and shrubs were planted followed by a community picnic. The event was covered by The Scarborough Mirror, Shaw Cable and Sing Tao Daily Newspaper. Seminar on Pressing Environmental Issues in the Regent Park Area - September, 1998 This seminar was organized to promote community environmental education within the Regent Park Area and to explore issues of concern within the community. Approximately 40 local residents attended the seminar. Presentations were made by Beth Craig (Task Force to Bring Back The Don), Chandra Sharma (TRCA Project Coordinator) and Mr. Nurul Islam (ECENECA). Following the presentations, the participants were divided into four groups to explore issues and concerns. Results from this workshop will help us channelize our efforts in the right direction within this area. Notable experiences from this workshop will be addressed when organizing other events with similar community groups. Events such as this help to identify many issues and barriers faced by new Canadians. Paddle the Humber - September 20, 1998 More than 20 members of the Latin American Community participated in our Fall Paddle the Humber Event which received good media coverage. Participants were introduced to the conservation and heritage issues in the Lower Humber Subwatershed through a Canoe Tour led by Jon Clayton (TRCA Fisheries Biologist). The group also participated in an Interactive Ecological Game and First Aid Training at King's Mill Park. They were also introduced to the Inner City Outtripping Centre, an organization who has expressed an interest in working with our project and the Latin American Group, to organize a camping tour as an educational and recreational activity for new Canadians. This proposal will-be followed~p in the Spring of1'999. November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0189 Restoration Activities . Sun Row Park Community Action Site 100 native trees and shrubs were planted as. part of the community awareness day with the Somalian community at the Sun Row Community Action Site on May 7,1998. On November 2,1998, 320 native shrubs were planted as part of the watershed education day to enhance natural areas within the Sun Row Community Action Site. . Claireville Community Action Site A planting event was organized on May 2, 1998 to improve forest cover at Indian Une Campground. 300 native trees and shrubs were planted along the water's edge. As part of our restoration work for this site, a Fall tree planting event was organized on October 28, 1998. 750 native shrubs were planted during a watershed education and tree planting day. Over 150 school children form various schools participated in interactive activities focused around watershed education. Students were involved in nature games, tour of the Claireville Dam and a solar & renewable energy display followed by planting activity. Parents were also invited to participate in this event. This event was aired by City T.V. during the 6 p.m. news. . Morningside Community Action Site Tree Planting 1,500 Species Willow, Ash, Sumac and Birch were planted during a community tree planting event on September 19, 1998. . Riverdale Farm Planting On September 19,1998, 500 wildflower species were planted along the Lower Don Trail. This planting was part of the Festive Earth celebrations at the Riverdale Farms. 30 participants from the ECENECA (Environmental Centre for New Canadians) and LAENG (Latin American Environmental Group) participated in the event. . Humber Arboretum 450 native trees and shrubs were planted on October 18, 1998 during the Humber Community Nature Celebration Day at the Humber Arboretum. Members from the Humberwood Community Centre and local residents participated in the event. . Lindylou Park Undylou Park is one of the proposed community action sites. 65 native trees were planted to initiate restoration work and mobilize the apartment dwellers around the park. . Scarlet Mills Park 70 species of native trees were planted in this park as part of an environmental education activity with the York Humber High School. Students with learning disabilities were involved in an ecological game followed by a-tree planting event. . - Communication Strategv A Communications Plan that identifies our communication objectives for the project has been prepared. To date, our communication activities have included: 0190 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 - the development of a fact sheet that has been translated into Chinese, Spanish, and Italian. This fact sheet is currently being translated into: Hindi, Somali and Punjabi. The fact sheets are distributed at all community meetings and multicultural events; - a three-panel display that graphically illustrates restoration activities within the watershed. A new display panel titled, "Communities Together for Healthy Watersheds" has also been prepared to promote the project. This panel includes photographs from various events hoste~ through this project. - the establishment of a web page on the Authority's Web Site at http://WWw.trca.on.ca. The web page is regularly monitored and updated with a listing of events. - regular articles in "On the Don" and the "Humber Advocate" Authority newsletters; - information on the project was circulated through OCASI's (Ontario Council of Agencies for Serving Immigrants) newsletter of June 15, 1998; - on July 14, 1998, Gary Wilkins (Humber Watershed Specialist) gave a live talk on OJress FM (University of Toronto). As a result of this talk, the project received inquires from the Somali community and other individuals interested in the project; - . India Journal, a community newspaper for Indian, Sikh, Pakistani and Tamil communities, covered our Watershed Nature Tour. This event was advertised through the Toronto' Star and City TV. Our community events are regularly covered by local ethnic newspapers; and - a media release was issued on April 24, 1998 about the Action 21 cheque presentation ceremony and a public announcement was made which was covered by the City TV. news. Monitorinc The project has kept track of progress through documentation of all the activities, planting maps, listing of what was planted where and when and a database on community contacts. Work has also been documented through photos and video footage is also being prepared which will be made available at the end of the project. A brochure on facts about watersheds is also being prepared that will be translated into four ethnic languages depending on the demographics of our Community Action Sites. The success of community events is monitored through questionnaires. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE . Steering Committee Meeting, December 1998. . ESL (English -as-a '5econd-Language-t teacher's.workshop 10""'brainstorm interactive programs and strategies to involve adult ESL students (New immigrants) in environmental restoration activities. . Preparation of a brochure in four ethnic languages (languages to be identified according to demographics). . Identification and detailed design and restoration initiatives for Community Action Sites. November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0191 . Ongoing community outreach activities to build partnerships. . Ongoing watershed education and awareness. . Updating our website with photographs and upcoming events. . Continued training of Community Action Site Leaders. . Continued monitoring activities. . Continued advertising through articles in newspapers and especially in local ethnic newspapers such as Sing Tac Newspaper, Ming Pac Newspaper, World Journal Daily News, The Nikka Times, The New Canadian, India Abroad, India Journal, Indo-Canadian Times, EI Popular, and Hispanic Magazine, World Magazine, Caribbean Camera, Jamaican Weekly Gleaner, Sahre, Corriere Canadese, Arab News International, and Arabic Bessat'Errieeh. . Talks on local television channels such as The Asian Television Network, CFMT Channel 47 and Radio Stations such as Chin AMI FM, CIRVO, CIAO Radio AM. FINANCIAL DETAILS Sources of funding for this project are as follows: SOURCE BUDGET STATUS Trillium Foundation $150,000 Confirmed Action 21 (Environment Ca}1ada) $100,000 Confirmed TRCA $10,000 Private donation for trees and shrubs TRCA $40,000 Staff in-kind services TOTAL $300,000 Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 237 For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 Date: November 11, 1998 RES.#D49/98 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE 1998/99 WORK PLAN . -_Endorsement of-tne -Humber-Watershed --Alliance~s October, 1998 to November, 1999 Work Plan. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber Watershed Alliance 1998/99 Work Plan, as appended, be approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED 0192 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 Novernber20, 1998 BACKGROUND The Humber Watershed Alliance Terms of Reference requires that the Alliance prepare annual work plans and that these work plans be approved by the Authority. Members have committed to a two year term on the Humber Watershed Alliance and are just completing their first term. The work plan deals with the second term of the Alliance's work from October, 1998 to November, 1999. While at the end of this term some of the many projects will remain ongoing, it is intended that many of the activities will be completed and that this first Humber Watershed Alliance will have made many achievements towards improving the health of the Humber watershed. This work plan was approved by the Humber Watershed Alliance at Meeting #4/98 on October 20, 1998. The Humber Watershed Alliance is divided into four subwatershed committees and has appointed other technical committees or working groups to deal with issues including the Humber Report Card, the Canadian Heritage Rivers designation, and the Humber Watershed Logo. Over the course of the past year, each of the four subwatershed committees has developed a work plan for their two year term. The information presented in the work plans has been modified and refined to reflect only the primary projects that will be the focus from October, 1998 to November, 1999. Many other activities are being pursued as separate activities by Humber Watershed Alliance members. Specific objectives being pursued by each subwatershed committee has been received by the Humber Watershed Alliance in the form of Subwatershed Committee Meeting Minutes. This information forms the basis of the work plans. The work plan projects for the technical committees and other working groups have been summarized in the "Watershed Wide Activities" section of the work plan. In designing the work plans, each subcommittee's goal was to implement Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber. As much as possible, each of the activities is multi-facetted, and will achieve more than one objective once implemented. The work plans include both community action sites and community outreach activities. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE . Subwatershed, technical, and working group subcommittee members will continue to implement the actions listed in the work plan. . Funding from a number of external sources will be sought by the relevant committee members for many of the projects. . TRCA staff resources have been committed to the projects, as noted on the work plan. . As required, projects that have time lines beyond the term of this Watershed Alliance will become part of the mandate for completion by subsequent Watershed Alliances. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Authority has budgeted funds in account 118-55 for Humber watershed activities. The budget supports a small number of staff to provide administrative support and technical expertise to plan, coordinate, and implement a variety of projects and activities. Additional external funding sources are required: Staff-and Humber Watershed -AlliancEfmembers will continue to pursue other sources of funding, materials, and in-kind contributions to implement projects to protect, restore, and celebrate the Humber River watershed. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 Prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 334 Date: November 5, 1998 November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0193 I I I Attachments (1 I III I CD I CD I I I I I ~ I .~ I~ I~ I I I I I to I E I E 1 E I I I I I c w I ~ I ~ I ~ CD I I Cii CD I Qj CD (jj Ill' Qj CD I Qj III CD - ~ u u u = I l.cgl.cg .cU .cU .cu (I) l.c l.c l.c 'E E1ij1 E1ij' E1ij a: ::I ::I ::I E l'G E l'G ~ I(/) I(/) I(/) E 1 1:f~I:f~ :f~1 :f~I:f~ Q. -c = -c = -c = 0 w =1 lii~I' lil~1 lil~ U ='=I=--cl=--c =- -c I =- -c I =--c l'G en en en .c ~I ~I ~~I ~l! l'G Q) I l'G Q) I l'G III to '01 U<(I U<(I u<( ::I '0-lii '0-lii '0-lii (/) en en en en en en 0 <( 1 t:: U I t:: U I t:: U 0 <(I <(I <( Ciil c( Cii <( Qjl <( Qjl <( Qj ... Oa: Oa: Oa: ~I g-...I g.... I g.... Cl ~I ~I ~iiil ~iii U iii I U iii I U iii ..., a:ca, a:ca, a:ca .9 ... , I- I ... 3: I I- 3: ~3:1 ~3:I.~3: I I I I T ml I 1m 1 \Xl I 1m I \Xl I m I~ ~'m I I~ m mlmlm \Xl 1m I CJ 01 m 1m I Cii m :,:,m I ... m I: I z m m C\l ... ... Q) Q) ... Q) ... I~ ,g . :i Qj I ~ 1m l.c ~ .cl.cl ~ l.c Qj E I~ I ~ 1'& j:: 151 ~ 1= 1.2! EI E, l'G .c ::I III III ::I 0 '011ij I '~ Ig- I: 1il1 1il, 16 Ig- '0 I i; I C: l'G 01, ,<( I(/) , 0101, I(/) 0 ,Z 10 , I I I en I I I I Z I I I lei I , I :5 I 1 , I ~ I I I I D.m I I I IE, I I ~m I I , I ~ I I 0 a:m I , I I ~I I OT'" I ... I I I '~I :=ffi III I'E I I c 1 ,~I wm I ~ I I III I e I U:E !!! I I ~I~I w :c ZW z ui I I ~ I 16 I <> 0 en a:; I 1 olea' ::iO c (; Cl Cl ... Cl iii lii I I ea ~I Cl I: ..JZ w .~ to U - Qj <0 :a a:; I I ~lcS III 0 -c E 5: en III >-1 III 01- ... ui I u.. .c III \Xl WCX) ll:: .::: >- 1:1 E m , l'G a:; I a: -0 .c >- >- J:m Cl l'G -c I: 0 l!! , I: 0.1 lii 0 "3 cnm ~ '0 0 cl~ E , (ij I a:""" (ij -c l-c ~ III Cl > wa: > I: I lil I: Ill,(/) Qj I: 0 I-w 0 I1l U 'E E a: U '~ a. a. en It:: &1 I .Q a. <m (; 0 I: a. 18- -c I: ~I~ ,2 :E l'G :=0 l'G i1i lii '0 i1i ~ en Q) U III I: l'G,0 I: og III a: I- U :a I ... U Cl c E -= U Cl :; I: .::: '(ii :a '(ii wU l'G .5: I ~ t:: III '01 g Q) s= iii 0 III III :; I~ a. -c E -c -c c mO <i: s= ~,; <( Cl U III III Q) Q) Q) en '(ii :E I: lii 1 l5 a: N (; 01 lii Cl N I: '10 III (ij ~ ... C. I: (ij '10 ~ en -c l'G III :J 15 en ~I ~ 15 Q) 1 ~ I: I: I: ... I: III :I: Ola: ,a.. IiI: iI: w'<(lo.. I~ iI: ,0 I(/) I I I I I I I I I en I I I ;) w j:: I I I :; enl I I z j:: :PI I I 0 CJ > ~ <( 0:1 I I w &\ I I CJ c 9 i .:!II I I GI "iil Cl c 'E I I 'tJ w J:I I I GI J: III c: ~ (I) CJI .!!!I I I ... a: GI w 51 0 'il I I .c l- E <( :;-, Cl ;1 1 I ::I ~ a:, , , .9 CJ, I , J: , I I - I I I I I I I I 1:: -I I I N MI I I .,. I I CII a.. I I I I I I , I 0194 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 a; CD CD CD U I: == >- ~ CD "e lD x E c <( CD 0 W - - () 1:l CD CD ~ Q) .cu CD U) .e E fij Ol a: ~ :::l:: ~ ~ CD J:<( l1. a; l!! CD w 3: =tij =tij - ~ ,=' 1:l J: {!!. III CD lD CD 1ii 1ii -.een CD III en en en - 0 .c < < < <_CD .c :c CD I: E l- E () () I: () ()a;~ :::l a: a: a: :::l J: l- I- ~ I- ~3:a. J: (]) Ol (]) I: (]) '0 ~ .... Ol Z .... CD I: :s M .... .c >- (]) 0 - CD Ol E ;:; (]) i= CD I: Q) (]) ~ .c .c '0 Q) ~ .... CD 0 0 Ol 0. >- E ti ti I: Q) :::l III :::l 0 0 0 U) 0 ::E U) I: III :c 1:l III CD I: I: .e 0 III ~ ~ () Q) Q) .E a; .... u en ~ l!! C CD 1:l Q) .c I: E E 11l III W :::l :::l ! a; Z I: J: 0 0 CD :~ 2 c E -= ti :; CD III W Ol U lD "2: 1:l a; ~ fij (ij 0 (; '5 :s 11l I- en 'iij :.::: E S Ci. C a; III Q) Q) I: .c a: 'iij - E :0 > Q) a; 0 .c Q) E 5 Q) :c a; :::l := ~ ~ .c I: o .- x Q) I: Ua; III Q) I: Q) III (ij - I: I: t:: Qj fij OOl E en - ,- 'iij III U 0 - en C 1:l <;:: B III Q) I: a. en1:l "iij Q) I: 0 U 8.~ a; 0 en Ci. E :s U c c c o Q) 1:l U 1:l CD 11l CD .... > I: > Q) > ,2- a.,- I: III III CD:;:: Q) III a: III CD S Q) 'c CD CD Q) Q) a. N N :::l N (ij .... Ol 0 'c 0 .- t:: 'c III III Qj fij 0 a. a.~ III ~ III Q) Q) - > Ol Q) Ola. Ol - Q) CD (; CD -a. (; .. - It a..J: 0 U) 00 - :c :c ~ - l: 1: CD Z < III E 0 U - ti - l: i= l: CD III III < III ~ .c > l: - 0 E w III . (.J u (.J ~ CD ~ III 9 III iQ 0' III J: CD a: 1: u CD 'ii - CD 0 := l1. < .e > ~ E E - 1:l 1:l .i - ct ~ ~ 0 III C C Gl III ... J:: Gl - CD Ie l: l: iii CD .c 0 ~ ~ .c Ol E III U III - E Gl ~ III ::E :s := .E J: := en III CD .... CD (]) 0 ... ... ... November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0195 , I . a!:l la!:l la!:l I ell I ell I I > CD I III I III I III I III I CD CD CD I CD Ql CD CD m = = = = = a!:l ItS = = = ~I 0 'E I 'E I 'E I 'E I 'E ra 'E 'E 'E w E I E I E I E I E Ql If= E E E :21 :) 0 18 18 18 18 -c Oc: 0 o c: a!:l, l/) U ~ la!:l U .- uc: U'2 a: 1.9 'Oa ClI 'Ora < :) '0 lal l-g l-g l-g b '0- UI a. CD c: CD:2 CD<( CD:2 f=1 J::. I iii:;:1 iii:;:1 iii:;:1 iii:;: ~:;:I e iii..J J::. J::.. W Ill:;: ~li ~...J "- ra I GiS, GiSI GiS, GiS ... ~ 1 (:!. "- .51 m CD_ CD .. CD .. Ql .. iiilll ... rn ... en ... U) m en o _ tau iii~ tUo al 0 ~< I ~<I ~<I ~<I ~< S<lo ~S ~S I- ~- .oU 1.g~I.g~I.g~I.g~ 5~1~ .oc: .oc: .oc: ~I :Ja: :J 0 :J 0 :J 0 ClJI- I ClJI-I enl-, enl-I ClJI- U 1-, U ClJU enU ClJU ...J1 I I I , I I co 1 I I 1 I "- co I 0) 10) I 10) 10) 0) I ~ 0) I CJ 0) ~ 0) - 1m 1m 0) 1m co I E - z iii I~ 0) "- 1 :E I~ I~ I': 0) :J CD ml .0 I iii - len .0 E Ql -- E ~ I ra Ig' I E 1-8 "- I g' 0) ~I al :J al al > I lij I .~ I ~ lti 'E I .;:: 0) 0 ~I 0 ~ a. 0) al Z I' ICIJ ,en 10 ICIJ- 0 lJ.., I I I I I T , I iii I c:1 0 I '0 iii I .91 - 0 - 0 J::. '0 I ~I , 15'0 I a. J::. $, - c: 1 Cl a. 3l ra .S _ III ICl Ci Cl ~I III al c: ra "- c: III ti >- .81 Ql :J 1'0 al c: "-iii 1.2 .x Ql 0 ra ClI al S Qi E all al- III al 51 :a >- I J::. >i >i Gi .- al _ 0 ~=&ll~ ~ ~ 0 -gl w Cl Z QlO"-IQl al .E c: >- ral 0 grn's rn Cl 'c '0 '0 c: ra .9 .S I ~ ra al :J c: .91 0 c: iii>- ~2o iii Cl a. in !!! ~I w .- a. III I .9 'in .~ 5 0 c: iD m ~ E '0 0 III ~ Cl Eal'Elo CD c: ~ .x WI 0 al .x'- J::. .~ Clal ra 0 Gi ~I I- iD S 8.1 ~ lii c: "- oc: Q) .x :;: iii ~ 'OlliJ::.l~ & :co lii :0 c: ~ ~I a: iii c: ~.S iii Cl g' ~ ra 0 E c: , 0 J::. !!!I &l .2> ra I ~ c: 'S'c lii ~ 16 B 0 3= olll311 CDQ).9 -gall::; B ~ 'Qj I oalQ) .xCl 16 -a. Cl '0 III al ~I ra.~ ":1 S ral.g l3 g 01 :J al III 'E U J::. al .9 ~ ~ I ..: 5,1 c.. '0 I .-. c: 1 ~ III "- Q) Gi Qi E '0 01 c: a.:J Ql.- a. J::. Ill!!! .- c: "-0 _Ill raa. c:a.- iii c: al ra ~I .9 Q) "- I .~ 0 I - I Cl . I l3 . ~ c: c.. iD .~ .E Q) I - I g' ~ I 'in 5, I J::. ra '~I .0 J::. .~ :;: J::. c: III '-.- -._ . :J E .E :;, 'Q; ~ I -g B I ~ &ll :g III 0 '0 iii ~I ~ III lii I '5'c I .2.!!! I ~'O I .2> Q) 'E c: iii g'1 iD al ra c: 5 ~ e € ~ J::. ~.g III c.. E c: ~ ~I '(ij .." ai I .x 0 I E ti I [-a I ~ al Cl E 15 ~ '5 I lii 8:1 .g ~ I ~ ~ I u; E c.. 'in 0 '01 0 1.5 al O.Q e 1 3: 0 I CIJ III 1 a.. Cl, .5 U 0 en z, I - I I I c: I 0 '0 - GI C:'O W I c: GI c: E I ::c GI ra EO GI ::: l/) I - Ql -a. u I a: en 'O~ c: I 3: ca I W c: lIlu .r::. ~ I .Q .. l/):J c: I 1Il '00 W Z U - 3= I ca c: .. '0 1 0 m < ~ OGl c: ~ :) I ~ E a. ~ ca I l/) .. .. 0 ::: 0 I C 0 1Il...J'O 1Il I a: :J en a. '0 c: 3= 9 w ~ I E a.c:ca I m iii E c: :)cai Jg ~I I 0 == 3= 0 en ~C:3: :E :) I 0 GI 0 ~I ::c ~ .E lIl-c GI a: 1Il I ~ iii O:!GI GI ;1 > 0 ::::. m'O E .. W II: - .01 0 I .r::. cGl_ c: 3= u c u -Eca ~ ~I 9 ell I :J C alll! 0 0 I I 1 I l/) I, i!: l/)II:I- II: ::C, = I I I I I I 1:: - I I I I C\l I C') ~ \I) CDI ca a. I I I 1 I I 0196 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20,1998 ~ .2 >- ~ m m m m mi9 :fl :fl III II: II: II: CD .2::! ~ .2::!~ ~<C ~Oe: ~ ~ Q Z Z Z - E E EQi EelS E El1l Ee: !:!:! ~ ~ ::iE 1;i E-x EelS E~ Ee:1;i EelS E~ Ea .... -x -x -x - 0...... 0 00 0'-_ Oe: oooE In.................. en u.5 ulij uo uienu,€ uenu II: c( c( c( c( "C 1:: "C - "C 0 "C ~ c( "C l1l "C 0) "C e ::;) U U U Uu al~ al< al~ al U al~ alO alU a. II: II: II: II: al .l: ~ .l:. .l:. .l: ....i 1I:.l: .l:..l:. W ... ... ... ....0 en....J:= en II::= en ~:= l!?..... en....i en U en III ID C C C C'- eo....!! m......! CD.;..;.! CD.!!olJ Cii.;.;cn Co.;..; Cii.;..; .- .- .- .- a.. - 0 en i;j 0 en i;j 0 en i;j 0 en i;j 0 E i;j 0 i;j 0 ~ .i i ffi ffi~ ~~C( ~~C(U ~~Uc( ~~~ ~~l1l ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .gg~ .ggII: .ggII: .gg.!!2 .gg~.gg.gg ....i ....i ....i ....iU enU... enU... enU... enUIIl enUen enU enU CD en CJ ~ !R en en e: e: e: e: e: Z ... en en en "C.2.2.2.2.2 ::;;; 0) ..... en en c: Cl i;j Cl i;j Cl i;j Cl i;j Cl i;j :!: .0 ~ .......... l1l .5 0. .5 0. .5 0. .5 0. .5 0. ... . E l1l Cl Cl ltl 0'13 0'13 0 '13 0'13 0'13 ~ ~ '2 .2 m ~ 9l,€ 9l,€ 9l,€ 9l,€ 9l,€ o l1l 0. 0. en 0e:l1l e:l1l C:l1l C:l1l C:l1l Z -, en en ..... 000. 00. 00. 00. 00. - 0 en - - en e: 0) al ._ E .~ 0) e: en 0 ~ . _ e: 1:: e: l1l 0 ~ .l: & al i;j ~ 0 w Cl _ al -- Z e: :a "E - o ; l1l :a ~en C lij :: Cl ;(; W e: e: 0. ~ .5 ~ ~ 111.9 .2 ~ .g "C E:o 0.5 i;j'2 al :fl .- 0. ... C> ~ ~ i;j ... uien ~ W ~ E ~ -': lll~ II: e: 0 ~ E c l!l 0'E 0.9'; :a 8 .2 ~ ~.2! 3: ... e: ~ l1l _ -l1len E- "CO - = ... > en .l: e: = e: 0)0. ~ $ ~"C ~ _ 0) ~~ ~al .~~ > ~ 0 e: E 0- oE E- ._ (; e: 'in ~ al 0) "Cai "'al ='E ~ - 0 ~ e: E.o. e: Cl o.E Cl .l: 0) . - e: -Ill = 0 'E ~ E .!!! l1le: '_ 11le: .~ :Q ... Cl .-'- 0. - > 5 .- .~,g i;j ~ E'- al Cl i;j l1l > ui ~ .~ en 0 '3 ._"C ~ 'ijj .~ E l:l 'E 15 "C E m 'in ~"C fa mal ~m alO) e: c: al -= al ofa al i;j.~.l:i;j leE .,g.,g]! 0 ~ oc:.!::! ~~ .Q~ ~~ l1l III 0. ~ Cl UCl e: Eo. -E ...0 Cl Cl E"C'- al .- III ... ... III e: ... .-.- e: en _en Cl 00) ~o 0)0. ~~88 ~ J;~ 0 iii.s ~'in :2.E m c ~ ~ "0 ; c i;j c CON III III - - - = ~ ~ ~ 0) GI... 0 ~ Z C 3: 41 g; m _ Q ~ .l:_ ~ GI 1 ~ ... .l: 1::0 - a: m 41 c( 0"0 oo!!.:C "0 (,;; II: o ~ C zo = C -= "0 o :ac ~ "On: 3: .!! -:: :a ....J a.~ m Cc ~ Gi 41 >- i~ 1ii cf~ i 3: ~ fA ~ 41- 1i::D1lI m ~ 41 C ...e c -= C _ :J: 0 == 0:;, 0 "0- 0 CIl U 0 ~- - 11l~ Z III :D c( 4IGI u~ ~ ;.l: E III == iii E:2 .!! GI l:Jl ,'ft GI III ..: 0 ... oS ,~ III a: w ... a: ..J In ..J ... oM ... ~ CD en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oou_ .=.~.===_ . November 20. 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0197 >- Gl Gl m :t: Q 'E 1lI w E III :;) o ::J UJ U~ a:: -cGl :;) GlO a.. ..c: . w eU m Gl .. ~ 'tau ~.! .ac ::J 0 wU CD Ol CJ Ol - Z Qj :E .a i= E I CD U Ql 0 y' w z 0 0 w , I1l . 0 I- ~ a: 0 :: c Ol '(jj Q) 'C -c lij X ~ Q) .!::! . a; c u: Gl Z 'C "3 0 CJ ~ C 0 III 0 E ...I CIl Cl III C l'lI :e Gl c '> III a: CD - 0198 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 , I en I I I. < . . >- loooll 100 I I ~ itj ~ U ~ m ~m ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ICDt:: 1 CD"'" I ICD CD CD CD CD o .cCD.cCl .c.c.c.c.c w 1 E.co I E"iij I I E E~ E E E ~ CD CD~ CD CD~ CD CD CD en 1 EO: I EU I IE E(5 E E E a: U I CDen I CD~ I I CD CD" CD CD CD ~ ~ al..... CDoll CD CD.J CD CD CD a. ..... =..... = I 1= = = = = W I- :t: I 'E .c :t: I "E ~:t::t: "E "E"C"E "E:t:"E:t: m ~~I E5~1 Et5~1 ~ 1 E E~ E= E ~ Eoll~ e ~ < I 8 ~ < I 8 ~ < I < I 8 8 CD 8 CD 8 oll < 8 01< "~ U I .c"C U l.c . U I U l.c >- .c N .c N .c >-U .c'iij U ~a: ::Joa: ::JEDa: a: ::JCO::JCO::JCO ::Jcoa: ::J~a: U I- I en ED I- I en en I- I I- ,en a: en J: en J: en a: I- en U l- I I I I 11m I -. I I I e I . !i I I la:i I CD "- - 01 01 C\J 01 .......... ::E e I Ie I~ Ie ~ ~ _"_ ._ CD"- cu cu I- & 101 1& l.g 1& .g.g e 1m Ie 1'0 Ie '0 '0 o ,..... ,0 ,0 ,0 0 0 e I I I I o I I I en ~ I S I I B e cu e cu I N I Ie. E en"C 0 cu I"C 0 I II- en - e: - "C a. I::J oE I I 01 e: 0 E - e:"_ 0 "- l.c ' I '5 co - CD 0 e: ::J E 0 16 I 16 g I "0 CD "2 ;e IE -; "= E E "= in ~ vi co cu "C lcu 1: cu e: vi W e: - cu 0 ~CD ~ CD Z co 1m 0 ::; CiiCl Cii .= o CD IW Cl o:;:::g ~ ai c"_ "= 1: en e: 01 " 0 w iD I B 16 Q) Cl ~ "en .~ e: m iij I -5 B iD ~ a. Q) ~ .!!l o - e: 01 e:"Cl!! E .= I- U 1"- I III e: ..., e: ::J . en - u.. - _ ~ cao ~ en Q) ~ .E f E I ;: 16 -g .c ~"en e: 5- en 0 e: - ocu a. - Ql o cu I~ I Ql a.:E Co16::J 16 CD ~ "C I en I E "C cu ~ Ql ~ 16 a. E o Ql a. e: ::JCI en"C cu "C I Cl I .2 CO en 0 e ~ - Cii B a. J:1 cu e:.c.!!1 ~ . CO 0 - e: I e: I> 00 CDo. Ql"c Cii E 0"- cu :;:: CO 01 " cu e:.- e: CO - I "C CO e "en t: CO 1: 0 "C 16 I 'ffi in g:;:g::!:"E en CU.+= CD o 1'= I en "C 0 .2' ~ E in '0 ~ E en Cii ~ cu- en> OCU a. .c Ql Ie: 10 I"C~ CD~ ol!! CD"* g ~ 10 lco ICD.3 16cu.c::J 16 ~ a. "0, 01 .c -::; 01 > ::J 0 01 0 - .2 CD e: l!!-:;::o eno"+= Ql Ql cu It: 1"+= lcu"g eno ECii en ::; 0 > Q) ~ -- Q)0 _ m _ c cu I - 1 0 I 1ll::J > C5 0 III > III III o ,..5 lED 1~:2,..5, u.~..5 z U I I I I ' I I g. ~ I I 16 :I: I I ~ en U a: = I I e w ~ 0 1-<1 I 1Il:C z < C I I al C( o :> 0 III - ::- ;; I I ~ ~ I- m co ::J 0 <~~I I 00 E U en CD ~ ~ ::J Oa:1Il1 I CD m ~ ... .JWC - '1:l ~ ::J 01 I co'1:l 0 0 m 0 ~ o.c I- ::ECDI I - 1::::( CD ~ 0 C 0 :I:,>I I ~ CI 0 i 16 I-CDI I co.5 c,.c 0 en.= C E C E W.!!!I I .2l CO - ::J 'iii ~ 0, I I ,en z .!!! :I: u.. I I I I - I I I I i"'" I I I IN CO') ., It) CO a. I , I I · November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0199 := := U) U) alS alS ... ... al 0) > U) U) U) al U) al U) Cl Cl ID lD1ij lD1ij lD1ij ~5i ~5i a: a: 0 0 a: a: Q .0_ .0_ .0_ l: EJ::. EJ::. z Z al al UJ E U) E U) E U) al ECl ECl ::E ::E "0 "0 ;:) al;: 0);: al= J::. o :J o :J alS alS l: l: m EJ: EJ: EJ: Cl o III o al ::J ::J a: :J .0> .0> < < ;:) al"O al"O al"O III :J"O :J"O U u 'ffi 'ffi - al l: al l: al l: > m. 5i ~5i a: a: Q. = 0 = 0 =0 ~ ~ .- E .- E :a .- E :g E :aU) 1ijU) l- I- UJ EJ::. EJ::. EJ::. c: c: m m ID E 0 E 0 1ii Eo 1ii - ... - ... -0 -0 U) U) al U) al 'E ~ 0 a.- a.- < o .- < < <.0 <.0 >- >- oa: oa: oa: III 0 0 I- .0"0 .0"0 U .0"0 U u uE uE ::E ::E :J :J ~5i :J l: a: ~5i a: a: a:al a:al .J mal l- I- I- I-E I-E .J .J .J CJ) co CJ) co CJ) CJ) CJ) co CJ) co ..... CJ) CJ CJ) CJ) ..... m c5 CJ) CJ) z ..... CJ) (ij CJ) CJ) co ..... ..... C\I ..... CJ) :E CJ) "0 ... U. ... co (jj ~ ..... CJ) l: al -- al CJ) i= ..... 0) .0 Cl .0 CJ) .0 Cl 0 10 0 .5 0 ..... 0 CJ) :J .5 CJ) CJ) t5 0. t5 (ij - CJ) l: 0. CJ) CJ) 0) 0) 0 CJ) III CJ) CJ) : 0 >- 0 en 0 u. 0 ..... -, en ..... ..... - l: U) III Q) a. (jj c: ~ 0 UJ '0 ~ z 0 U) .~ (ij 0 c :s UJ .0 l: i6 - al ID c- U) C :J a. 0 == ~ .= .... c I- ~:f .w al III ~ .Q :ll:: al"O .5 "0 C i6 a: Qj - c Qi III Q) .E N :J 0 c: 0 ::: if. E 0 III E en (ij ~ al J::. U C c .... oX :s Ui J::. en , 0) Cl .w 0 ~ ~ 0 > i6 al .- C Cl 0) (ij ~ ~ c: al ....a: c c: 0 C I- E Q) .E Q) E '5 Cl ~ C ... .~ ~ ~a l: c 0 E 'c al'::::: Q) .2 E c i6 (ij a. ui Cl al :J >Cl Cl III Cl Q) 1ii E 8 .5 en .5 .~ .E a. Cl 'Cij +:: ... .5 .9 .5 Q) 'E 1ii E .!!! "0 c "0 C ~ C "0 'E .~ 0 05.2' .2 c 0 '2 al c al 0 '_en 0 al Cl ~ :J a. 0 Qj al C ~cc E c c .5:2 E ~ a. E al Cl E iij.2' Cl ~ al Q) :J .w J::. .w a. E 5 g E a. en al Q) .E III en Q) c- o 2 :E 0 .s :s 0 :!2Oo u: 0 a:: < u u Q. 0 UJ :J: m a: oX UJ .. I- III Z oCt Q. '0 0 ~ CD 0 i= ID iii J::. oCt ;:) >- ~ 0 0 m Cll c m ~ :J 0 a: u. () C ..J UJ CD C :is ID ~ Q) 0 :J ~ 0 .. III Q. ~ CJ c ;:) .. J::. C :J: ~ CD 0 0 - I- DI ., GI CD c 1: :is m oX l!! ~ .3 0 0 CJ z z ~ / 1: ... N C') or III / Q. 0200 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 . . . . . lai lai I I. lei I. > ~ C C lin lin 'iiI I I~ lin 17: lD 15 15 Qi I 15 oil 115 a I 115 I 15 ,Qi Q Ll Ll Ll Ll_ Ll - Ll Ll Ll wEE E I Eai I EI ~ I I E I E IE ::J CII CII CII CII"tl CII ..'- CII CII CII rn E E E IElij IE~5 1 IE15IE15IE a:: CII CII CII ICII'" ICIIU.J: I ICII~ICII~ICII ::J CII CII CII' CIIU CIIU.. CIIltI CllIIl CIIoll -. Q. ~= ~ = .;: =1 ~ei=1 ~~'fi I = I ~~I ~~I ~c= ~ ~~ ~oll~ ~oll~1 ~oll~1 ~-;_~ I ~ 1 ~U_I ~U.I ~.21~ ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ I 8 l5 u~ I 8 l5 ~ ~I u~ I 8 ~ I 8 ~ I 8 al u~ LlU Ll",U Ll",UILl!!1 ,Ll!!1:JUI ILl""Ll""LlO :Ja:: :J:Ja:: :J:Ja: :J5a: :J5"'0 a: :J:J:J:J :J",a: enl- enl-I- enl-I-, en:>1-1 en:>l-en,1- ,enl-, enl-I enOOI- o m I I I I I I ~ 1 I I I I I ~ ~ mm m 1m I I I I I m - N 0)01 01 10) I I I I I (DOl :E ... ?- ..- ...- or- 0) -- - CII "'01 01 01 0101 I- ~ S.S .S I.s I I I I 1::'2 . (3 ~o. a. 10. I I I I laic. o :>en en ,en I I I , ,u.en I I I e: I I , I 0 I ~ I ]i I ~ I 01 e: _ I .~ I ,g I .E W I ~ Z I c. ole Q c. W 1Il ~ 00 CII '" I O 01 ~ III -- I- ~ 8'l I ~ :ll:: = ~ I CII a: ~ ._ CII ~ o ai ~ ...J I ia ~ ~ -;, '0 I ';. I l5 ia ~ l5 I~ Ie:~ o - ~ ~ III 001 >- ~~ :::; :!1? 8!. I> 1'16:-e l5 .E ~ ~ ~ 5-" l]i 1.2' E E 01 'E E g u.= I ~ I "='ij\ 1 CII e:1Il"tl CII - 1Ile: ~ :J E:> .... .- 0 e: - E "tl 0 .... :> CII "tl Ll III C. I e:'(jj I W I en I'(jj- U e: _ - E III 1Il'- - - :> e: 01 .2 U Qj 0.:::::. 0 I -.::: I 0 I 0 I:> CII e: 2 :> e: CII"tl e: e: e:E .- .e: _ :> 01 ai I :J Ll I 01 I 01 I 01 CII e: iil 1Il C .- U. 1Il:J.-.-.- - ~ El5 III ~ U I:;~I~ I~ I~C. o Ou c:: ,0 I~ ,Q.010 ,0 10.E I I I I I I !! I I Q en I I ~ ~ II I I rn U = fl. ffi~ (fJ I I Z = f ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 9a::o 5 I I ~ ~ E I I ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ c 0 I I . ... 0 c ~ 'i.S! I I ct iii a I f ~ 0 lD, I I I , I I I I I I I > I I I I f I ~... N I I I I I I Q. I I I I I I November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0201 :i 5 .g c:.Q c: 0 ai 0 cj ai >- ~ -Ill ~s .Q '(ij III ti- ti- ;..: III Ol c: <c: <c: <c: CD CD CD Ol CD C .clll ~~ ~o_ ~~ .c .c .c .c .c W E .2' .- .c .- .c .- .c 'E E E E E ::::) Ol= c: ::J c: ::J c: ::J Ol Ql Ol Ql Ql UJ E:E ::J- ::J- ::J- E E E E E c: Ol . EU< EU< EU< Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ::::) Ol' E 2'u E 2'u E 2'u Ql Ol Ol Ol Ql ll. =~ enOllla: OlllC: 01llC: = = = = = w :a 'E (ij 'EUel- Uel- Uel- .E 'E .E 'E .- II:: E ell III III en Et:: SOla:vi Ol a: vi Ol a: vi E E E= E E - 0 o III "5~ci~ > - E ~ - ~ 0 o c: o III 8.ra oc:en <( ~c,::JOl ~ a. <lI ...0. u u 0 u"'C UO< I- U u ~ C)::JOl C)::JOl .c .cen .cC: .c > .cenU a: .c Ol 01ae.::: (ij0", iilO", ::J ~~ ::J ~ ::J III ~~I= ::J_ a..<5Ci5 a..<5Ci5 I- UJCIJ ua..C!lCIJ CIJ ClJU ClJO N ~ co Ol <' co co N Ol Ol Ol 8 Ol .9 c: c: c: c: - Z Ol Ol Ol ~.Q "'C .Q "'C .Q "'C .Q Qj :i - - N Ol Ol Ql'iii Ql'iii Ol'iii Ql'iii CD CD - Ol .c .9 ::J a. ::J a. ::J a. ::Jo. E i= .c .c C) Ol C:.- c: ,- c: ,- c: ,- c: - .~~ ~.2 'E'€ .- u Ql 0 0 co 'E'E u U U Ol Q. 'iij o tIl ot:: o tIl o tIl Ql Ol U[ 0 0 - CIJ 1L. Uo. Uc. Uo. 0 :>. (ij .c c: 'E 0 g Ql :>. ~ E Ol c: e. ~ C) .g iii ~ a. Ol ~ ::J en en ~ E ,Q CIJ c: Qj en Qj 0 :I: Ol OlOl- U u _ <lI 0 C)en- 'iii Ol > Q. c: >::J 3: Ql ~ ._ en Ol .= (ij 'E E ,2 ~ c: > W Ol ~a.-g .9 III ... z E '0 '0 Ql , g,31tll .c / 0 en en "'C en Q) c: E C en 0 Ol c: lij ~ Ol CD ::J , W en .s ~ :5 :I: /" en .2 ""'j" III tIl 1ii":~ ... 'E .c: Ql 0 (ij "55i.c .E Ol u .s E 0 I- 'E ~Eg' U1 Ol . .c .E :lI:: Ql .... ~'';; -c: a: E "'C tIl.ra '" 0.0 'E CD '" E"'C Ql "'C 0 c: lij c: X ltl ,- Ql E 'S == 'E e ltl Ol C3 -g(ij :; - E- Ql C!l Ql ~...~ '" ltlU Ol U > c: -c: Ole ltl Ql Ql Ol ltl CD c: c: ,2: CD Ol .'iiiE 0 .5 c: tIl a:; '0 "'C ~ Q. c: lij ~~Ql CD gj ~ ~ Q. ~ - E u (ij Qj Qj ]! c: c: en ... ... U [l- e. Ol 0 CD 0 0 CD CD 'iii 'E '5. 'Iii ~ '0 en 'E ,5 3: - ltl ?: CD .- CD .c:.c: c: CD 'E '0 c: CD CD -- u '2 "'C CD .5 ltl tIl '" CD 0.0_ 'iii a. ::J .~ ~ E ~tirJ a. m= a. a. 0 E CD '0 u.- 0 0 'ii "'C 'ii'j CD .!!! So o ~ Qj Qj > E c: ai e. > 0 > 'E > ~ > > CD 0 ::J ~ Ol...~ tIl ~.!!! CD CD 0 U 1L. 0 a: 0.< a.. 0 0 - u c:- III .5! a. ... .! c - Ol Ql o U III .c U) ;::.!" GI E III 0 c: '::J c: '3 a III ... :J: 0 ::J ;: tn_ .: :t .c GI Z U Ql III c: III u .c 0 < ... - Ql ... 0 - ~;E ... > .c ... ~ ~ C E Ql > J:I - .E= c III DI Q. c: C GI III (J ::J - c: III a. .5! Ql '1:1::: 0 E III 0 C ::J E :t .!:: III Ul iii '3Ql ~ E ~i:E Ql CJDI ... ~ DI 0 Ql III >GI... Ql III GI:!:: (J - C J:I D1.! III III > ... == c: III -Ql GI - C III fIl 0 ~ li:J: > Zlc:tE I!! c: (J ... ... :giE.! 0 a.> DI - GI Ql ... Ql ->Ofll - GI= 1ii '0 GI III 'C1lI 00_ > ... == ll. ll.D1l1lfll III I- -> C") It) CD " CD en 0202 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 > ...J III m CD Qj C .c .c ." w E E ::;) al al UJ E E a: al al ::;) al al a. :t:: :t:: w 'E 'E m E ... E 0 o 'm 0 t- u- u .cU .c :J.E :J en en en ~ c:J c: c: Z -0.2 -0.2 :E al(;j al(;j :J a. :Ja. i= c:.- c: .- .- u .- u c'E C '€ o III o III Ua. Ua. -ci (;j OJ ..c: E III III Qj C, (;j 0 ~ , a: .c :J -0 III W III al 0 ::; Z a: 0 ..c: c: C III € w u:: ';t m ~ E 0 12 III t- G:i C, :ll:: >- . III 0 a: al- a: ..c: 0 0 _ 0 3: al..c: ::.: _ u OJ o ell OJ E-o cJ o c: ... III al D.. ell ..c: -0- - Iii ~ al > E al al III ~~ Z . -c: III III :J l5 E al E E ~ , al 0 :E o u , E E z III I! ... CI 0 CI 0 i= 0 ... ... a. oCt a. (J -0 ::.: 0 III Q) ...l 0 Q) a: ... ..c: (J III al u: = ~ III 0 E 'ii III >- ~ - c ,... ,... ,... November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0203 RES.#D50/98 - CANADIAN MILLENNIUM PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM Funding Proposal. Update on a funding proposal submitted by the Humber Watershed Alliance to the Canadian Millennium Partnership Program. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report outlining a funding proposal by the Humber Watershed Alliance to The Millennium Bureau of Canada titled: "The Historic Humber River - Celebrating And Linking Communities Through The Restoration Of Natural Heritage, Human Heritage And Recreation Values", be endorsed ....... CARRIED BACKGROUND The Canada Millennium Partnership Program is a Federal initiative which will help Canadians mark the new millennium in meaningful and creative ways. The Program will encourage Canadians to create initiatives that explore our heritage, celebrate our achievements, build our future and leave a lasting legacy. At Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #4/98, held on October 20, 1998, the following resolution was adopted: "THA T the draft Canadian Millennium Partnership Program proposal titled, "Humber River - The Toronto Carrying Place", be received; THA T letters of support from Humber Watershed Alliance members and other sponsors be forwarded to Authority staff for inclusion in the proposal; THA T the Canadian Millennium Partnership Program proposal titled, "Humber River - The Toronto Carrying Place", be revised slightly to incorporate the comments of the Humber Watershed Alliance members and submitted as a total package by the October 31, 1998 deadline; THA T the Canadian Millennium Partnership Program proposal titled, "Humber River - The Toronto Carrying Place", be reformatted to focus on the following three distinct, yet interrelated, projects: -Barriers - Trails -Restoration; THA T the theme of celebration and signage be. intersperseei-f1mongst the three projects; AND FURTHER THATthe application be submitted clearly identifying the Humber Watershed Alliance as the applicant with the support of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority." 0204 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 Overview of the Canadian Millennium Partnership Pro(;Jram The Government of Canada will provide funding for community-oriented activities as well as for national and international activities until December 31, 2000. Funds will be allocated during the three years, with five deadline dates for receipt of applications. The Program will help to support projects that meet one or more of its themes: . Celebrate achievement so that Canadians are inspired to know and appreciate our past and to welcome the challenges and opportunities of the future; . Encourage Canadians and other peoples of the world to explore our vast country and its natural and cultural diversity; . Exchange ideas and approaches that strengthen Canada and reinforce our position in the world; . Support a sustainable environment and new ways of showing our respect for nature while we progress as a leading economy; . Stimulate interest in communities large and small, and bring our youth together to support the evolution of these communities; . Advance Canadian innovation that will benefit individuals and communities contributing to our collective well-being; . Demonstr:'te, through artistic and cultural expression, our heritage, our way of life, and our aspirations for the future. Applications will be judged based on the following criteria: . focuses on the program themes; . consistent with the sponsor's aims and objectives; . how the success of the project can be measured; . degree of community involvement; . lasting benefits to the community; A number of specific projects are recommended in the Humber Watershed Alliance proposal. These projects are as follows: Mitigation of instream barriers for fish migration. Sites include: . Old Mill weir, Toronto . Eglinton Avenue weir, Toronto November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0205 . FundaJe Park weir, Vaughan . Bolton Dam, Caledon . Palgrave [,lam, Caledon Implementation of interregional trails. Linkages include: . West Humber Trail extension, Toronto . William Granger Greenway, Vaughan . Fundale / Nort Johnston Park Trail, Vaughan . Bolton EcoPark Trail, Caledon . Nashville Trail Route, Vaughan, King Environmental restoration activities. Sites include: . Black Oak Savannah, Toronto . Palgrave Mill Pond, Caledon . Fundale/Nort Johnston Parks, Vaughan . Claireville Reservoir, Brampton . Bolton Sunkist Valley Park, Caledon . Lake Wilcox, Richmond Hill Celebrations and signage as a Canadian Heritage River. Sites include: . City of Toronto . City of Vaughan . Town of Caledon . Township of King . Town of Richmond Hill . Township of Mono . Township of Adjala-Tosorontio RATIONALE The theme of the proposal is the celebration and restoration of priority natural heritage, human heritage and recreation values within the Humber River watershed. Projects lend themselves to the protection and enhancement of a healthy, connected and accessible greenspace system, and restoration of a self-sustaining migratory fishery. Proposed work will complement the nomination of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is expected that notification of funding will be made within six weeks of the October 31, 1998 deadline for the application. -- . Seek and confirm in-kind and funding contributions; . Preparing implementation details and seek approvals. 0206 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 FINANCIAL DETAILS The total estimated expenditures for the project are $2,026,000 and the total estimated project revenues are $1,525,000 consisting of known potential sources of funding and inkind services. The Canadian Millennium Partnership Program will fund up to one-third of project revenues. The request from The Canadian Millennium Partnership Program for this proposal is $501,000. In addition to the support provided through the Authority's regular Humber watershed management budget, a number of other potential funding sources exist as listed below. POTENTIAL PARTNER POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION Canadian Heritage Rivers Board (plaque) $2,500 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Community Fisheries $4,000 Improvement Program (ARCH) Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation (boardwalk) $9,000 Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund (Granger $10,000 Greenway) Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund (Barriers) $38,000 Palgrave Rotary Club $25,000 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Fish Compensation Package $40,000 Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Barriers $106,000 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Capital Works Program $100,000 EcoAction 2000 (Action 21) $100,000 - Trillium Foundation $150,000 Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) Claireville Trail $100,000 Canada Council for The Arts $160,000 TOTAL $844,500 For information-eontact:-Gary Wilkins,.-extension-211 Report prepared by: Greg Rich, extension 263 Date: November 11, 1998 November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0207 RES.#D51/98 - WILLIAM GRANGER GREENWAY The status of the William Granger Greenway Project located within the Humber River Watershed in the City of Vaughan. Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Richard O'Brien THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Vaughan be requested to consider the William Granger Greenway Project In the development of their 1999 Capital Budget ............................................................ CARRIED BACKGROUND At meeting #2/98 held on March 27,1998, the Authority adopted Resolution #A40/98: "THA T the staff report on the William Granger Greenway Project be received; THA T staff be directed to pursue funding and other resources for the implementation of the William Granger Greenway Project; AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required. " The William Granger Greenway is approximately five kilometres in length and is located within the valley corridor of the East Humber River watershed between The McMichael Canadian Art Collection and the West Vaughan Community Centre in the City of Vaughan. The objectives of the William Granger Greenway project are to provide an interregional trail link between The McMichael Canadian Art Collection, the Kortright Centre for Conservation and the Boyd Conservation Area; to provide interpretive signage on environmental, culture and heritage features, and to restore riparian and terrestrial habitats along the East Branch of the Humber River. The William Granger Greenway was named in 1997 to recognize William (Bill) Granger, the former Chair of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for his contributions to watershed management and as a tribute to the 40th Anniversary of The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The project is consistent with a number of Authority programs and policies which include: . Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document, A Call to Action. This strategy identifies recommendations and guiding principles to sustain the health of the Humber River watershed. A Call to Action identifies Boyd Conservation Area as a Community Action Site.-Community Action'Sites are-specific1ocations with opportunities to protect, restore and celebrate the watershed as recommended in the management strategy. . The Greater Toronto Inter-Regional Trail System adopted by the Authority in 1992. This strategy recognizes the concept of providing an inter-regional linked greenspace system within the Humber River watershed. 0208 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 . The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, which recognizes the protection and rehabilitation of valley and stream corridors within the Authority's jurisdiction. This program also recognizes that valley and stream corridors can be used for passive open space uses such as inter-regional trails which are compatible with the existing landform features and functions. . The William Granger Greenway project is also consistent with the City of Vaughan Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 1991, which identifies the need for the development of an extensive network of pedestrian and bicycle trails throughout the City. The natural heritage, human heritage and recreation values found within the Granger Greenway have contributed to the recent recommendation of the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board to nominate the Humber River into the Canadian Heritage River System. The Greenway includes many significant habitats, culture and heritage resources, recreation and education facilities and the historic Toronto Carrying Place Trail. The Authority is optimistic that the final criteria will be met and the Humber River will be officially designated a Canadian Heritage River in late 1999. At the present time, a site in the City of Vaughan is being considered for the official dedication ceremony. The designation of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River will be a major celebration for the Greater Toronto Area due to the status such a designation bestows on a river. Authority staff has identified the location of a preliminary trail alignment for the William Granger Greenway that is compatible with the existing social, cultural and natural environments. The William Granger Greenway project is a five-year undertaking and will include: . Facilitating public use of the William Granger Greenway through the establishment of the trail and bridges based on the aboriginal concept of the Toronto Carrying Place Trail. . Increasing multicultural and user group access to recreation and removing site barriers for the physically challenged. . Implementing environmental enhancements in the William Granger Greenway. . Increasing alternate funding and service delivery through broad-based partnerships; . Contributing to the north-south link between the Caledon Trailway/Trans Canada Trail and the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail. . Promoting and marketing the William Granger Greenway as a destination attraction by linking the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, the West Vaughan Community Centre, the Kortright-Centre for' Gonservation.and Boyd C~nseNation -Area. - November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0209 The Greenway has generated significant community interest due to its strategic location between two popular tourist destinations in the Greater Toronto Area, the Kortright Centre for Conservation and the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. The Bindertwine Festival, the Kleinburg Ratepayers Association and the McMichael Canadian Art Collection have pooled their resources and constructed a small section of the trail, including a bridge structure. Ontario Streams and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources have also undertaken stream assessment and fish habitat rehabilitation work over the last two years. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The project will be spread over five years from 1998 to 2002. The work will include: . consulting with agencies and the public regarding the details of the work; . the construction of three flood proof bridges; . construction of five kilometres of the Humber Inter-Regional Trail; . undertaking riparian plantings and reforestation; . interpretive signage on the environment, trails and Seed-Barker archaeological site; and . a combined marketing brochure on recreation and tourism opportunities. The project will be directed by a Steering Committee consisting of members from the TRCA, the City of Vaughan, the Humber Watershed Alliance and other groups and individuals. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff continues to investigate all options to plan, organize and implement the proposed activities. Application has been made to the Canadian Millennium Partnership fund for a major contribution to the project. Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Fund has recently contributed $5,000 and the Great Lakes Clean Up Fund has approved $10,000. Proposed 1999 Contribution Project Estimated Total Budget by the City of Vaughan William Granger Greenway $684,000 $100,000 (inter-regional trail and environmental enhancements) Canadian Heritage $20,000 $8,000 Rivers Monument TOTAL $108,000 The City of Vaughan contribution would be allocated to pedestrian 1rails, ""bridges and a monument to officially recognize the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 Date: November 12, 1998 0210 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 RES.#D52/98 . BLACK CREEK CONSERVATION PROJECT UPDATE 1998/1999 To report to the Watershed Management Advisory Board a brief update on the activities of the Black Creek Conservation Project of Toronto. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be updated on the activities of the Black Creek Conservation Project of Toronto for the year 1998/1999 .................................................. CARRI ED BACKGROUND Within the year 1998/1999, the Black Creek Project has used over 2000 volunteers in various restoration and education projects. Roughly 1900 trees and shrubs were used in naturalization projects within the Black Creek Watershed, as well as 800 aquatic plants. Three areas of severe erosion along Black Creek were remediated using bioengineering techniques completely implemented by volunteers. Over 20 cubic yards of garbage were pulled from the stream, and habitat structures were built at three sites along the river. This summer the Black Creek Project co- ordinated summer work programs for troubled youths at Covenant House and the J. D. Griffin Centre, as well as Operation Springboard, a community work order program for young offenders. The Project has taken on Carlo Coi as a full time Restoration Ecologist for the project. Carlo has been responsible for setting up a water quality education program, as well as a monitoring program compatible to TRCA collection methods. RATIONALE The Black Creek Project is the only group dedicated solely to the preservation and restoration of the Black Creek through strong community education and involvement. The Black Creek Project aims to protect the remaining integrity of the Watershed, while repairing and restoring past damage. Due to the high population density found throughout the length of Black Creek, community education and awareness of the functions of local waterways is integral to the health of the watershed, and is therefore integrated into every project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Black Creek Project aims to continue its restoration efforts in partnership with the City of Toronto, and various individual and group volunteers. We have applied to EcoAction 2000 for the funds required to keep the Project running, but would like to develop partnerships with local municipalities and school boards to become more financially independent in the future. FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS The Black Creek Project's long term goal is to improve the health of the watershed. November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0211 FINANCIAL DETAILS The Black Creek Project receives cash funding from EcoAction 2000, The Community Foundation for Greater Toronto, the Canadian Fisheries Improvement Program, and The Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation. In-kind donation is provided by The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, The City of Toronto, and hundreds of students and professionals. Report prepared by: Amy Maurer, extension 364 For information contact: Amy Maurer, extension 364 or Kristin Geater, extension 316 Date: November 9, 1998 RES.#D53/98 - BAKER SUGAR BUSH & BLOCK 100MB REFERRALS City of Vaughan. Status update regarding the Authority's participation on the Task Force for the Preservation of the Baker Sugar Bush, as well as the progress of various matters related to referrals of individual development applications within the Block 10 lands to the Ontario Municipal Board. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the Baker Sugar Bush and Block 10 Ontario Municipal Board referrals be received; THAT the Authority supports Concept Plan C2 and the design options recommended by the Baker Sugar Bush & Heritage Task Force as adopted by the City of Vaughan; THAT Authority staff continue to work with the other parties regarding the possible resolution of Authority interests pertaining to the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing for the Langstaff Woods Block Plan (Block 10); THAT subject to the resolution of Authority Interests associated with the Master Environmental Servicing Plan for Block 10, the Authority formally withdraw as a party from the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, and provide whatever technical support and assistance the City of Vaughan may deem necessary; AND FURTHER THAT The City of Vaughan, Region of York, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing and the Ontario Municipal Board be so advised .................... CARRIED BACKGROUND Staff has previously reported to the Authority on a number of matters related to the Baker Sugar Bush, including a number of development applications within Block 10 which are the subject of an upcoming Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Hearing, and an application for the deletion of lands from the Parkway Belt West Plan. 0212 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 Since that time, the work of the Task Force has conduded, and matters are progressing towards the commencement of the OMB Hearing which is scheduled for January 26, 1999. Given the progress with these matters, a status report was considered timely. Task Force for the Preservation of the SUQar Bush The Authority was requested to participate in a Task Force established by the City of Vaughan to address the preservation of the Baker Sugar Bush (Baker Sugar .Bush & Heritage Task Force). The Baker Sugar Bush is an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA #128) which was adopted by the Authority as part of the program update in 1995. The Task Force was comprised of representatives from the City of Vaughan, Region of York, Ministries of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs & Housing, the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the TRCA, a number of land owners and other interested members of the public. Numerous meetings were held, and issues dealing with land use design, heritage, parkland dedication and environmental protection were tabled. Gartner Lee was retained for the purpose of undertaking an environmental review of the Baker Sugar Bush, which generally addressed the following: . buffer width, design and possible use(s) and adjacent land uses and design required around the woodlot to maintain and enhance the existing function and condition of the woodlot; . the impact of the proposed road alignment through the northeast corner of the woodlot (and possible alternative alignments) on the natural attributes and functions of the woodlot; . the environmental impacts on the woodlot associated with alternative forms of public uses and access; . the impact of major storm system stormwater flows from lands to the north draining through to the woodlot; and, . long-term management of the woodlot to ensure its sustainability within a suburban environment. The work of the Task Force concluded with a recommended Concept Plan (Concept Plan C2 _ Attachment 1) to the City of Vaughan Committee of the Whole. The recommended concept plan contains the following design options: . public ownership of the Baker Sugar Bush; . a single loaded road and greenway buffer adjacent to the northerly and westerly edges of the woodlot; . provision of a 20 metre greenway buffer along the entire northerly edge to Bathurst Street, and a 10-15 metre greenway buffer along the westerly edge; . the relocation to the north of the road intersecting with Bathurst Street, in a manner which will not impact.the Sugar. Bush; . provision of a gateway park in the area of the sugar shack in the south west corner; and, . the option for a group of heritage homes in the vicinity of the gateway park. The recommended concept plan was adopted by the City of Vaughan at its Council meeting of October 26, 1998. November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0213 Block 1 0 OMB Referrals Authority staff has been involved with the review of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Block Plan for the Langstaff Woods Community, more commonly referred to as Block 10. The Block Plan process was established through OPA 400, and is intended to facilitate the comprehensive implementation of development on a 1,000 acre concession block basis, premised on the land use designations established through the City's Official Plan. There is no formal appeal mechanism related to the Block Plan process under the Planning Act; rather, the avenue for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board is through individual development applications submitted for the .Block Plan. A number of draft plans of subdivision situated within the Langstaff Woods Community have been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Authority staff had previously reported .on these referrals, and were directed to request party status and continue to work with the various parties towards the resolution of Authority interests. With the exception of the Baker Sugar Bush issues, the majority of the Authority's interests regarding the Langstaff Woods Block Plan relate to technical matters associated with the review of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. For the most part, staff are of the opinion that these issues are resolvable, and that these matters can be satisfactorily addressed in advance of the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing which is scheduled to commence on January 26, 1999. Parkway Belt West Aoolication Authority staff has .previously reported on an application to delete certain lands from the Parkway Belt West Plan consisting of two parcels totalling approximately 7.41 hectares of the Sugar Bush Developments Limited property, affecting the ESA. The applicant has since withdrawn the application, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing has closed this file. It should be noted however that a road crossing may not require any approvals under the Parkway Belt Plan. As a separate matter, the City of Vaughan has ~dopted an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 506) for . the purpose of deleting the primary road connection from Bathurst Street through the Baker Sugar Bush, as well as deleting the Medium Density Residential/Commercial designation on the northeast corner of the woodlot. It is anticipated this application will be referred and consolidated into the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing relating to Block 10 and the Sugar Bush ESA. RATIONALE The Concept Plan and design options recommended by the Task Force, as adopted by Vaughan Council, are in keeping with the overall program and policy interests of the Authority. With the adoption of the Concept Plan. by. Vaughan.Council, t/:le-concerns-of the lRCA with respect to the protection of the Sugar Bush are being addressed. Additionally, the Authority's interests related to the Langstaff Woods Block Plan are in keeping with the City of Vaughan's interest in the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. In the interest of saving public money and streamlining the upcoming Hearing in front of the Ontario Municipal Board, staff are recommending the Authority officially withdraw from these proceedings and provide assistance to the City of Vaughan as required. 0214 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Authority staff will continue to work towards the resolution of outstanding technical issues associated with the Master Environmental Servicing Plan for the Langstaff Woods Block Plan. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of technical issues pertaining to the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, we will withdraw from the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing as a party, and consolidate our interests associated with the Baker Sugar Bush through the City of Vaughan; to this end, we will offer whatever support and technical assistance the City deems necessary as part of the upcoming Hearing. The future use of the Baker Sugar Bush as a maple syrup operation continues to be of interest to the Authority. Following a determination of land ownership staff will continue to pursue the issue of a maple syrup operation for this property. For information contact: Luch Ognibene, extension 284 Adele Freeman, extension 238 Date: November 10, 1998 Attachments (1) November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0215 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 1 .. I ~ . ~= 0- ...~. ,.- _ .fl i N .~ ~o =0 ...-=..91 tiU ".s~~ S i.ai C!:5~ = $ J ~~ ;.f o ~ ~ ,C "> ;- .~ :> - .\ ~ ~ - ~ ..! ~ r II: " :c - ~ i ~ I::' ~ 'A >- - ~~ =0 ~\ ~s C ......;, 1;"- C 0 < -rr '$ ... J ~~~ \ ) c:r:' ,) ~_ ~ .It" /-/.'- "~\. ~\~ \ \ /. " ., . .,.'"-,' \\. \ \ " ,\ \ \ \ ( \ - -.I.,;? - --~. \\\ \\ l. ... ~ \ \ j (., \ \ "6" ~\ t .. j\ ~ ~ . \ =T 1 ~ f - ~ S ~I" I 0216 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 RES.#D54/98 - G. ROSS LORD RESERVOIR WETLAND CREATION AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT - PHASE 1 Toronto Remedial Action Plan. Approval is required for the Phase 1 activities of the G. Ross Lord Wetland Creation and Shoreline Regeneration Project. This project will create wetland habitats, provide shoreline regeneration, and improved public access within the reservoir. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the G. Ross Lord Reservoir Wetland Creation and Shoreline Regeneration Project - Phase 1 be allocated $20,000 In support of the project from the Toronto Remedial Action Plan account; THAT staff be directed to initiate the project in coordination with City of Toronto Parks staff and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to secure additional funding for the Phase 2 1999 wetland planting activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND Within the Don River watershed only 49.5 hectares remain as wetlands. A major Don watershed habitat restoration goal for the year 2000 is to create an additional 12 hectares of wetlands. The goal of this project is to create additional wetland habitat within the Don River at the G. Ross Lord Reservoir. The project will create at least 3.2 hectares of new wetland habitat, establish an improved public access node within the reservoir, and potentially provide an additional 3.8 kilometres of riparian habitat. In 1995, Metro Parks Department in association with the local community and the Conservation Authority developed a restoration concept plan for the parkland. This concept plan is in support of the restoration direction outlined in the document "Forty Steps to a New Don." and furthers the wetland indicators outlined in "Turning the Corner - The Don Watershed Report Card." This project will fulfill many of the the wetland restoration objectives of this concept plan, and in addition provide improved public access to the shoreline of the reservoir. RATIONALE The Don River Report Card clearly outlined the need for additional wetlands in the Don watershed and provides the context for this wetland creation project. Wetlands In The Don River Many wetlands within~the Don were rotStinely filled for agricultura1 and urban development. The mouth of the Don River was the site of the largest wetland loss on the north shore of Lake Ontario. Only 0.14% of the Don watershed exsists currently as wetlands or 49.5 hectares of the total watersheds 36,042 hectares. Wetlands are viewed as ecologically valuable today and are being created within the watershed (Don Valley BrickWorks, Todmorden wetland, Chester Springs, Riverdale Farm)and the following wetland targets have been set for the Don River watershed: November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0217 By 2000: Create at least 12 new hectares of wetland Habitats By 2010: Wetlands will occupy 0.28% of the watershed (12 new hectares of wetland every three years) By 2030: 1) Wetlands will occupy 0.5% of the watershed or another 130.5 hectares (approximately 12 new hectares every tl1ree years). 2) A major wetland will be created at the mouth of the Don. To achieve these targets, we need to protect all existing wetlands and create more by identifying new sites for creating wetlands. At the G. Ross Lord Reservoir, the creation of wetland and riparian habitat will be achieved through a combination of modifying the water level management practices within the reservoir and an aggressive planting plan. Shoreline regeneration includes the construction of a public access node within the parkland. The creation of an additional 3.2 hectares of wetlands and the potential improvement of up to 3.8 km of riparian habitat within the reservoir would be a significant achievement in habitat restoration in the Don watershed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The G. Ross Lord Wetland Creation and Shoreline Regeneration Project will be implemented in two phase approach. The first phase involves the following activities and is slated for December 1998 implementation: . Regulate the water levels to create riparian habitat zones; . Construct the public access node. The current water levels in the reservoir are held at a static recreational level of 172.5 metres above sea level. This water level within the G. Ross Lord Reservoir is managed from a flood control and recreational perspective. A regional storm would fill the reservoir 10 metres above static water level. The highest levels ever recorded was during 1986 when the water levels rose 6 metres after a major summer rain event. Typically, however, the water only increases 1.0 to 2.0 metres above normal levels during major rain events, and the duration of flooding is not severe. The opportunity exists to lower the water level 0.40 m to expose a sizable portion of the reservoir bottom and create extensive mudflat areas. Based on preliminary estimates, this could provide optimum conditions for up to 3.2 hectares of exposed shoreline areas suitable for wetlands. The lower water levels will also enhance existing wetland areas by reducing the overall extent of inundations during minor storm events. 0218 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20. 1998 The public access node consists of a stepped armourstone wall with a sloped bio-engineered log crib wall. This node will maintain access under the proposed water level regime and improve the quality of shoreline access to the water for park users. The new shoreline configuration will improve the ecological health of the shoreline. Details of the Public access Node will be available at the meeting. Phase 2 activities scheduled for 1999 focus around the developm~nt of wetland and riparian habitats and include the following activities: . Establish a wetland complex within the riparian zone of the reservoir through transplants, seeding, and re-naturalization; . Rehabilitate areas infested with Purple Loosestrife; . Establish critical habitat components to improve wildlife biodiversity and productivity; and . Evaluate and monitor restoration techniques. FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated base costs of construction, project management, and plantings are estimated at $35,000. The contribution from the TRCA RAP 1998 account has been budgeted at $20,000 and will be used to construct the public access node. Staff will work with the City and the Don Council to secure the additional funds and partnerships required to complete the plantings and wetland seeding. For information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 246 Date: November 9, 1998 Attachments (1) November 20,1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0219 Attachment 1 Q 1Il~ C U .- ~~ 0 uC: ::-: ~ ~s i '>~ z ~ ~"C = _ - -~. --- ~ ; >- <_ -"' _- Gl 1110'1 :;:::::: >. ~-5 ;~ ~ fI) -.oS! ~ , _ - - ::. = .., '" -," C a 0 c~z ~:=z ....:::;E: - 8 ~u ~E: -: a.~ ~-; ~ c ;w ~~= .~~~~ =~~ ~ E- l#.. Z ;.... ~ - - ~ ~ :"" :J en s::: 0 - 0_< ~~~~ ~=~ ~ O~ =~~ ~ =u ~o- - ~~ r ~ "" :-: :i: = :: OJ ::. -: 0 '> a ...,=-- =-= ..Q ~-= .... c 0 - o~ rt .~::: ~-=.~ - B wu = _. -= c." = ~ _ .. , ~::; .~..: O-;c S \ ... ~ .f~ ~ "".= -- C-' z - E- i:;o;;l i:;o;;l ~ i:;o;;l - - E- E- <: r;.J ....;J c:Q <: ....;J - ~ <: ~ c::: <: 00 Q <: ~ """" - c::: i:;o;;l > o Q ~ ex: ~ o ....;J o u 0220 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 RES.#D55/98 - THE CITY OF TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1997-2001 Toronto Island - Centre Island North Shoreline. Implementation of erosion control works along a portion of the north shoreline of the Centre Island, Toronto Islands, City of Toronto. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the implementation of erosion control works at the north shoreline of the Centre Island, Toronto Islands, under the "City of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997-2001" at a total budget of $ 50,000, subject to receipt of all necessary approvals. . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority was initially made aware of the erosion problem at the north shoreline of the Centre Island in July 1997. At that time, the Authority staff carried out a site visit with the staff of Parks and Recreation, City of Toronto. It was recommended that shoreline protection works should be undertaken to prevent further erosion of the parkland. In July 1998, another site visit was carried out by Authority staff to compile field measurements and assess the required level of protection works. A detailed bathymetric survey was completed for the offshore area in order to identify the existing conditions at the project area. The erosion of the sandy shoreline is accelerated during periods of high lake level and wave action caused by northerly winds and/or boating activities. Two rockmound groynes; constructed in the early 1980's are now detached from the shoreline during the high lake level periods. As a result, the shoreline is vulnerable to further erosion. Various design alternatives were developed to stabilize and enhance the shoreline and a preferred option, as shown in the attached sketch, was reviewed with Toronto Parks staff. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The preferred design calls for the construction of two small stone headlands to anchor and stabilize the existing beach section. To complete this design, an offshore low level breakwater will be constructed to stabilize the toe of the beach. The low level breakwater will also provide a fish habitat function. In addition, rip rap stone will be placed to reinforce the existing groyne structures to improve their structural integrity. Shoreline planting will be added in the Spring of 1999 to further reinforce the shoreline. Construction of the erosion control works will be supervised by Authority staff, utilizing the Authority's annual equipment supplier. The estimated cost of the erosion control work is $50,000. November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0221 FINANCIAL DETAILS This work will be carried out under the uCity of Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1997 -2001". Funding for this work is available and approved under Account No. 155-10. For information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 244 Date: November 10, 1998 Attachments (1) D222 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20, 1998 Attachment 1 en -0 ~ z ~ C (I) z 0( O~ ...J Cl. - ~ >- (1)0 ... '" (I) Q)~ ~ -o~C C C 0 o Q):.;:: -UU i ~IQ) ~ g 0 o Q) 0 3 ~ C ~ C=O- o Q) ~ ~ ~-o 2 0 o 0 Q) '" ~-C(I) ~ U10 L- a) Cl. :J 0 -Co 0 ~~ ...0 ~ L- 00- 0 Z I / L- r--- !~ Q) C I.&.J C C " - .2 , c 0 -- 0 0 o u - Q) c VlO "q :: '- 0 Q)u 0 E a. "0- L- = Q) "0 co 0 " .S o ~ f- <t Q)- Vl ~ (I) Q) (I) o 0 0 Q) .rIQ) a..t: c l... o Vl o ::l ~ 0 /~ ~ - -- (/) u (I) ::l 0.. O'l Q) l... c- o C o (I) a::: - ViQ) 0 C 0.. 0 C ~ 0 0..= a::: CL o Q) l... l... 0 I~ 0...J: ._ (I) l... O'l ~~Ch - c 0._ c- o.~ 0 :;= X I (00 . :0 Q) "00 '''-J 0 <t_ z- November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0223 RES.#D56/98 - BARTLEY SMITH GREENWAY 1999 Funding. Financial progress report for the Bartley Smith Greenway project. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the City of Vaughan be requested to consider the Bartley Smith Greenway Project in their development of the 1999 Capital Budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND The Bartley Smith Greenway is a 15 kilometre valley corridor that follows the west branch of the Don River through the centre of the City of Vaughan. The regeneration of this valley corridor was sparked by the a generous donation of $401,000 from the estate of Anne Bartley Smith for whom the Greenway was named. The project was originally adopted by the Authority at Meeting #3/93 Res.#A72/93. Staff were directed at that time to pursue funding partners, and request the support from the City of Vaughan. The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto adopted the project and carried out a formal fundraising campaign which concluded in 1997. At Authority Meeting #5/98, Res.#A121/98, the Phase II report was received and supported in principle subject to available funding. RATIONALE In Phase I (1993 - 1997), the total budget was $1,034,080 with the City of Vaughan contributing annually to a total of $ 336,650. Other major contributors included the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto ($441,500), TRCA ($119,100), Environment Canada ($136,800), cash and in kind contributions from local businesses ($100,000), the Evergreen Foundation ($20,000), the Rotary Club of Vaughan ($10,000), and the Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation ($10,000). I nearly 1 998, the Authority sought to establish Phase II for the Greenway, which the Authority submitted to the City of Vaughan in March of that year. This work is consistent with Forty Steps to a New Don and addresses targets in Turning the Corner. The Don Council is in full support of this initiative. This proposal suggested a five year framework for the completion of the Greenway, with a preliminary budget estimate of $2,600,000, and suggested that the City consider allocating $200,000 of this amount each year for 5 years starting in the 1998 Capital budget. For 1999, there are many components of the Greenway that are ready to proceed, and which include financial contributions from numerous sources as follows: - At the Highway 407-FHydfO Gerridor ..open .Space,-the -Don River Task Force received $35,500 from EcoAction 2000, $1,000 from the Ministry of Natural Resources Community Wildlife Improvement Program, $18,810 in the value of Don volunteers for riparian plantings; TRCA / Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto is contributing $55,000 towards the trail system; Ontario Transportation Capital Corporation will be completing erosion control protection related to Highway 407; 0224 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 November 20,1998 - At Rupert's Pond / Routley Park, the TRCA will be contributing $50,000 and has received $ 50,000 from Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Fund for watercourse renaturalization and stormwater quality improvement works; - At the existing Killian Lamar storm water management pond the TRCA has received $192,000 from cash in lieu settlements to retrofit this stormwater management pond. The community will be submitting a $10,000 Canada Trust proposal for vegetation plantings; and, - Through the Tudor Valley / EcoPark segment of the Greenway, various groups will be working with Region of York with respect to both identifying construction efficiencies with the Maple Collector Relief Sewer and with respect to the Region's enhancement of the valley corridor, amounting to a potential contribution of $250,000 value. Staff have been working with the City of Vaughan in the development of the 1999 work schedule and potential funding sources for the Bartley Smith Greenway. While the original Phase II proposal requested approximately, $200,000, the actual figure being requested for 1999 is $174,000. To further advance this project, we are requesting the City of Vaughan to consider the Bartley Smith Greenway in the development of their 1999 Capital Budget. Sectors Proposed 1999 Proposed Expenditure Contribution by City of Vaughan Highway 407 Hydro Corridor $ 221 ,BOO $ 52,000 Rupert's Pond / Routley Park $ 150,000 $ 50,000 Killian Lamar / Maple South Corridor $ 531,500 $ 72,000 Total $ 903,300 $174,000 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Fundraising for this project remains an important component of the work to be done. Staff will be working with the City of Vaughan, Langstaff EcoPark Steering Committee, other local community leaders and the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto to secure funds for the project. For I nformation contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238 Date: November 13, 1998 November 20, 1998 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/98 0225 RES.#D57/98 - HUMBER WATERSHED ALLIANCE Minutes of Meeting #4/98 held on October 20, 1998. The minutes of Humber Watershed Alliance meeting#4/98 held on October 20, 1998 are provided for information. Moved by: Jim McMaster Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Alliance meeting #4/98 held on October 20,1998, as appended, be received ... CARRIED BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Alliance, dated May 8, 1997, and adopted by the Authority at meeting #4/97 held on May 30,1997 by Resolution #A66/97, includes the following provision: Part 1. Section 1.1 Mandate The Watershed Alliance Chair will report, quarterly, to the Authority on the progress of implementing activities. For information contact: Gary Wilkins, extension 211 Date: November 5, 1998 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:32 a.m., on November 20, 1998. Lorna Bissell Craig Mather 'Chair Secretary Treasurer /ks