The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board 1995 ~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace 'the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes D1 MARCH 31, 1995 WATER AND RelATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, March 31, 1995. The Board was requested to ratify the actions taken on March 3, 1995 by the non constituted Board due to lack of quorum. The Chair, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PRESENT Chair Lois Griffin Members Lorna Bissell lIa Bossons Victoria Carley Alan Christie William Granger Lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Joan King Bev Salmon ABSENT Members Enrico Pistritto Maja Prentice MINUTES Res. #W4/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Alan Christie THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/94 be approved. CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Joanna Kidd, as a consultant for the Waterfront Regeneration Trust on the Rouge Valley, declared a conflict with respect to item one of these minutes and did not participate in discussion or vote on these matters. , D2 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 ~ DELEGATIONS Kerrowood Developments Limited (al Mr. Russell Cheeseman of Holden - Day - Wilson, Barristers and Solicitors representing Kerrowood Developments Limited, the landowner of Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 8, City of Vaughan, spoke in support of Zoning Amendment File Z.68.88, City of Vaughan. (bl Mr. Jim Fleming of 290 Nashville Road, Kleinburg, spoke in opposition to the rezoning of the Kerrowood Development Lands, Howland Mill Road, (File Z.68.881 City of Vaughan. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1992-1996 -Slope Instability at the Rear of Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail KEY ISSUE Report on the status of the slope instability at the rear of Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail, City of Scarborough. Res. #W5/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: William Granger THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report on the status of slope instability at the rear of Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/94 held August 19, 1994, the Board passed the following resolutions: Res. #W46/94 "THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THA T the report on the Deauville Developments and the status of Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail site, within the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996 be received; THA T staff continue to include Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Tra1'l within the Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996 and consider it relative to established priorities and availability of funding; WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D3 ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 ICONTD.) -Slope Instability at the Rear of Nos. 42-44 Royal Rouge Trail AND FURTHER THA T staff in the interim continue to work with Mr. D'Souza in an attempt to control the erosion through plantings and minor drainage works. " AMENDMENT Res. #W47/94 "THA T should Mr. D'Souza wish to cut back his yard to create a safe environment at his own expense, Authority staff be directed to assist with the design. " Also, a delegation addressed this issue at the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board #5/94 held October 7, 1994. At this meeting, the Board passed Resolution #W60/94: "THA T the delegations be received; AND FURTHER THA T staff be requested to research other gabion wall construction that has taken place on Royal Rouge Trail and inform Mr. and Mrs. D'Souza of same. " Staff has continued to monitor this site and as recently as February 22, 1995, a site visit was conducted. Staff has planted shrubs and trees at the site last fall and has scheduled additional planting this Spring. A project file for funding was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and is presently unranked on the preliminary 1995 priorities list for Conservation Authority capital projects. After staff research, it was determined the gabion walls west of the D'Souza's property were not constructed along the valley slope as erosion control measures. The walls are situated at the immediate rears of the homes and are for the purpose of landscaping/grade control on the properties. This information was communicated through Mr. Ron Pratt to Mr. and Mrs. D'Souza. For information contact: Jim Tucker, extension 247. D4 WATER AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 - 2. ENVIRONMENTAllY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) -Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory KEY ISSUE The adoption of changes to the Authority's inventory of ESAs as a result of recent field investigations/eval uations. MOTION TO REFER Moved by: Alan Christie Res. #W6/95 Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the additional report provided by staff (dated March 21, 1995) be received; AND FURTHER THAT this item be referred to Authority Meeting #2/95, to be held immediately following adjournment of the Board. CARRIED Reoort dated March 21, 1995 Additional information on the updates to existing ESAs 73 and 127 and new ESA 128 for inclusion in the annual update report on ESAs. BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Board's request staff prepared an information package on ESA 73 and provided this information to Mr. Lucas on March 13, 1995. The package included the following items: . The 1982 summary description of the ESA . Copies of the 1981 field notes . Copies of the vegetation community maps (Photomosaic) . The updated summary description . Copies of the field notes from the update work . Species lists from the update surveys . Further clarification of the update protocols and criteria fulfilment . The updated boundary of the ESA (1: 10,000) . The MNR ANSI description and map. Staff confirmed the receipt of the information and again indicated willingness to provide any additional information Mr. Lucas may require. Staff met with Mr. Train on March 7, 1995, on site, to discuss the ESA program in general and the specific boundaries of ESA 127 as it relates to the Mr. Train's property. Staff were able to address Mr. Train's concerns and he indicated that he no longer opposes the Authority recognizing this area as being environmentally significant. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 31,1995 D5 -- ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) (CONTD.) -Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory Staff requested Gardiner, Roberts to provide a legal opinion with respect to the impact of the ESA designation on the value of the Baker Woodlot given that it has already been designated as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) by the Ministry of Natural Resources. They have indicated that it is their opinion that the Authority's ESA designation will have little or no effect on property already designated as an ANSI. BACKGROUND (Information provided February 22, 1995) The annual report on ESAs was originally presented to the Board at its meeting on November 18, 1994. At that time, several landowners requested that the item be deferred to allow them time to review the information. The Board agreed that. in light of the Authority's new procedure for landowner notification, that the item should be deferred until its March 3. 1995 meeting. Therefore, Res.#W75/94 was adopted: "THA T the annual update on the status of the Authority's Environmentally Significant Areas be deferred to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting # 1/95 to be held March 3, 1995." It was recognized in the 1982 ESA Study that the study findings would have to be continually updated for the following reasons: (1 ) the original work concentrated on the major valley systems, waterfront, and the Oak Ridges Moraine and there is a need, to be complete. to look at the remainder of the Authority's jurisdiction; (2) changes that have occurred as a result of natural biological succession; (3) changes in the" status" of various species and habitats in terms of range or rarity; (4) changes that have occurred as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of changes in land use. In 1993, as the first step in updating the ESA Study, new designation criteria were approved (Res. #A 191/93). The new criteria reflect the increasing awareness of the sensitivity of natural areas and the consequences of habitat fragmentation. This new understanding and criteria provided further rationale for reinvestigating existing ESAs as well as looking at new candidate areas. It was anticipated that, as field investigations for existing ESAs (to confirm their status and boundaries) and new candidate areas are completed, there would be significant changes to the Authority's inventory of ESAs. Therefore a formal process for Authority adoption of New and Updated ESAs in the format of an annual report was approved (Res.#A226/94). Municipal assessment roles were consulted and over 400 landowners on or adjacent to the ESAs, that are part of this annual report, were notified of the significance of the area and the Authority's intent to update its inventory of ESAs based on this new information. All of them were, again, contacted with respect to the Board's decision to defer the item until March 3, 1995. A copy of the staff report and the resolution were also included. D6 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 - ... SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) (CONTO.) -Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory Since the initial notification, staff has been contacted by about 40 landowners. For the most part, they expressed support for the programme. Some expressed concern that the ESA designation would mean public access onto their property or that the stewardship they had been providing would not be allowed to continue. Staff has reassured them that the ESA designation on their lands does not allow for public access and that they are encouraged to continue the stewardship practices that have, to date, resulted in the protection of these significant natural areas. Another area of concern, especially relating to ESAs in areas that are not currently urbanized, was that the ESA designation would curtail future development. Staff clarified that the identification of ESAs and the specific site information are a key component of the Authority's goal of developing watershed strategies for all of its watersheds. As well, the Authority utilizes the information on ESAs in its plan input and review activities, by first requesting that the Municipality recognize the ESA in appropriate land use designations within their planning documents and secondly in providing comments on planning and permit applications. Wherever possible, the Authority attempts to work with landowners and the Municipalities to protect ESAs. A number of avenues for ESA protection have been utilized, alone or in combination, including, acquisition, density transfer, parkland dedication, and private open space designation. 1994 ANNUAL UPDATE ON ESAs To the end of the 1994 field season, 24 ESA sites have been investigated as follows: (1) 20 sites identified in the 1982 ESA Study were re-evaluated: . One site, ESA #68, The Black Grass Site, was de-listed because black grass (Juncus Qerardii) is no longer considered regionally rare; and, . Two, the McGill Area and Cook's Area, were combined into one ESA to recognize the connected habitats; . Boundary modifications were made to 14 ESAs; and . The descriptions for all sites were updated to reflect the new designation criteria approved in 1993. (2) The designation criteria and the boundary of the East Humber ESA, that was approved pursuant to the Marbloom golf course proposal, were finalized. (3) Three new ESAs were identified, two on the waterfront and the Baker Woodlot in Vaughan. A table listing these ESAs, including the criteria fulfilled and boundary changes, follows as page 08. A map depicting the general location of the ESAs follows as page 09. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 31,1995 D7 . ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. ENVIRONMENTAllY SIGNIFICANT AREAS IESAs) ICONTD.1 -Annual Update on the Status of the Authority's Inventory DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to work towards achieving an up-to-date, complete inventory of ESAs within the jurisdiction. The primary focus of the 1995 Field Investigations and Field Reports will be: 111 Sites identified as a result of the Authority's Plan Input and Review Process. (2) Two additional sites in the Don Watershed, Teston Woods and the lake Iroquois Shoreline. that were identified by the Don Watershed Task Force as potentially meeting ESA criteria. (3) Sites within the Humber River watershed to support the development of the Humber Watershed Strategy. (4) Several sites on the Lake Ontario waterfront that have been identified as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSls). For information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 225. 08 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 -- NEW. REVISED AND DELETED ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS 1993 FIELD SEASON SUMMARY TABLE WA TERSHED CRITERIA BOUNDARY ESA NUMBER AND NAME FULFILLED MODI FICA TIONS MUNICIPALITY Humber 10 Garland Park 5 small deletion Etobicoke 32 Glassco 5, 6 no change Vaughan 127 East Humber River 3, 5, 6, 8 extend north and south Vaughan Don 61 Don Valley Brickyard 1,9 extend north East York 62 Taylor Creek Site 5 delete part East York 63 Wilket Creek Forest 5, 6, 7 no change East York/ North York 64 Burke Brook Forest 6 extend north East York/ North York 65 Glendon Forest 5, 6 extend south, extend west North York of river, delete school 66 Earl Bales Woods 6, 7 extend north North York 67 Bell's Woodlot 6 no change North York 68 Black Grass Site none delete all North York 69 East Don Valley Swamp 5,6,7,9 large extension North York 70 William's Area 5 no change North York 71 Richvale Forest 6, 7 delete north Richmond Hill 72 Cook's Area 2, 5, 9 combine with ESA 73 Vaughan 73 McGill Area 2,5,6,9 extend to include ESA 72 Vaughan 128 Baker's Woods 9 new ESA Vaughan Petticoat 95 Altona Forest 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 extend northlsouth Pickering delete east/west Duffins 97 Major-Spink Area 6 extend north Pickering/Ajax Waterfront 118 Snake Island 5, 7, 9 extend west Toronto 119 East Ward's Island 5, 7, 9 extend north Toronto 120 Tommy Thompson Park 4,5,6,7 small extension Toronto 129 West Algonquin Island 5, 7, 9 new ESA Toronto 130 North Shore Park 5, 7 new ESA Toronto Criteria by number and title: 1 geological feature 2 water storage 3 corridor 4 essential habitat 5 rare species 6 high quality habitat 7 remnant habitat 8 extensive habitat block 9 Provincially Significant (ANSI or classified wetland) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY I}QARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D9 <{ (/) UJ 0 UJ f0- e:{ 0 0... :::l . ~ . " c .~ 0 ~ "0 C . 0 i: >- 0.: (5 (5 -..c. c- I . :J c - . J j :::c o 0 I ;< c.._ 0- I - . ~ c;. ~ E: . c ..c. 0 _ u ~ .,y 010 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . -- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. TORONTO ISLAND SCHOOL KEY ISSUE Position of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with respect to the erosion of the Gibraltar Point area on Toronto Islands and the impact of that erosion on two potential sites for the proposed replacement structure for the Toronto Island School. Res. #W7/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto, the Toronto Board of Education, and the Toronto Islands Residents Association be advised that, due to the existing and expected erosion of the shoreline within the vicinity of Gibraltar Point on Toronto Islands: (a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority does not support the construction of a new school on the site of the existing Toronto Island School at this time and would comment to that effect to the City of Toronto if requested; (bl The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has no objection to the proposed alternative location, known as the "Willow" site provided that the new school is constructed entirely beyond the projected 100 year erosion limit and the concerns regarding safe access are resolved; (cl serious erosion is expected to continue to the point where the servicing to either school site as well as other parts of the Island will be threatened and therefore that remedial plans for relocation and/or protection of the servicing should be prepared; THA T the Province of Ontario be requested to provide its share of the funding for an integrated shoreline management plan for the Gibraltar Point area of Toronto Islands to develop a long term management plan and that The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Board of Education be requested to contribute to that study. AND FURTHER THAT upon receipt of the results of the study, that the staff be directed to report back to the Board with recommendations for remedial actions and a proposed cost sharing formula if it is determined that shoreline erosion control measures are appropriate. CARRIED BACKGROUND The MTRCA has undertaken various shoreline management studies on Toronto Islands over approximately the last 2 years as an agent of the Ministry of Natural Resources, to address issues associated primarily with the existing and proposed residential communities on Wards and WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D11 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. TORONTO ISLAND SCHOOL (CONTD.) Algonquin Island. Those studies have led to various shoreline management measures including construction activities which are either completed or underway. During the course of the earlier studies which addressed the entire Islands landform, it was noted that substantial erosion was occurring and anticipated to continue at Gibraltar Point. As a result, a detailed study was undertaken in 1994, of the Gibraltar Point area, culminating in "The Toronto Islands Natural School Study, Final Report", by W. F. Baird and Associates, in October 1994. The Summary of Findings and Recommendations is as follows: "The primary findings of this study are summarized in the following list. These findings are based on the assumption that no additional major human interventions are initiated to alter the coastal processes at Gibraltar Point over next 100 years; (i) the existing School position will be threatened by erosion in 50 to 100 years time, and therefore, is in a hazard area according to the Provincial Shoreline Policy proposed by MNR; (ii) the existing School will not be threatened by erosion in the next 50 years, however, it is likely that the flooding hazard will be exacerbated in the next 50 years (this assessment of this outcome was not part of this study); (i i i) all land lakeward of the road between the west end of the breakwater and a point where the shoreline turns northward is susceptible to erosion within the next 100 years; (iv) the stability of the intake lines for the Filtration Plant will be threatened, possibly in less than 50 years time; (v) the road which connects the east and northwest ends of the Island may be cut off by erosion within 100 years time; (vi) of the sediment which is eroded from the Gibraltar Point feature, approximately 75% is transported northwest and deposited in the near shore area adjacent to the north part of the west facing shoreline. The remaining 25% is permanently lost offshore in deep water beyond the shelf. In addition to these findings, the following recommendations are presented for consideration: (a) a new location for the School should be sought away from the Gibraltar Point area: (b) the Metro Parks washroom facilities at Gibraltar Point should be relocated; (c) continued dumping of concrete rubble at Gibraltar Point to protect the washroom facilities is futile as long term shore protection and should be halted; and D12 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 '. ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. TORONTO ISLAND SCHOOL (CONTD.) (d) consideration should be given to the integrated management of future issues related to the evolution of Gibraltar Point including: loss of parkland in the area of the Point (and the associated increase in land area offshore of the Airport); promoting dune growth related to these changes and the preservation of these n~tural areas; future stability of the Filtration Plant intake lines and the future existence of the road connecting the northwest and east ends of the Island." Following publication of the report, further discussions were held with representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto Works department who advised that at such time as further shoreline erosion control measures are required to protect the intake lines to the Island Filtration Plant, appropriate works will be planned but there is no urgent need at this time. These works could reduce the anticipated extent of erosion in the vicinity of the existing Toronto Island School. Also following publication of the report, it became apparent that the primary servicing in the form of watermain, sanitary forcemain and gas main which serve most of the Islands, are located adjacent to the existing road and could be threatened by erosion in 50 to 100 years. If major shoreline protection works were undertaken to protect these services, then the anticipated extent of erosion in the vicinity of the existing Toronto Island School could be reduced. The situation represents a dilemma, for all of the parties involved, which can be summarized as follows: (1 ) The Toronto Board of Education is anxious to replace the school building because of its poor condition and its popular programs. (2) The existing site is threatened by ongoing shoreline erosion over the long term and the MTRCA is charged with implementing the Shoreline Management Policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources which recommends against any new development which could be subject to erosion and/or flooding damage within 100 years. (3) Metropolitan Toronto Council authorized a 49 year lease for the existing school site to accommodate the new building before the extent of erosion potential was identified. Metropolitan Toronto looks to MTRCA to resolve erosion problems. (4) An alternative site (the "Willow" site) for the school has been identified by the Toronto Board of Education (Figure 1, page 014). This site could satisfy the criterion for new development to be beyond the 100 year erosion limit. The provision of safe access to this site over the long term is still an issue to be resolved. (5) The Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Property Department is reluctant to recommend the alternative site because of the impact on park use and because the implementation of shoreline protection is desirable in the Department's view to protect the existing park area and servicing in any event, and such protection might make the existing school site acceptable. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D13 - -.. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. TORONTO ISLAND SCHOOL (CONTD.) (6) The design and cost estimates for shoreline management measures including protective works are not available because the Authority staff have been unable to get provincial funds from the jobsOntario grant allocated to this issue and furthermore the thrust of the provincial shoreline management policy is to discourage the construction of shoreline protection to accommodate new development. (7) It appears likely that some shoreline management measures will be required in the future which could result in the existing school site being safe for the reasonable life of the proposed school, however, the nature and feasibility of such works including the cost, responsible agency(iesl. ability to meet regulatory requirements, timing, etc., are all unknown and even the funding of a design study to resolve some of these issues is not secure. RATIONALE A resolution of this dilemma requires action by all parties and the recommendations are intended to encourage suitable action. The Board of Education wishes to proceed with the detailed design of the school but will only do so if they have an acceptable site. The existing school site, while . available by lease from Metro, does not meet the erosion setback criteria. If Metropolitan Toronto is also prepared to lease the alternative site, then the School Board could proceed with a design for either site and make a final determination where and if the integrated shoreline management plan was completed. The Authority requires funding totalling approximately $100,000 to undertake the design study. While a project file was submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources, it is not ranked high enough for provincial funding. Report prepared by: Brian Denney, extension 242. c ...... ..,. ~ The ~ietropolitan Toronto '';' and Region Conservation ~<9 /00 TORONTO HARBOL'R -~- Authority -. j :1E )> I NOTES -l m :Il c ,,)> Z 0 :Il m r }> -l m 0 ~ Z 0 ~ THE TORONTO }> z ISLANDS NATURE }> G) \\ SCHOOL STUDY m s: m " Z .1 -l / 100 Year Shoreline )> i Estimates Based on the 0 I Comparison with the :5 I en -", I 1988 Shoreline 0 :I:l .' -< Maximum Potential Error al 0 In Shoreline Location }> '78 for the lOOyr Estimates :I:l 0 -- -t-l0 metres " actual :tl: 10 metres / r--r-- ...... to U1 Figure 1 s: }> :Il Baird & Associa tes n :::I: LAKE ONTARIO w ...... Existing Island - ...... Nature School (J) (D U1 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D15 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. KERROWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED -Howland Mills Road, City of Vaughan KEY ISSUE An application to rezone the subject lands from A Agriculture Zone and OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone to RR Rural Residential Zone and OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone to facilitate a severance of one residential lot from draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076. MOTION OF REFERRAL Moved by: Joan King Res. #W8/95 Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT this item be referred to Authority Meeting #2/95 to be held immediately following adjournment; CARRIED BACKGROUND At a public hearing on December 12, 1994, Council of the City of Vaughan considered an application to rezone the subject lands from A Agriculture Zone and OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone to RR Rural Residential Zone and OS 1 Open Space Conservation Zone to facilitate a severance of one residential lot from draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076. At this meeting Council adopted a motion to receive and refer the zoning application to a future meeting of the Committee of the Whole to permit further consultation with The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA). Pursuant to Council direction they require the MTRCA to reconfirm their position on this application. The subject property is located northwest of Highway 27 and Nashville Road in Lots 24 and 25, Concession 8 in the City of Vaughan. The property fronts onto the north side of Howland Mills Road, a municipal road located within the valley corridor of the main Humber River. The entire property is fill regulated pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 (see attachment 1, page 019), The proposed rezoning of the lands is to facilitate the severance of a 0.78 hectare parcel of land from draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076 (see attachment 2, page 020). The total area of lands owned by the applicant as part of draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076 is 9.14 hectares. The consideration of this draft plan is pending resolution of servicing issues associated with the Kleinburg Community. Authority staff originally reviewed and commented on draft plan of subdivision 19T-84076 in 1990. At that time, the specific treatment of this proposed lot was addressed; basically, Authority staff would support the severance provided the lot not affect either the adjacent slope or flood plain. D16 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 . -. SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. KERROWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (CONTD.) -Howland Mills Road, City of Vaughan In May of 1994, Council approved this zoning application subject to the following conditions: (1 ) That the lands be zoned RR Rural Residential and OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone and the by-law include the necessary exceptions to the RR Zone to facilitate the severance and a building envelope. (2) That prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law: (a) the final building envelope shall be to the satisfaction of the MTRCA; (b) the draft plan of subdivision be formally revised through the Region of York to delete the subject lands. A neighbouring resident within 120 metres of the site forwarded a letter to the Clerk at the City of Vaughan dated October 6, 1994, advising that they had not received notification of the May 2, 1994 public hearing. It was determined that a computer error resulted in the resident's name not appearing on the mailing list for this meeting. As such, proper notice was not provided in accordance with public notification requirements set out in the Planning Act, therefore invalidating By-law 172-94 and requiring a new public hearing. In the interim, on September 29, 1994, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B69/94 to permit the severance of the subject lands from the remainder of the draft plan of subdivision and to permit two rights-of-way. The first right-of-way was for a driveway across the east side of the severed lot to Howland Mills Road to service the existing dwelling on the retained lands. The second right-of-way on the west side of the severed lot may eventually be used to access a stormwater management pond for the subdivision plan or for storm drainage purposes. The severance was subject to a series of conditions; however the rezoning was not a condition since its original approval by Council had preceded the severance. At the same meeting, the Committee of Adjustment approved a variance (A 151/94) for the retained lands to permit the maintenance of 7 buildings as only 4 buildings (three single detached dwellings and one barn) are permitted under the current by-law (By-law 1-88). The retained lot has three existing detached dwellings, two wooden storage buildings, one barn and one metal shed. Under the same variance application, Schedule E-553 of By-law 1-88 was amended to show the new boundaries of the lands, with the severed lot deleted. On October 28, 1994, the neighbouring resident appealed the variance application (A 151/94) to the Ontario Municipal Board. The severance application was not appealed (B69/94). We understand that one of the area resident's concern is the size of building that may be constructed. Pursuant to By-law 1-88, a single family dwelling is allowed within a Rural Residential Zone with a maximum building height of 9.5 metres and maximum lot coverage of 10% (excluding lands zoned OS 1). There is an opportunity for this area resident to further address any urban design issues with the City through the site specific zoning by-law to restrict the size and height of structures. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS n1/95. MARCH 31. 1995 D17 .~ ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. KERROWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (CONTD.) -Howland Mills Road, City of Vaughan PLANNING CONTEXT The severed lands are designated "Valley Lands" and "Suburban Residential" by OPA #160, the Kleinburg-Nashville Community Plan and zoned A Agricultural Zone and OS 1 Open Space Conservation Zone pursuant to By-law 1-88. The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the severed lot from A Agricultural Zone to RR Rural Residential Zone. The portion of the lot zoned OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone which reflects the regional storm flood plain limit will maintain its current zoning. In establishing the zoning by-law for this site, the use of a building envelope was proposed which will ensure the provision of adequate setbacks from the OS1 Zone and from the toe-of-slope located along the eastern boundary of the site (see attachment 3, page 021). The subject lands are also subject to OPA #94, the City of Vaughan's Land Severance Policy which serves as a guide for zoning amendment applications that will permit a severance. In the Planning Report prepared by the City of Vaughan, staff concluded that the proposed zoning to facilitate the severance had planning merit in the context of the Official Plan, as follows: " Compatibilitv OPA #94 states that consideration of a severance should be based on compatibility of the proposed size, shape and use of the lot to be created with present and potential uses in the adjacent areas. The applicant is proposing to create one single family lot having a lot area of 0.78 ha (1.93 acres). The proposed lot is compatible with other lots located on Howland Mills Road. Access OPA #94 requires that a consent to sever a lot should be permitted only when both the lot and the remaining parcel front on either an existing assumed public highway or on a dedicated road allowance. The parcel to be created has direct access to Howland Mill Road and the retained portion has a driveway onto Highway #27. OPA #94 also discourages the creation of lots fronting on major traffic corridors in order to avoid conflicts between driveway entrances and traffic flow. The proposed lot will have access to Howland Mill Road, which is a local street. Future Development The infilling policies of OPA #94 state (in part): Severances may be granted for the purpose of infilling in an existing urban area, but should not significantly extend the existing urbanized areas. Infilling which economizes the use of urban space without disturbing the existing pattern of development or perpetuating the undesirable pattern of development or prejudicing the layout of future development may be acceptable. D1S WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31. 1995 "- ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. KERROWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (CONTD.) -Howland Mills Road, City of Vaughan The lot to be created will front on a small cul-de-sac road (Howland Mill Road) which currently has three dwellings on it. The lot to be created would not extend the urban area but would represent infill development on this road." MTRCA PROGRAM ISSUES As noted, the subject property is approximately 0.78 hectares in size with frontage of 53.0 metres on Howland Mills Road. The Planning Report prepared by City of Vaughan staff notes that there are currently three dwellings which have access to Howland Mills Road. The severed lot is located entirely within the valley corridor of the main Humber River. Nashville Road crosses the Humber Valley at this location, and Howland Mills Road is an existing cul-de-sac off Nashville Road to the north. In dealing with the overall draft plan of subdivision in 1990, Authority staff undertook a top-of- bank and determined that the southerly portion of the property was less defined and could be treated separately in light of available access off Howland Mills Road. To this end, staff provided conditional approvals to the creation of this lot subject to the establishment of a building envelope which respected the valley slope and flood plain. In commenting on the severance, variance and rezoning applications for this property, Authority staff had regard to these previous comments. A site meeting took place to establish an appropriate building envelope, and the flood plain portion of the property was recognized as Open Space. The established building envelope respects both the slope and flood plain limits, and is void of any vegetation. Although staff comments and recommendations associated with the severed lot were provided prior to the Authority's Valley & Stream Corridor Management Program, staff has had regard to the policy provisions of the Program and provide the following comments. Section 4.2.2, Policy G addresses infilling both for existing lots and the creation of new lots affecting Valley and Stream Corridors. This policy excerpt is attachment 4 to this report (page D22-D23). As described above, the development of this lot will comply with the valleyland management criteria established under the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Although the existing land ownership pattern is such that the severed lot would not be between two existing lots, the proposed development does not extend the urban area and there is existing development on Howland Mills Road. It would also appear that the application is consistent with municipal policies and standards including setbacks and grading. Opportunities for the creation of further lots on Howland Mills Road are limited based on the City's Land Severance Policy (i.e., area requirements, frontage) and the fact that the balance of lands in this area are owned by the MTRCA. For information contact: Luch Ognibene, extension 284. WATER AND RELATED ~ND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY ~ARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D19 ) .92 7 \ \ \ i l8~ 0; / . .-- - - > , '. . .. -- .... ~ ..-- ------- -- 18 ~ ...; D20 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95. MARCH 31,1995 -- . ....-..-.......-..-.". '''','' ..."""", I .. , .. I ..01 , . fA , .\" I .'. . . .-" , : "_0" "- -- NOT TO SCAI.E ATTACH~1ENT TNO WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D21 - - .- .. ... ..- .---- .. !I~' , ,.. . .........-.. ~. of . I ~a.:. . i .,....... lOl of. f ...~ , , .. ::--.. . I ~~ . .. 7j I ~- . I . !. R R Tal-OP.ILO'" /' = .. I SUILDING INVEL.OPI /' i l !/ , -- ii / I ., ' I Ii ~.l , I I OS I ~~ 11. . vi '"' N~ '. ....'.0.. , O-t . HOItI. '- 4NO , "0 "'0 ATTACHHENT THREE D22 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 ATTACH11ENT 4 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment/Intensification Within Non-Established Communities/Highly Urbanized Areas E) Property Improvements & Ancillary Structures (Cont'dl F) Opportunities for Regeneration Gl Infilling iii) will not create or aggravate erosion or slope instability on adjacent upstream or downstream properties; iv) will minimize property damage associated with erosion/slope instability to the extent technically possible and the liability must be assumed by the owner. 3) Minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a Significant Area and does not result in the loss of its significant features. 4) Minimize potential impacts to the function or structure of the riparian habitat. 5) Property improvements and ancillary structures that introduce greater potential for valleyland impacts such as swimming pools, retaining walls, garden sheds, gazebos, grade cutting and filling shall be prohibited except: i) swimming pools and small ancillary structures may be permitted to be located within the Regulatory Flood Plam and/or adjacent to stable valley slopes subject to the criteria outlined above. F) Oooortunities for Reaeneration 1 ) Minor additions, replacement structures and other property improvements may provide opportunities to regenerate the ecological integrity of the valley or stream corridor and to provide public access. The regeneration policies, criteria and implementation procedures within this Program shall be applicable on a site by site basis. G) Infillina 11 Where an existing lot of record small lot only, ego single family residential is vacant and is between existing developed (urban) lots, a new structure or building may be permitted provided the new development, its construction, and any associated private servicing requirements: i) are consistent with the existing primary building setbacks within the corridor reach; ii) are not located within the Regulatory Flood Plain; iii) are not located on a valley wall; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 44 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D23 _ .-:!o POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment/Intensification Within Non-Established Communities/Highly Urbanized Areas G) Infilling (Cont'd) HI EXisting Resource-based Uses iv) are not located within the active erosion zone of an unstable valley slope, either adjacent to the top' or toe of slope; v) will not create or aggravate erosion or slope instability on adjacent, upstream and downstream properties; vi) are not located within the active erosion zone of a watercourse determined to be: . within 10m of a stable river bank (measured from the top of the river bank); . within 20m of an unstable river bank. An unstable river bank may be permitted to be stabilized provided the proposed stabilization works are consistent with Section 3 - Watercourses; vii) minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a Significant Area and does not result in the loss of its significant features; viii) minimize potential impacts on the functions or structure of the riparian habitat; ix) include sediment control during construction and subsequent phases until such time as erodible areas have been vegetated/stabilized; x) are consistent with municipal policies and standards including setbacks and grading, while achieving all of the above. 2) A new lot may be created between existing developed (urban) lots provided the new development, its construction and any associated private servicing requirements proposed on the new lot can comply with the policy and criteria as outlined within 1) above. H) ExistinQ Resource-based Uses Existing resource-based uses of valley and stream corridors may have significant non- structural features, such as greens and tees in the case of a golf course. 1) Changes to these types of non-structural features, including minor "additions" or redesign shall be consistent with the policies, criteria and implementation procedures presented in Sections 4.1.2 and the principles for redevelopment/intensification found in Section 4.2.2 (A) to (F) inclusive; however, the level of required flood, erosion and slope stability protection shall be determined based on site specifiC evaluation. 2) Structural improvements shall comply with Section 4.2.2 (AI to (F). MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM , r. ,("\n1 .'- 024 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 -Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control' Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough KEY ISSUE Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works along the Sylvan Avenue sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. Res. #W9/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1995 construction program for the Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992- 1996" at a total cost of $400,000, subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1994, Authority staff completed and filed the Environmental Study Report in accordance with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario - Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. The Authority has received approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and authorization pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. The initial phase of construction commenced in November, 1994 and by year end, approximately 40% (295m) of rubble core dyke had been constructed along with about 130m of the easterly beach embayment access road. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE During 1995 the remaining 430m of rubble core dyke will be constructed using imported clean concrete rubble, along with about 90m of final armouring. Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor. The supply and delivery of quarry stone will be tendered in accordance with the Authority's purchasing policy. Environmental monitoring for the project in 1995 will include fisheries survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document any changes to the aquatic environment in the vicinity of this project. In addition, monitoring of bluff erosion and lakefill quality will be ongoing. The Authority will continue with the Sylvan Avenue Steering Committee during 1995 to provide input and direction to the project implementation. A newsletter will also be sent out to the community in March 1995. WATER AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95. MARCH 31,1995 D25 '- ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -Sylvan Avenue Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget to carry out the 1995 work is $400,000. The various components of the work are: Labour 85,000 Materials 80,000 Equipment 225,000 Environmental Monitoring 10.000 Total Budget $400.000 Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996. approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account Nos. 133-03 and 133-23 have been set up for the projects. Report prepared by: Jim Berry (Waterfront Office - 392-9721 ) For information contact: Nigel Cowey. extension 244. 6. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program KEY ISSUE Continuation of the implementation of the Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program. Res. #W10/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue the implementation of the Improved Lakefill duality Control Program at a total estimated cost of $100,000 in 1995 to be funded from revenues generated from the program under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - 1999". CARRIED D26 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority developed the Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program (ILQCP) in 1988 at the request of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The program was developed to respond to concerns about the quality of materials being used in lakefilling. The ILQCP became fully operational in January, 1989, for alllakefill sites along the Authority's jurisdiction. Details of the program results for the years 1988 - 1994 are summarized in monthly as well as annual reports which generally show substantial improvements in the quality of fill being accepted and disposed of at lakefill sites. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The ILQCP will operate at all existing lakefill sites including Tommy Thompson Park (operated by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners) and the Authority operated erosion control sites along the Scarborough waterfront. In addition, the program will be responsible for lakefill quality assurance at the Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Project scheduled to commence later in 1995. In 1995, the ILQCP will continue to review applications, issue approvals for lakefilling and monitor the disposal of fill material and ensure that it adheres to the current lakefilling guidelines. The total budget to implement the ILQCP in 1995 is $100,000 and is comprised of the following components: Staffing $74,000 Services and Rents $24,700 Materials and Supplies $1 ,300 Total Budget $100,000 FINANCIAL DETAILS The program is self-financing with revenues received from application fees and tipping fees for each truck load of fill. Funds are available under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - 1999" in series account 242. For information contact: Brian Dundas (416) 392-9725 (Waterfront Office) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS U1/95, MARCH 31. 1995 D27 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. ONTARIO PLANNING REFORM KEY ISSUE Ontario Planning Reform and the Authority's Plan Input and Review Program activities. Res. #W11/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on Ontario Planning Reform be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1992, the province initiated a review of the land use planning and development process in Ontario. Recommendations to realize Planning Reform have been finalized and are scheduled to come into effect March 28, 1995. These changes are being implemented through several vehicles including: . legislative revisions (Bill 163, modifying several Acts); . A Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements; . Policy Implementation Guidelines (Technical Guidelines are pending); . New and revised Regulations. The Authority and the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) have provided input to the province at various stages of its review and will continue to actively participate in Planning Reform implementation. At the Association level, this will primarily consist of continued representation on the Provincial Technical Committee and education and awareness training. Within the Authority, the direct changes to our current plan input and review program activities are difficult to predict. We currently provide services and advice to 4 regional and 20 local municipalities. Each municipality will be establishing new procedures and guidelines to achieve Planning Reform objectives. Staff will be working with our watershed municipalities to provide the assistance and cooperation necessary to maintain effective and efficient services and service delivery. We anticipate some impact on review timelines, reporting procedures and demands for resource information to support public agency planning and development projects. We also anticipate that working with municipalities to develop "Complete Application" requirements will be critical to manage the new timelines and to achieve effective planning decisions. There are several new Provincial Policies addressing the natural environment and natural hazards. Under Planning Reform, the province will be less involved in development approvals. legislative revisions provide the opportunity to further transfer provincial approvals to conservation authorities and/or municipalities (eg. lakes and Rivers Improvement Act approvals). We anticipate increased support for MTRCA/MNR Memorandums of Agreement (One-Window Approvals). such as is already in place within the Don River watershed. D28 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD 111/95, MARCH 31, 1995 . ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. ONTARIO PLANNING REFORM (CONTD.) There are many Authority projects and programs that will facilitate our involvement in Planning Reform. These include, the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, the Fill Regulation Extension Project and Mapping, Watershed Strategies and Geographic Information Management (GIS) project initiatives. Additional issues and initiatives will arise. Staff is monitoring and responding to the implications to the Authority of the Planning Reform initiative and will report further as the implementation of this provincial initiative progresses. For information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 315. 8. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK -Master Plan/Environmental Assessment KEY ISSUE Notice of Approval from the Minister of Environment and Energy for the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan/Environmental Assessment. Res. #W12/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff rep.Qrt on the Order-In-Council dated February 22, 1995 approving the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan under the Environmental Assessment Act be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority extend its appreciation to the public and interest groups, review agencies, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, Environmental Assessment Branch and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, for their support of the approved Master Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND At its meeting #7/94, held on August 26, 1994, the Authority adopted the following resolutions: Res. #A 170/94: THA T the letter from Gowling, Strathy and Henderson, dated August 26, 1994, be received; WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D29 . - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.) -Master Plan/Environmental Assessment THA T staff be directed to send a letter to the City of Toronto thanking them for their support of the proposed terms and conditions for the Environmental Assessment document, and advise them that staff of the Authority will be meeting with them to discuss their issues; AND FURTHER THA T a report be brought back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. Res. #A 188/94 THA T the status report on the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan/Environmental Assessment, be received; THA T the Terms and Conditions, (Schedule 1, Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Minutes #4/94, page 0114-116), developed through the public and government agency review process and proposed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, be accepted subject to the City of Toronto's concurrence and withdrawal of their request for a hearing on this matter; AND FURTHER THA T The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Environmental Assessment Branch) be so advised. Authority staff have had discussions with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the City of Toronto, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Metropolitan Toronto resulting in minor changes to the Terms and Conditions (August 10, 1994) and finalization of an amending procedure. The Amendment procedure for major changes to the Master Plan can be accommodated if the following process is undertaken: . the need for the modification will be identified; . the alternatives, if any, for the modification will be identified; . the Impact (benefits and conflicts) will be identified; . the variance with the E.A. approved Master Plan will be documented; . the public and agency consultation process, and how the concerns are addressed will be documented; . Authority approval (recommendations from the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board); . Metropolitan Toronto Council approval (recommendations from the Parks and Property Committee); 030 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK (CONTD.) -Master Plan/Environmental Assessment . . City of Toronto Council comments and approval (recommendations from the Land Use Committee); and . a report and related correspondence to be filed with the E.A. Branch for the public record. The City of Toronto have concurred with the modifications to the Terms and Conditions and amending procedure. The City of Toronto have withdrawn their request for a hearing. The Minister of Environment and Energy's Notice of Approval and the Order-In-Council, dated February 22, 1995, is attached as pages 031-036. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Authority will prepare a news release. In accordance with Resolution #106 adopted at Authority meeting #6/92 held on July 24, 1992, staff will initiate the working groups identified such as the Natural Areas Advisory Committee, a physical planning committee and a cycling committee to provide direction throughout the implementation of the plan. FINANCIAL DETAILS This approved Master Plan will provide the basis for specific components of the Plan to be implemented under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - 1999. Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 243. WATER AND RELATED L~ND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY ~ARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D31 !ti Order in Counc~ \ Oeeret Cn1afto lIIMIIIl~ CaulIdI ear-ot ...... On 121e recommendation of the undersigned. the SUr Ia reccmmand81lon du ~u=tgne. I. UeUlIINInt GoYemo~ by and with the advice and DeUllnan~uvemsur. sur I'avls lit aveo Ie CQJ1. ccncurrence. of the e.am.... CQunc:iI, orders tnac $Ontem.nt du CO~i1 des mlnisUes, d4crete ~ qui suit: WHERE.~'~edilJn 14 ~lf the EnvlrllnIntmtU A:lses~"1Tlent Act provtde:s thi\t wh~ tht: MinUter at the EnvU-onm~t half acaptad all envtronmental asse:ssnllmt (If an WlderWdnr, thlt Mi1'li:iter may with the "pproval of ttle Ueutanant Coyert\or i1'\ Council, atv. "ppravallrJ prua:~ with thEe und~g :i\1b1ect to ~uc;h ternI:i and. conditions as the ~tini3ter considers nf:~sa~y, or refuse to give IIpprovrU to proceed :vtth the U1'Idertaking; WHEREAS. havtrlg constdered the purpa::;e of the Act, the ~I1\irunmenta1 ~~e9sment, &. olttl;:pb:d, ~lf chI!! uncUmak1ng; which i5 the subject of the attached notice, ;md .the subrrJ.:isioN naiveU. tlu! unc1er.iigned Mitli:>~ of EnvinlnmlU\t and En~gy c:u~dl!I'S that a hearing i:J UI'\ll~ftry and l:t ~l( the opird~'n that the und~g should be ~ven approval to pr~, liubject tu thl: tt:ml:l and cunditiutU :tpecified in the attached notl~: and WHEREAS' the notice requiring a hearing has been withdrawn, the Mlnisl!!r at Environmt=nt and En~ . THE~FORE, punuant to the provtsions of the linvironmentAI Asses:;ment Act. the undta'takins which" the :;ubject ot the atta~hed notice, be given Approval to prClc:eed :subject ID th~ :said barn:! and eonditiu%\:l. ~ 'J;:tC\lmmt:nded ~ ~~ ~ Con MW$M \11 EnvtroNMnt /U'ld En~ Approm FEB 2. 2 \995 i\nd'Ord~ . OaUI . Q,C.J04eM 344/~S D32 WATER AND RELATED LA~D MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 ~ ENVI~CNMENTAL ASS!S~ AC~ SE:C'!':ON 14 NCTIC~ ()F J\P:'ROV?-.L TO ?RCCEim '.-11TH '!'HE :n-rr;ER':'Al<:~G RE: An ~vi=or~er.:sl AssQssmsnt for TQ~' T~~~;scn pa:~ . :-!asl:a: ?la~ P:,~cr.=nt: T~e ~e~==pol~t~ TC:Q~tQ a~c ~egicn Conse:-:a 1;;' =r.. ;"ut~or:.:, EA F::e No. : C_~.M':-02 TAKE NCT:C~ chac ~h. per~cd for reQUi=inq s hea=:~g, p:ov~:.ec. for in :~e Noc~ce c: Acc~~:ance of the Br.v:==nne~~a~ A~sessmer.: for e~e ~de=~akinq, expi=ed on Sepl;~=e= a, 1994. I =ac~ivec one noe~ee ==q~i=inq a hea=i..q by ~~e ~~vi=cnmental AssQssmeL~ Boa:d with res~ect to approval ~o ~r:cea~ wi:~ ~~e u:-.der:al<i:1g. Th~3 hea=i~q rQquest was later wic~c:awe. a~ving considerec the pu:~oae of the ~ct, :~e Er~':ror.~en:al Assessment 0: ehlt unc.e:::al<.in; as accepted ~d t.:J.13 it.:.::mj,,5:'lior1:J reca:.ved, I here~y qive apPrQv~: ~o 9rocaac w::~ t.~e under~~k~ng 3ub1ec~ eo tile ~oll~i:1g ee~s anc condi::~~; l. Excape &s oche~~is. ~rovided by these ~roposed cQndie~o~s, ehe uncer~akinq shall be ~a==ied ouc i~ aCCQr~nce wit~ the ~rovisi9ns of the En~i~o~~encal Assessmenl; (E,Al as amended and.acceptac, i~clud~ng any written coromi~menes mace by tho ~ropon~e t= the ~ !r:!ll1cn or review a.genc:.~:) whj en OIre inco~o:-"'tad herein by refarspce. se~ out. in the MTRC., llit:ar af sepr.p.mbr:u' 31, 1994, .to the ccmrniuioner of ?lan.'ti.ng &: Develcpmenc of . th~' Cie.y of 'l'c:::mt'.o, ~~ ~mcn~ad by ehQ 3ubs~ene MTn~ let:er dated Ccto~er 3, 1994, ~o ehe Commissioner of planning & c.v.l~;~ent. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY a,QARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D33 - 2 - 2. The prc~one~c will con~inue ~o comply wi:~ ~h8 condi~~oc. Q~ a~grcval issued under the ~A ~c~ f:: :~. Keating . Channel ~nvi~o~~en~al ~sse8sment exeep: for the c:.anqes ~.c.'lary ~o complete Call 1 wi~h a cl8a:..~1 wet:an~ ca.p. 1. The ~~nding procedure ~i:: ~e as out:~:.~c ~~ a lac:er eo' the !llr-ac':.or c: ~~e ~~vi~onmer.tal ~S6ess~e:.C arar.ch. de-tea Januar'J 17, 1995, s~~i:~ed by :~e ~:=~cr.~nt. Cl..: ?ill acd weelan~ Ac~~vitie8 - - 4. (1) 'he ~RC^ i~ ccc~e=5tion wi~h t~a ~:::~:= Ha=~cur Commissioners, is co p=e~ara ~et~iled ~:~n5 ~r.d sc::.edlJl:s :~r :::'a C~r..3t::-...c'::.on aIle. :ie':e':'opm~:-..~ of a c:l:4n-a:~ ca;l a::.d wetland, ::.cludi~q a sc:-.edu':'e === imolemen:at~on anc s~~ci5c habi~ac =e$:~~ anc CQm~onen':.s for Ce:l 1. design cri~==:a ;or =~ea~- dll C3~. ;:oced~=as for plac~~q :laa:.-c::, ar.~ ~ measures to con~rol dred~aa~a mcve~~~c. T~e d ea~led ;'ans w'-' be iucm'~-~d -0 ~~~ sat;-~ac-'~n e _ ... --.... . ..'-.... Ill. -..- -~- --- "'- of .~A Di-e~-O~ of the C~n~-a' ~~~'~r. ~~-;c~ MC~~ ~ ..._ . __ .. .. . -o--':t-I..,i., ""'..-- ...., . -.., prior to ar~ cer.5trJct~cn on ~~~e. 4. (2) Tne ~ in eoopera~ion with :~e ~~~~n~~ aa;~eu= Comm~ssior.~rs, is to ;repare det~i:ed ;l~~s and schecUle5 ~or the censtrJctien and d~velo~rnent cf ~ cap ~cr Calls 2 ~r.d . 3 raspec':io'/ely. '!'~a ~lAns :l=~ to include a 3ch2dul~ for impl~~e~:~:~Qr.. 9rocecu=$s ,\ fer conscruotion; the c:atJ, desi~n c=::e=:~ for the cap. incl~dir.q any specinc .habi~at compa~cnts ~or ia~~ cell. and measures eo control d:a~;~ate ~cvement.. 7he'9lQn$ and schedules fer :~~9~ ce:l, are ~Q be dcvQ1QP~d in conaiderat~on Q: ~he !I\Oni':.oring resul:'3 for t...'>1e C~ll 1 '..et':'ar.:. C4';. . The detailed plans will be submi::~d :0= app~~va:. co ;he 'Ui::ecco:. Cant::al Raqion, MOEE p~:~r ~o any con.::ue~ion wi:hin Cell 2 and eel: 3 =a.~ec~ively. ?lans will ~l~o be submitted ~c ~he C~:y 0: ~Q=:r.:~ for cajtulhJr.~. !. (11 :ho ~RC~ ~~ll pr~pc=e ~~d SlJbmi~ a dr.~: =~por~ d.asc:1.hing :icL.ior.s t.oken t.hrouqhcut :he :6nse:'"~ction perio~ for ~h. w~tlan~ an~ ita cont:nued opar~~ion, !S well ~s ~ ~esc~:p~ion of a ~ana~~~ar.; ~lan for :.ha wet.!.dnd. This repc~t will be submi;:~~ for ~ppr:val e: e~e Oirec:or, Cent=~l Ra~ion of:i~e, ~OE~, witni~ thre~ monchs of eompleti~g ~~d Cell l . D34 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 ~. - 3 - ca;:;:.:.:~ . A :::::: c: : h.:. .3 =~;Q.: 'II:":':' :e :::-^,a:=e~ .. - ....... :hs ::~ ::1 _6 T=:-=~:=. ....- 5. (.4) 'r=~ ::a::.=. qe..'ttsn : ~la.::. =~:ar:~ ::0 -- 3~c::::c..:..::..cn ~; 1) aha..:.':' l:le i::l;:2. amen!: sc:i .Ni:~ suc:..~ C~~qe~ ~s :=.e 0.-0'---- ===:n :.:..;:te to :.:.:n= aC;:-les ':.0 . - 1'___-=:. :':'.:1;' . ----.-- 6 _ (1) The ~.!:,?'c";' :.: e::::: '..:nc:-:'::'=:n ...,:..:..~ ::-: !! :!ec.:. c a': "''&..#'':-'0-- 0: ....,- --"--- Rea': ::~ --- .~.. C:..:y 0= 1'o=-=~= , -N':' :-,l. ;:=2;a:-~ a. r: :!:N -...- ---... mc:u~=:.-:.:~ ;:': g::' ax: :'0 assass: ~~-:e ~c.ac;:-..;a.:j-' o"! :'.;'9 ca: OVe::' i.ny -.. .....05 CelloS, ~=.~~ '..;.c.i~; "'" '. 2 i 3. ...- ...- '-~__s ..oJ re.s~~::== b.:.=1.=:;:..=~l '.1a::ak~ a.~c .:::::: 3::.:..;:a.-:: :-..:=:. -:, :...., , II!:! lAtel: ~s ~:-:e er:..l:'==r-_~e:: ::.:.2- c::::':':':,:"o'::'3 ..... -~..- ~:_"..'I If_...___ T~=:1-;:3C:: "a=:~ . ':~e ec. ../":.. :::n.'TlId:':a': :=::'=-:':'.:. ::'::'.:i ~. . =~ asses.sec "'1/:' _ _ ..... c~:=~~::.eci =:r :::.~ a<;-::1:::':s ...- :uer.:.i.:::ec ~.:cve . T~e ;:==;=a.~ ....--- =e ';~:::':":':~c. 6__ -...- a;:;~::"Ja': - - :'.'7.8 ==-:ac:==, C e::.: = a':' ~o,...: ....._ -.. y..cZ! . ..- ...-:;:--.- -- 6. L~: '!'~e :nC:l:. : ==:.~S" ~ ~ g":'!.I:t =~f===ac. - .~ , - ~~c.::.:.::::..:..::.:.. =~ 6' 1 \ a::.~ =.-:.e cist..".:.:ad ;:':a..--:s =2':~==:-: \ -. ... s~c:nc.;.:;,c::~ 'l ' , \ a"..a 4:2; sha':': be " . \ -I -- :.=;: - ~ e.r:. : ~:. .N:' :~ st,;c~ c~!!.::.~as as ~:::e D:.=:c:== ==;m ::.~e - - t::.~a .. ... i:l t~;' ::..:: q . 1'~8 res~:=.~ J -;..,.. - ;:.c=.:.::~:..~; a~egs :J: ..._~ ;n:;q::~ shell': be :-epor-:ac. or:. a :":~..:.l a: =as;.s. ::0 l:la doet: a:::u.:.=. ec as .;a.=~ ....: :~2 a;;=ov~': e.=.e ;:==C;=i:.'":l, . ...- -.. 7. (1) '1':,.e m!l.c.;, ..1 . . ~a.. -:y Qt,;:. 4 s::.=ti.:a= ::.e::.;.:~=:..::.; 41':. ci .,,~- - i::3pe:::':"01: ;l:-=c;::'~'n to ~~: . .\.... -- ~-"':':~an:.':":! :."'::.. 3::~ ......_r..-...... tor ::he shoral:.::.s ~==:ac:i.~n ;I'" .- ::.:: 1::'./ 'IIi.:. .:. conc;'::~e 1:0 Ula':':ll;5~:1. :~e s::a.::le 3~==~':'::e ~=:':C.N~;- ~a.i= . ac~i.s=.::=.OI:. of t:1'1e lan~ c'X:=!!:~::t owr.e-:. :y :~s Mi::.i.; :'~I of N..::u:.l Resc~::~~, (.s~ C~r:ci.::.~n !. 5) Any ;;=e~ams :2:' M'l'RC.1. -:lay ca:=-j Q~t: ~-=-o- :~: l::ar.$ : ~ will &':'30 ::6 sW:;r.;. :: : ad -- :..::.e ~, ::"le ...... Caci.;s:,cne:- 0': ~ l. .l:'..n ion Ii ar.e ue'Te':'~I=:n.l!n: 6_... t: :-: e ...-. Ci:y. 0: Tc.::::o c.c Mec=o~cli:a~ ~c=~ntc. 7. (2) SW:c=~~:~o:: (1. ) ~ees ::oot ;:-!.Jen: ~:'l.e )1':';:t c.; :=~:n c:hnnlii~;; ~he ccn~g\.:"i:S e. ion 0: ::"~e se:==al.:.:e ;:l=:v:.cec. ~:.&t ~~e.e :'3 no S't.;l:s::antial de-..:. o! ~:'CI:. ,1:__... F:!..go..;=es '--- !.2 an do 3.3 0: ;~a Mas~c!r PJ.an, t::l:esl at,.;:=o=~:eC unde:- the a.'Tt;:octi:':.~ proc:cd1J.r. .~n~ :: :'1e:'!a is a:. appr::l~r:.a:.s CS'PC:'':Ull:' :y f:.lr cc:::tr.e::: ::=c~/idec. .. .. t,::e ... .. Ci l::! 0: Tor::lr.tc. e. ~1n c:or.junc!:',;"on ,,',iLh Met.':\J To~.o::.::.o ',\1:'11 c:::m;let~ ;)eriodic r e",i. QWS Qve:-./ ~./e tc t:= yea=s 0:1. pa:~ ac:tiv:.tiss a:l.c, ope=a~iOt1S to !osu:~ ::~e.: :- CCr'..;a ::..;:'=.':':..:y WATER AND RELATED L~ND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY IlQARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D35 -'4 - wi:~ the ~a:~al e::,v:,:or'..:len: . T~ese =e',i ews shall l:e macQ a'~~lab:Q ;c the 'il~lic or ..", a:r:.y ac;enC".l ~c= ::-evi ~'II .... t1:ae. may r~es1: t~sc . 9. '==a st.a~~ Qf ~a .....:.:..l. conci::.ue :0 rev:.e-r'I '..,i:~ ~R. t)epa::-'::nent o~ ?:'3ha:-ies '~F'-:J , 4C.C Depar-.;:e::.:. 0 f ~vi =::mmer. : (CCE) , t:~s ~h ~~~;ecsa:~cr. ?:an r ~qt:.:. = cne::.:. s ~or Ca~: l ca~p~~q and :~e ~cc~~en:aci~Q c~ t~t! i~c:eaD~~'r~bi:at a::d. b):odui;'::' '..:.:': ~=::n a ''''e:.lan~ cap, 10. M":::..c.; wi II Coc.~.i:.ue t.o :o:-N'a=:. :'~e :es'':'::5 c::- ;:~e:.: ::;\..:.':1- C:n~=~l ?=:;~~ := ~=~~s~e~~ Ca:laca (~= :~-:.a~ age:-:cj 'Nt:.:. =::. is =s~~la~:::.~ a.:.~c::-:s; cn an annt:.a1. ~a5:~ sc long 3.5 ".~Q --.- ag~cy wisr:es t.~ cc::::..:.~ue -... :-ec:ei.. .re :~e=. .... l~. The :-f:?:A ,,,:!.:.:. ceta:.:: a.;;:-~va':" a::c sa:.:..s:::' c:r.=Sr:lS o~ ~~e M2C=O~cl~:~c ~o=~n~= ?olic~ :'c=~e a=~ :::e C,:.':." o~ . 'l'orc:'l.::o -;':.:>a ~ 99.&::" ':::l an t:. relat::.=.g :~ ~U;:l;.= .a:at::! ..ce sec-~:i:y ma~:e=s dU::-:':lq =':te de:a~:ed ~es:.;~ s~~~e ... - "'- lm~l~~an~at::.e~ 0: e..~e ~as t.~:- Pla~. 1.2. 1'he =:.te:-;enC"j P:ar. ~=: ~~e Tommy Thcm~sc=. ?a:k wi:: ca devalc;:ed in conju:c~ion wi~~ t.~e ~~t:c;c~~:a~ Tor=n~o ~ol~ce Force pr~Q:- co t.ne :i:npl e."t\e:l:~:~ o=. 0 f the ~ste= i'lan. Aeeas si~ili ":f 13- The :-r!'~c., or t::e pa::-k ope=a:inq ag~ncl .~:: deY~lo;: a p~bli~ ~o~sul:at.ion p:-ocass for p~r~ use:3reqa:d:nq ::--:e ty;e a~= c;e=a:~=~ c: :he pa::-k e=a=.spcr:a::on service. The :-1TRC.; shaJ.l inv:'~1! representat:. 'tas ::-cm. spec:.al 1r:.:eras~ ~oup. t.o ;la:-':.i::ipacit. 'Publi~ T=anspo:~al:~Q~ H. The MTRC.~ 101:'11 consul: w:!.:~ !;be 'I":'C pr~o:;, e.o tbe ~=m9letlon of ~8tailed das~~ t.o :avi~~ the ;lL~ to '.in~lu~e spec~:c prot~c:~on for a f~:~=~ bus =c~tinq ~nd loop faci:~:y nea: t~e Visitors Cen::e. Rac:=aat~o:.c. ,- Thl! M':'RCA '",i:": c:;o;,:.;.natc! e.~e i~pl~~e~~4~~o~ 0: ~~a _:I. gi~.lcle/~e~esc:-iar. t:,a:.ls at: t~e ;a:~ ~r.:=ar.c~ wi:~ any i~~rovemen~s ~a~e ::1 t~e Wa~e=:~Qne T~~l ; .. i::.he 'I:' C:':l:' tj.' -.. of tl':.: pa::,k. ." D36 WATERAND RELATED LAND MANAGE~T ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 - 5 - T~~.~e: of ~d 16. . Opon subst.l1ntial campletian o~ r.h. lakeCli:1g', shoreline aliqnmen~, and stabilization/a~uring, to the 'sd~isfac~ion of' the ~niscry ot Natural Ra.aurces, for the areA currancly under lease to the Toronto HArbour Commissian (approx~~ately 224 hec~ares'in size), th. M~t~opolitan Toror.to and Region CQnserla:ian Author1~y wi~l &Pp!y to MN~ :0 acquire these lands or'significant por:ions ther~of to be added to the ~a=k area Under MTRCA ownership. RE:.ASONS: My raasons for giving approval are: l- On the Dasis of the p=opanent's Envi:onmental Assessment and t:.hca Review, ~~e prcponen~'s conc~usion that, on balance, the advantage~ of this under~ak~ng outweigh i:s disadvan~~qes app~ar9 to Qe valid. 2. No Qt~ar mor: beneficial 41ter:4~iva met~od of implementing the ur-d.r~akinq was 1dan~ined. 3 . On ~he basis of ~~e p=opanant's ~~vironme~tal Assessment, the ~eview' and the ~onditions Qf'apP~Qval, the construct~on, operation an~ maintenance of the ~~.rtakinq will be co~sistent wi~h the pu=pose of the Act (aeccian 2) . Oatad the day af , 199 at. '1'ORON'l'O. . ; , ~~d0~ Miniatar af Environment and ~ner;y 135 St. Clair ^vanue West l:lth rloo~ Taranto, Ontario M4V lPS Appraved by O.C. No. SW/9~ WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D37 '- ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 9. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -Ashbridge's Bay Coatsworth Cut Dredging, City of Toronto KEY ISSUE To carry out maintenance dredging within the Coatsworth Cut navigation channel at Ashbridge's Bay, City of Toronto. Res. #W13/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with maintenance dredging, and to commence the development of a plan for shoreline modifications at Coatsworth Cut, City of Toronto, under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995- 1999". at a total cost of $200,000 subject to the receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Coatsworth Cut has been an on-going navigation problem due to unsafe water depths and insufficient channel widths. all as a result of sediment deposition from various sources. Dredging of Coatsworth Cut was last carried out by the Authority in August and September 1994 to the extent of the available funding. Approximately 5,100 cubic metres of material was dredged within the southerly portion of the navigable channel. Due to financial constraints, insufficient volumes were dredged to provide for complete access to the fuel docks and public boat launching ramps, therefore precipitating the need for additional dredging in 1995 to provide suitable water depths. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE To achieve minimum navigable standards, it is proposed to dredge an additional 6000 m3 of material. It is anticipated that partial siltation will have occurred in the channel dredged in 1994, therefore requiring additional dredging to provide equipment access for continued dredging further into the cut. All dredging must be carried out by marine equipment and since the quality of the dredgeate is not anticipated to meet the "open water" criteria, it is proposed that this material be transported and disposed of in the endikement cells at Tommy Thompson Park. Quotations from marine contractors will be received to carry out the dredging, transportation and disposal of the dredged material. A long term solution to the problem of sediment deposition and continuous dredging of the channel entrance is the modification of the shoreline alignment on the west side of Coatsworth Cut to retain future sediment accumulations. One of the alternatives over the long term includes land creation south of the existing main Ashbridge's Bay Sewage Treatment Plant which could incorporate a modified channel entrance. The Public Consultation Committee for the Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment supports the Authority's efforts to explore long term solutions. An assessment of all feasible options will be undertaken to assist in the preparation of a plan including the necessary coastal and environmental investigations for review with Metropolitan Toronto. D38 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . -., SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 9. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -Ashbridge's Bay Coatsworth Cut Dredging, City of Toronto FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget to carry out the maintenance dredging and shoreline configuration review in 1995 is $200,000 under Account No. 211-16. The main expenditures include: Dredging contract 158,500 Contract Admin/Supervision 16,500 Coastal Study and Environmental Study Report 25.000 Total $200,000 Funding is subject to final approval from The Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999, approved at Authority Meeting #1/94. Report prepared by: Mark Preston (Waterfront 392-9722) For Information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 244. 10. lAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park. City of Etobicoke KEY ISSUE Continuation of the site development at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke. Res. #W14/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1995 development program at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke, under the "lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999", at a total cost of $460,000, subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to complete the development of the wet meadow corridor and the interpretive trail at a total cost of $220,000 subject to receipt of funding approvals from the various partners. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D39 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 (CONTD.) -Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke BACKGROUND The Authority completed the installation of conduit, wiring and pole bases for the roadway and parking lot lighting in 1994. In addition, approximately 800 metres of pathway base was completed providing linkage to the Metro Waterfront Trail and the public promenade. The Promenade and Weir Bridge Contract was completed in Summer 1994. Tree and shrub plantings were completed along the Promenade in late August 1994, including the installation of an irrigation system. In addition, benches were installed in November along the public promenade. Final grading and landscaping of the wetland area in the north easterly portion of the lakefilled site was completed in 1994 with implementation of "interpretive trails" scheduled for 1995. In addition, final grading and landscaping of an additional wetland area adjacent to the east edge of the boating basin was also completed in 1994. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE The major development components proposed for 1995 are set out on a priority basis. A brief project description is as follows: Site Development Activitv (1 ) Completion of Roadway and Parking Lot Lighting In September 1994 the Authority awarded the Phase III Lighting contract ED94-03 for the amount of $ 161,981.52 to Dilisado Enterprises. Due to delays in delivery of poles and luminaries the balance of the contract is scheduled to be completed in March 1995. The total budget for this work is $105,000. (2) Interim Site Management The northerly portion of the park was originally opened to public use in the summer of 1992. The Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department continued interim maintenance of this area in 1994. The M.T.R.C.A. continues to monitor and maintain the south portion of the park area. This work includes site security, general cleanup and monitoring of the outer shoreline beaches and headlands. The total budget for this work is $20,000. D40 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 . .-. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 (CONTD.) -Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke (3) Site Grading and Final Landscaping The initial phase of landscaping, including tree and shrub planting, topsoiling and hydroseeding was completed along the westerly arm in 1994. In addition, interim landscaping was completed to link the area between the easterly end of the Promenade and the wetland creation along the easterly interior arm of the boating basin. The work to be carried out in 1995 includes; final landscaping of the berms along the perimeter of the leased sailing club areas and the portions of the southerly park area. The total budget for this work is $95,000 (4) Pathways Approximately 800 metres of gravel pathway base was constructed in 1994. Completion of this work was delayed due to adverse weather conditions. The final treatment will be completed in spring 1995 including the construction of an additional 200 metres of new pathway to link the easterly end of the Promenade to the Public Parking Lot and paved Waterfront Trail. The total budget for this work is $50,000. (5) Roadway and Parking Lot Paving The existing gravel-based road and parking lot was constructed in 1992 for public use. Additional fine grading and placement of gravel was completed in 1994 to provide suitable public access. It is proposed that these areas be paved in 1995. The total budget for this work is $120,000. (6) Navigation Lighting Further investigation is required into available technology and requirements for installation of permanent navigation aids. Conduit was placed in 1994 as part of the Phase III Electrical Contract ED94-03 to facilitate the future installation. The work for 1995 is to include for the installation of navigation lighting. The total budget for this work is $55,000. (7) Design and Analysis For Final Shoreline Treatment Propose to undertake coastal analysis, modelling and design of final shoreline treatment for Hardpoint 4, outer beaches and entrance modifications if required. The total budget for this work is $15,000. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D41 '- ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 10. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 (CONTD.) -Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Park, City of Etobicoke The total cost for development activities 1-7 inclusive, proposed for 1995 is $460,000. Should additional funding be available from other sources then the following activities would be implemented. (8) Final Armouring of Hardpoint 4 Subject to available funding, it is proposed to construct the next phase of final shoreline armouring of Hardpoint FOl;lr. The total estimated cost for this work to be completed in 1995 is $300,000. Natural Habitat Area (1 ) Wet Meadow Corridor Wet meadow areas often act as a link between wetland areas. Amphibians, insects and birds are often found throughout these connecting meadows. Corridors linking key habitat areas are essential to maintaining the integrity of their habitat. In 1995, the two wetland creation project areas will be linked through the creation of a wet meadow corridor. Total budget for this work is $60,000. (2) Self guided interpretive trail A self guided interpretive trail will be developed for the natural habitat area in 1995. This project is a co-operative project involving contributions from the community; schools; local, federal and provincial governments. This trail will provide opportunities for public observation and education about migrating and resident bird species, wetland ecosystems, created habitats and Great Lakes habitat. In addition to the development of the trail, programs such as the "Aquatic Plants Program" which involves local schools in the growing of wetland plant material, has also been initiated. Total budget for this work is $160,000. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total budget for the 1995 site development activities components is $460,000 under Account No. 204. Funding in the amount of $220,000 for the Natural Habitat Areas will be provided by Environment Canada, Canada Trust, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Metropolitan Toronto and Ministry of Natural Resources. This work will be carried out under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999, approved at Authority Meeting No.1/94 , March 4, 1994. Report prepared by: Mark Preston, Waterfront, 392-9722 and Jennifer Vincent, extension 349. For information contact: Nigel Cowey, extension 244. D42 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . or< SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 11. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #1/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of the inaugural meeting of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Res. #W15/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #1/95, held February 9, 1995, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board and are published in the MTRCA Minutes Book with page lettering beginning with F. 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. 12. "CELEBRATE YOUR WATERSHED!" WEEK MAY 7-14, 1995 KEY ISSUE Request for member municipalities to designate May 7-14, 1995 as Celebrate Your Watershed Week. Res. #W16/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority's member municipalities be requested to support The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and Metropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan (Metro RAP) "Celebrate your Watershed!" initiative to raise public awareness regarding the importance of watershed management and regeneration scheduled for May 7 - 14, 1995 by designating that period "Celebrate Your Watershed!" week. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D43 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 12. "CELEBRATE YOUR WATERSHED!" WEEK MAY 7-14, 1995 ICONTD.1 BACKGROUND Last year a number of events related to watersheds and water management took place in mid-May, including "Celebrate the Don" and "Humber Heritage Days." On May 16, 1994, Metro RAP released "Clean Waters, Clear Choices", its plan for remediating water quality in.the region. Many local municipal councils proclaimed May 15 as "Celebrate the Don" day while Metro Council proclaimed "Watersheds Week". This year the Metro RAP and MTRCA staff have agreed to co-sponsor Celebrate Your Watershed! with a week long program of activities developed primarily in local communities. The week will be launched with the second annual" Paddle the Don." This is being arranged through a small ad hoc committee chaired by Metro Councillor Joan King. It is anticipated that the week will be capped with an event on the Humber River to recognize the establishment of the new Humber Watershed Task Force. The necessary planning and coordination required that initial steps be taken to organize the week prior to the first formal meetings of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council and the Humber Watershed Task Force. Don Watershed Task Force members were very involved in last year's "Celebrate the Don". This year the structure has changed. The Metro RAP has provided a staff person on a half time basis to provide the organizational focus for the event. Staff of the Authority are acting as "watershed" coordinators to ensure communications and contacts with each watershed and to build the community network. Municipal staff representatives have been asked to assist local community groups in organizing and supporting a variety of events. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A Steering Committee has been set up with agency and municipal staff representatives. A meeting was held with 21 representatives from throughout the Authority's jurisdiction. Information is being mailed out to organizations throughout the watershed seeking their support and involvement. A communications group and a promotions group have been established and corporate sponsorships are being sought by members of the Steering Committee. The Authority, with the assistance of the METRO RAP will consolidate a calendar of events for the week which will be distributed by the Authority, municipalities, the federal and provincial governments. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Authority and Metro RAP have committed a modest level of funding. However, corporate sponsorships and in kind donations are being sought prior to formalizing a budget. For information contact: Adele Freeman IExt. 238) D44 WATER AND RElATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 13. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995 -The Regional Municipality of Durham KEY ISSUE Approval of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 for the continuation of waterfront regeneration activities with the Regional Municipality of Durham. Res. #W17/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 in the Regional Municipality of Durham, pages D46-D67, be approved. AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken: (a) The Regional Municipality of Durham be requested to approve the Project and the 1995 levy set forward therein. (b) The Ministry of Natural Resources be requested to fund the Project in accordance with the funding formula. (c) The appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the Project. including execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Technical and funding approvals of the Authority's on-going waterfront development activities have been initiated through the adoption of multi-year development projects by the Authority, the member municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Separate projects covering the periods 1972-1976,1977-1981,1982-1986,1987-1991 and 1992-1994 have all been approved. These projects reflected the initiatives outlined in the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program which was based on the 1967 Waterfront Plan prepared by the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. The interim project for the period 1992-1994 was prepared pending preparation of a new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan and Region of Durham initiatives (e.g. Waterfront Trail). RATIONALE The Authority has prepared this 1995 Project for the Lake Ontario shoreline within the Region of Durham pending finalization of waterfront directions in new plans evolving along the Durham waterfront in the Municipalities of Pickering and Ajax. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D45 "':. - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 13. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995 -The Regional Municipality of Durham DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon approval by the Authority, the project will be forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Durham for approval. The Authority will also be working with the member municipalities to finalize 1995 development activities. Authority staff will also be working with regional and municipal staff to prepare a multi-year capital project to complement the new waterfront directions, once approved by the Councils. FINANCIAL DETAILS The 1995 project proposes a total expenditure of $100,000. Under the level of expenditure, the funding schedule is proposed as follows: Province of Ontario $50,000 Regional Municipality of Durham $50,000 TOTAL $100,000 The 1995 Project budget is subject to approval by Durham Regional Council and 1995 grant approval by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Staff continue to augment the funding levels as well as seek out new sources such as jobsOntario. The project provides for additional work to be done in the event additional funding becomes available. Occasionally, land sale revenues are available to help with the acquisition components of the project. Report prepared by: Larry Field, extension 243. D46 WATER. AND RElATED LAND MANAGE~NT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 LAKE ONTARIO WATER'FRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM February 1995 ~ , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority 5 shoreham drive, downsview, ontario, m3n 194 (418) 861-6800 FAX 861-6898 Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY a,QARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 047 T ABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1. WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE 1 2. lAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT PROGRAM 4 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 3. SPECIFIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES 3.1 Implementation Objectives 6 3.2 1995 Implementation Priorities 7 3.3 Environmental Monitoring/Regeneration 8 3.4 land Acquisition 10 3.5 Waterfront Trail 10 4. CAPIT Al EXPENDITURES 11 5. FUNDING 13 6. APPRO V AlS 13 - - D48 WATER.AND RELATED LAND MANAGE~T ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . 1. WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has been responsible for developing and implementing a program for renewable resource management. A comprehensive statement- of this program was adopted by the Authority in its 1980 Watershed Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authority recognized its traditional preventative and remedial programs were not keeping pace with the pressure of development across its watersheds and the need for urgent action to ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace Strategy (1988/89) was proposed as the Authority's conservation vision for the future of part of the GT A. In 1990, "Watershed", the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto's Waterfront and Space for All, a report to the Province identifying options for a Greenlands Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area, made recommendations to conserve and enhance the natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace Strategy, "Watershed", the final report of the Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto's Waterfront - "Regeneration" and Space for All are consistent in their proposals for an ecosystem approach to planning the future of the Greater Toronto Area; recognition of the Oak Ridges Moraine and The Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and the Lake Ontario waterfront as the principal physical natural resources of the GT A; recommendations for ensuring an interconnected physical resource system, with access and use for inter-regional trails; and the need for co-operative partnerships to implement longterm greenspace conservation. Since 1957, Authority programs have pursued objectives which have provided the basis of an inter-regional greenspace system for the conservation and enhancement the renewal resources in the GT A. Capital projects for the regeneration of valleys and the Lake Ontario waterfront have enabled the Authority to achieve its greens pace objectives and make a positive contribution to the quality of life across the GTA. The continuation of these projects, at an accelerated rate, is essential to achieve the strategies proposed by the Authority, Watershed, the final report - "Regeneration" and Space for All, the new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan and pending Metropolitan Official Plan, to balance the pressures for development with the greenspace health in the GT A. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seeks the support of its partners to continue "Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace". The "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project, 1995" for the Regional Municipality of Durham represents one project and one part of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program which is a component of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1980 Watershed Plan (updated 1986). WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D49 ~ 2 Other Projects of the Authority which are complimentary to the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - Regional Municipality of Durham, include the following: . Valley and Shoreline Regeneration - 1992-1996 Project for Metropolitan Toronto . Greenspace Protection and Pending submission Acquisition Project The Authority's waterfront activities are one component of the 1980 Watershed Plan. The Plan comprises 10 programs, which have been structured as groups of resource management activities serving a common goal, but each can be implemented separately. In addition to the Waterfront Program, the Plan also identifies programs for flood control, storm water management, recreation, land acquisition, erosion control, conservation land management, heritage conservation , and community relations. No single program by itself is whole. Each is complementary to the others. Nor is the Plan itself whole. It must be considered as contributing to a resource management package in which many public jurisdictions have a part. These programs when combined reflect a comprehensive approach to the management of the three major natural resources defined by the Authority as the Oak Ridges Moraine, the River Valleys and the Lake Ontario Shoreline. The Plan is complementary to the planning and management responsibilities of municipalities and several Provincial ministries. The recent "Regeneration" report of the Royal Commission of the Future on the Toronto Waterfront outlined the following key characteristics of an ecosystem approach: . includes the whole system, not just the parts of it; . focuses on inter-relationships among the elements; . understands that humans are part of nature, not separate from it; . recognizes the dynamic nature of the ecosystem - a moving picture rather than a still photograph; . incorporates the concepts of carrying capacity, resilience and sustainability - suggesting that there are limits to human activity; . uses a broad definition of the environments - natural, physical, economic, social, and cultural; 050 WATER._AND RELATED LAND MANAGE~T ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 3 . encompasses both urban and rural activities; . is based on natural geographic units such as watersheds - rather than on political boundaries; . embraces all levels of activity - local, regional, national and international; . emphasizes the importance of living species other than humans and of generations other than our own; . is based on an ethic in which progress is measured by the quality, well-being, integrity, and dignity it accords natural, social and economic systems. To manage the waterfront and provide the basis of future policies and planning, the final report of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront "Regeneration" outlined the following principles: . clean . green . useable . diverse . open . accessible . connected . affordable . attractive WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D51 "'- ~ 4 2. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT PROGRAM - GOAL AND OBJECTIVES GOAL The purpose of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise its powers under the Conservation Authorities Act R.S.O. 1980 as amended, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to conserve, restore, develop and manage the natural resources of the waterfront in accordance with the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program of the Watershed Plan. The goal of the Authority through this project is: TO CREATE A HANDSOME WATERFRONT, BALANCED IN ITS LAND USES, WHICH WILL COMPLEMENT ADJACENT AREAS, TAKING COGNIZANCE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING ACCESSIBLE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, FEATURES WHICH WARRANT PUBLIC USE. OBJECTIVES In order to achieve the above goal of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program of the Watershed Plan, the Authority has established the following objectives: (a) to provide open space areas at regular intervals across the waterfront through acquisition, land creation and/or agreements with other agencies. (b) to regularly review and update a long-term Waterfront Plan and to prepare and implement Concept Plans for specific Waterfront areas which will ensure: i. the protection and enhancement of environmentally significant areas, heritage resources and wildlife and fisheries habitat; ii. the provision of regional access and facilities for water-oriented recreation; iii. the linking of specific areas both along the shoreline and with valleyland open space corridors; iv. consultation with the relevant funding and approval agencies and with ,,- D52 WATER._AND RELATED LAND MANAGE~NT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . 5 public interest groups. (c) to augment the present state of knowledge with respect to waterfront recreation needs, lake processes, and urban waterfront design techniques. (d) to monitor and assess the effects of developments undertaken by the Authority and use these findings in the planning of future developments. (e) to cooperate with all municipalities and agencies having policies or programs specific to the Lake Ontario Waterfront. (f) to enter into agreements with the appropriate municipalities for the operation and maintenance of Authority waterfront projects other than conservation areas. The Waterfront Program and this implementing Project reflects many of the principles outlined in "Regeneration" and the policies in the Durham Official Plan and Official Plans of the Towns of Pickering and Ajax: . handsome waterfront - attractive; . balanced in its land uses - balance and diversity; . public use - useable, accessible and a shared resource; . linked system - connected; . protection of Environmentally Significant Areas and habitat - clean, green - responsible stewardship. WATER AND RELATED ~ND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY a,QARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D53 . LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT ~ 1995 "the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority I I I Frenchman's Bay I . L PettIcoat Creek Duffins I Creek Ajax Rouge / Rosebank Waterfront . I Carruthers Creek I . I . I M.T.R.C.A. i C.L.O.C.A. . I . I LEGEN 0 FIG. 1 EJ ~ Waterfront Trail 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I E3 SCALE \ Valley Trail KILOMETRES D54 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95. MARCH 31,1995 ~ 6 3. SPECIFIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES The implementation objectives related to planning, acquisition and regeneration that were presented in the previous multi-year project 1992 - 1994, include the following objectives: 3.1 Implementation Objectives ROUGE/ROSEBANK AREA (Figure 2) The implementation objectives for the Rouge portion include: . fish habitat enhancement; . complete waterfront trail linkage; and . shoreline regeneration opportunities in accordance with shoreline management plan. PETTICOAT CREEK PARK (Figure 3) The implementation objectives are: . construct foot bridge across Petticoat Creek; . complete waterfront trail linkage; and . complete acquisition/surplus land proposal (Fairport Beach). FRENCHMAN'S BAY (Figure 4) The implementation objectives are as follows: . implementation of Frenchman's Bay West Concept Plan; . complete acquisition\surplus land proposal; . initiate resource management plan; . initiate shoreline management plan; and . complete waterfront trail linkage. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY aQARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D55 7 DUFFIN CREEK WATERFRONT AREA (Figure 5) The Authority has not prepared a detailed Master Plan for this area. The general concept in the Waterfront Program identifies the use of this area as a protected marsh, valley hiking trails, wildlife observation and fish habitat and beach development at the Creek's mouth. The implementation objectives for the Duffin Creek Waterfront Area include the following: . complete implementation of master plan; . initiate shoreline management plans; . fish habitat enhancement; and . complete waterfront trail linkage. AJAX WATERFRONT AREA (Figures 6 & 7) The implementation objectives for the Ajax Waterfront Area include the following: Ajax Waterfront Area (Figure 6) . land acquisition; . waterfront trail linkage; and . complete implementation of master plan with emphasis on tree and shrub planting. Carruther's Creek (Figure 7) . complete waterfront trail linkage and connection to Central Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail; . fish habitat enhancement; and . land acquisition. 3.2 1995 Implementation Priorities The following are the priorities for the Project in 1995: Pickering 1. Environmental Management Plan for Frenchman's Bay 2. Acquisition and completion of surplus land disposition 3. Waterfront Trail linkages D56 WATER._AND RELATED LAND MANAGEM~NT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31. 1995 . 8 Ajax 1. Parking lot lighting - Rotary Park 2. Tree & Shrub Planting 3. Waterfront Trail linkages 4. Pickering Beach Property Acquisition 3.3 Environmental Monitoring\Regeneration The environmental monitoring program, as part of the Authority's ongoing commitment to the preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities of the waterfront, will include: - monitoring new sites prior to commencement of construction to establish background conditions - monitoring projects under construction or recently completed to identify and minimize any short term impacts as well as document the environmental benefits - monitoring of any potential long term impacts relating particularly to sedimentation and its effects on the biological community. This information will be particularly useful in the fisheries enhancement and shoreline management aspects of the Authority's work - carrying out the Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment - monitoring methods typically consisting of: . wildlife inventories . botanical inventories . fish community assessment . sediment quality assessment . water quality assessment . benthic invertebrate community assessment . biomonitoring The Authority's waterfront environmental monitoring program has been in place since 1975 and has proven to be a valuable component of the waterfront work. As the period of record and amount of data increases, the value of the program identifying long-term trends becomes more apparent. This information will assist in providing input to the waterfront resource management plan and as a basis for WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY ~ARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D57 9 future regeneration efforts (eg. wetlands, fish habitat, etc.). Waterfront regeneration projects are a viable foundation from which functional fish and wildlife habitats can be created, restored, and rehabilitated. The integration of fish and wildlife habitat within waterfront parks and various shoreline treatments ha many applications along the Toronto waterfront and other shorelines within the Great Lakes Basin. Habitat enhancement has applications for both the design and development of new shoreline projects as well as the retrofit of existing structures. Many agencies are now advocating the restoration of fish and wildlife habitats, and the MTRCA has identified habitat regeneration efforts along the Lake Ontario waterfront. A key component in the creation of habitats is the principle of Conservation Design. T~ese regeneration projects support the main objective of the Waterfront Green Space System - "To plan and manage the Waterfront Green Space System in a way that restores, maintains, and enhances ecosystem integrity, improves physical connections to other green spaces and meets the recreational and leisure needs of the Metropolitan Toronto population". The MTRCA is able to confidently move to such ambitious projects due to the understanding of aquatic and terrestrial habitats gained through the ongoing Waterfront Monitoring Program and experience over the past years in habitat creation. Through the long term monitoring efforts, we have been able to identify habitat needs and significant habitat areas, identify key species and critical habitats, and we will be able to monitor biotic response to our wetland/habitat efforts. Waterfront fish and wildlife habitats are essential for spawning and nursery areas for fish, as nesting and staging sites for birds, and as habitat for large numbers of reptiles and amphibians, mammals, and plants. Opportunities exist to improve the productivity of the resident fish and wildlife community, and promote the populations of rare and uncommon species. There are both direct and indirect public benefits associated with improving fish and wildlife habitat at shoreline protection sites. Those considered most relevant include recreational activities such as nature observation, photography, bird watching, fishing, hiking, outdoor education, and environmental interpretation. The success in integrating functional habitat with traditional shoreline treatments could also direct future habitat creation and enhancement projects which will regenerate ecologically functional shoreline along the Lake Ontario shoreline. This will be achieved through the resource management component of any Integrated Shoreline Management Plans for the Lake Ontario waterfront. 058 WATER._AND RELATED LAND MANAGE~T ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 . . 10 3.3 land Acquisition A key component of this Project to achieve public access to the Metropolitan Waterfront is acquisition. The Authority will continue to acquire key properties within the Metropolitan Toronto waterfront project boundaries to increase public access and provide linkages between existing key waterfront parkland. 3.4 Waterfront Trail At the meeting held on January 18, 1991, the Authority adopted the following resolution: The Authority supports the proposals of the reports "Watershed" and "Space for All" with respect for the establishment of a linked trail system for the Greater Toronto Area. THA T the staff be directed to review and revise the program for the waterfront trail system so that it can be incorporated in the (7992 - 1996) Waterfront Project as a part of the inter-regional trail system and completed within the timetable (1993) suggested by the Royal Commission. The Waterfront Trail has been endorsed by the Provincial Cabinet in a statement in the Legislature by the Minister of Environment and Energy and is the back bone of the recently released Draft Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy (January 1995). This project will continue to implement significant portions of the Waterfront Trail outlined in Figure 1, in accordance with the Regional Municipality of Durham, Town of Pickering and Town of Ajax initiatives . . WATER AND RELATED L~ND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY ~ARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D59 11 4. CAPIT AL EXPENDITURES Proiect 1987-1991 In implementing the 1987-1991 Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Project (includes the Region of Durham Waterfront). the following table provides a summary of the gross expenditures. The table also includes a summary of additional land acquisition of waterfront open space. Year Lake Ontario Waterfront Land Acquisition Project Development Project - Waterfront Open - Gross Expenditures Space" 1987 $2,018,699 1988 2,098,800 1989 1,462,819 $1,019,780 1990 1,729,628 1,386,043 1991 1,912,982 138,627 TOTAL $9,222,928 $ 2, 544,450 Notes: _ 1987-1991 Project Expenditure Limit - 15.5 million - *Funded by land sales. 060 WATER._AND RELATED LAND MANAGE~NT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 I 12 Proiect 1992-1994 The Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1992-1994 (includes the Region of Durham waterfront) gross expenditures and additional land acquisition costs of waterfront open-space are summarized in the following table. Year Lake Ontario Waterfront Land Acquisition Project Regeneration 1992-1994 - Waterfront Open Space · 1992 $2,286,866 $187,238 1993 1,329,661 409,632 1994 (Budget) 2,702,100 1,000,000 TOTAL $4,881,223 $1,596,870 Notes: - 1992-1994 Project Expenditure Limit - $9,300,000 - 1992 - 1994 Regiona of Durham Expenditure limit - $225,000 - "Funded by land sales WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY.aDARDS #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 D61 , 13 Caoital Exoenditure Plan 1995 Implementation of the 1995 Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project for the Regional Municipality of Durham is estimated to require expenditures of $100,000. The costs associated with this Project include administration, land acquisition, legal and survey fees, design fees, development costs, demolition and property restoration, interest and pre-development property maintenance. 5. FUNDING The funding of this project has been adjusted to be funded on the basis of sole benefitting municipality. The project will, therefore, be funded on the following basis: The Regional Municipality of Durham 50% Province of Ontario 50% Funding levels could be augmented by new funding sources such as jobsOntario, land sale revenue or other sources. While the total expenditure level to be funded by the Province and the Regional Municipality of Durham is $100,000., the Authority may, at its discretion, extend the work of the Project beyond this level of expenditure where additional funding from other sources becomes available and where the work is consistent with the intent of the Project. 6. APPROV ALS 1. Authority 2. The Regional Municipality of Durham 3. Ministry of Natural Resources (Approval of 1995 Funding) 0 m J N LEGEND I.4rlnrl I [)OIRllnM BMAIN IsrMllrf1()liGll) I I PIUfRlljr, , WATERFRONT TRAIL SECONDARY ~ I '\ Jsr l'Ol~r WATERFRONT TRAIL ,t~Esfol~r - 1 )> -l m r, ~"", J I, /,; VALLEY TRAIL ;D )> " If " z ,'i ~ BIRD WATCHING 0 " II OPPORTUNITY :I:l II 'I m \', '1 I-'~I ~ I 'f!' FISH HABIT A T , . -l t ,')... " ENHANCEMENT m \., '/ II . 0 ., l'''J'''~ II m ~ "II II I . .... .... 11.11" II .," - ..... WETLAND CREATION Z '4"llo9 . ..... ..... 0 ~l\ ,. ,".... # EJ ~ I. . <1 PROJECT BOUNDARY )> I' " z , )> I G> m l- ',1, ~ " / OBJECTIVES z -l \ )> 'I. e HABITAT ENHANCE'MENT :S en COMPLETE TRAIL I.INKAGE 0 :I:l -< al 0 )> ::D 0 ~ ..... W U1 ~ )> ::D n J: w ..... lAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT ROUGEjROSEBANK AREA . 2 ..... ~ the metropoliten toronto end region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. , <D (D con.erv.tion authority 1995 TOWN OF PICKERING SECTOR U1 :E ~ -l LEGEND m ::0 , )> I I z 1.....1 MAIN 0 I WATERFRONT TRAIl ::0 J m , ~ . . . l" B SECONDARY uJ -l "J fI . WATERFRONT TRAIL m 3 ,'; ,~ 0 l) _r'If flllAl , .. ,:, .. t~' r l....,IIl"lf..uf I YI L' 0 1.....1 ~ rJ " '" VALLEY TRAIL 'J 0 ~ BIRD WATCHING ~ ~ OPPORTUNITY Z )> EJ G) FISH HABITAT m ENHANCEMENT ~ m ~.:: =:1 WETLAND CREATION Z -l ~ 0 B ~ PROJECT BOUNDMY en 0 ::0 -< ~ .'y\ OBJECTIVES ::0 0 en , CONSTRUCT FOOTBRIDGE ~ , --- COMPLETE TFWlllNKAGE to .-:-1 U1 ~ )> :I:l n :I: :. w --- - --- CD CD U1 ~ the metropoliten toronto .nd region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT PElTICOAT CREEK PARK 0 REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 3 I lJ) w con..rvetion .uthorlty 1995 TOWN OF PICKERING SECTOR 0 Ol -I'> LEGEND BMAIN WATERFRONT TRAil B SECONDARY ~ WATERFRONT TRAil 1.....1 -l m :D VAllEY TRAil ). \ 2 0 '> .\ , . Jr ~ BIRD WATCHING :D ., , . '. ..,;.. ...- OPPORTUNITY m , . S; .:.;- ~...\ 1 ~-.( I " . FISH HABIT A T -l . m '\ (',' , ENHANCEMENT 0 ~. -'.. ~#,,/' .,;. /' ". . 'r ~ -'. r -. 1----1 )> I PROJECT BOUNDARY Z . 0 ~ ~_., )> _.... I I · z 0.._.... ,\ .\ \ )> .... '.' -~\ ~I 4.. G) '. . m ,_NlAl. I EllPEIWENlATlClN '., ~ ." /' . .' .~ DfWONSTAATN( 10H( " I \ . _, ....... · '.: '.1" I OBJECTIVES -l .' "'.J'. ....;. ..... ....... )> "" . 0 ..~.:.-:.. ~:::: IMPLEMENTATION OF < FRENCIIMAtfS BAY WEST en CONCEPT PLAN 0 )u.'.! :D -< . . INITIATE FRENCHMAN'S BAY , , LAND USE SlUDY OJ -' 0 } : , ') )> INITIATE RESOURCE :D I MANAGEMENT PLAN 0 WATERrAONl PICNIC lONE f ~ COMPLETE ACQUISITION/ -' I SURPLUS lAND PROPOSAL W I U1 INITIATE SHORELINE ~ MANAGEMENT PLAN )> COMPLETE TRAil LINKAGE :D n :I: w -' ~ lhe metropolilan loronlo and region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT FRENCHMAN'S BAY -' REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 4 CD CD .' con.ervllion aulhorily 1995 TOWN OF PICKERING SECTOR (J1 ~ LEGEND ~ B !B ..... MAIN }> WATERFRONT TRAIL Z e \\... . "1 ~ '..~\..c_ "\" EJ....... SECONDARY ~ \' l ' . -I I \'. \ WATERFRONT TRAIL }> . -,',.1 , '; ,. \ -l . +-- \. \ .. B m ., ..~ "\., " ..... C , " . . I It I, VALLEY TRAIL r )...... l ,!}> '. . Z \( \'. ' :.\ . ~ BIRD WATCHING e \ ~\ 'I , _ LrJ OPPORTUNITY ~ }> EJ Z ". ~ FISH HABITAT }> " . ENHANCEMENT G) m '1: ~ " \ I. -. -I PROJECT BOUNDARY ~ ~ \ }> ')' .' 0 _I . S , en l'i 0'" ~ ~ I _ .......-" -< _ SU(l"- I' '~. - \ :=. 'f I -- ,,, ,_ ..._ . . OBJECTIVES ~ '1 .. - I. .. 1,1 . I. , '. ". e ....... " ~ ., '. 'I' " : '.' ,I,: \. ',1. II u COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION Ul 1.__..... !, ....\. '.. " ~.\'I";\" r,.i::,~\ . '.;'\ OF MASTER PlAN ~ .._.. ..... ! r : ~ I . ,~}\ I . 'I r ' I I \ ::: .01'" l . .'. "..~. ~_. . ........~. INITIATE SHORELINE ~ [ . MANAGEMENT PlAN .....,..r. 10" . "" ..~..-:tI I f ~ ~J:::;'(""-"'.' 'B' "- -~~ ~ ... n :I: _ w ~ ~ to (D (]1 * . LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DUFFIN CREEK the metropoliten toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 5 0 conservetion authority 1995 TOWN OF AJAX SECTOR . ~ . 0 en . en LEGEND B MAIN WATERFRONT TRAIL a SECONDARY ~ WATERfRONT TRAil }> -l 1.....1 m ;II VAllEY TRAIL '}> Z 0 ~ BIRD WATCHING :I:l OPPORTUNITY m ~ I ..... t 1 FISH HABIT A T -l m ENHANCEMENT e '~ ' ~ : I. I. -. -I PROJECT BOUNDARY i III I I Z , .: ~ I, : ..\" ' .. 0 1; I - .~~ U " ~ I ! ~ . . 'I II ~' ~ . I 'I", . ,'i .. i"'':'';\~:'~1'" }> " Z '~:" '~'" .'~~~~II .~... " }> , :'1 ,,'. .\ , '.. _.1 . " " G) II I \, rO' ~ II m P\IIII' ""a.. "AU .1" '." ~_!. .' I. .~ I .',~ l. ',,', -' ~. . . I OBJECTIVES -l }> 0 lAND ACQUISIT ION :5 en COMPLETE TRAllllNKAGE 0 :D -< OJ -_. 0 )> :I:l 0 '*I:: -' (0 U1 ~ )> :D n :I: Vol -' . LAKE ONTARIO WA TERFRONT AJAX WATERFRONT ..... l~ CD , :. the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERA TION PROJECT FIG. 6 CD U1 ( _ / conservation authority 1995 TOWN OF AJAX SECTOR ~ )> LEGEND -l m :D 1.....1 MAIN )> Z WATERFRONT TRAIL 0 :D } m a SECONDARY r l- , WATERFRONT TRAIL )> -l MAlaM ,. ~- m WILDLI'l -"'\ I I 0 ""UlIIVl (It 1.....1 r , VALLEY TRAIL )> , 1 z { 0 \ ~ BIRD WATCHING s: ", ..... OPPORTUNITY =:g.lll"- . f :lfl'~ )> I-'~ I z /" FISH HABIT ^ T )> fir J G) I~ U I EI~HANCEMENT m ..(J -'- s: ( ~N ./1 I. -. - 1 PROJECT BOUNDARY m pR \ Z <J . -l u \ )> 1.1 nil ~l U \ 0 .n I :::; 0" \ Ul ;1 0 "r~' , , I :D \ -< , -- ( " III \ tD l:.r... 'I \ 0 , OBJECTIVES )> "t.- ) . , , :I:l \ ' -. 0 ..,. \ : 1- LAND ACQUISITION Ul I i . " ~ ..... ~--.:IfI"~~, COMPLETE WATERFRONT TRAIL W .. ~~ ., \ \ W,uHIlOOIU I ~ '. ~ , LINKAGE TO CARRUTHERS U1 I , CREEK TRAIL & CENTRAL LAKE SHfLTfIl \ : I s: INHIIPIIETIV[ , I ONT ARlO TRAIL )> kiOSk :I:l - () \ J: PUk'C ~" 'NeE \ W ..... - ..... .,....,.. ~ . ..- to ~,._,... wt~., - - to U1 ~ the metropolitlln toronto IInd region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT CARRUTHERS CREEK I REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 7 0 I (J) conservlltion lIuthority 1995 TOWN OF AJAX SECTOR -..J D68 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 "- ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 14. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY -Report on Membership Selection for Shoreline Steering Committee KEY ISSUE Membership selection and reporting procedures for the formation and operation of the Integration Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee. Res. #W18/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the membership selection and reporting procedures for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee be approved; THAT the staff be directed to request The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, The City of Toronto and The City of Scarborough to appoint a council member and an alternate to the Steering Committee; THAT staff be directed to request selected federal and provincial agencies to appoint a senior staff person and an alternate for the Steering Committee; THAT staff be directed to invite applications from residents to participate on the Steering Committee with (2) City of Toronto residents and (4) City of Scarborough residents to be selected; THA T staff be authorized to take all other necessary actions to form the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership on the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee for endorsement and formal appointment. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/94 held on November 25, 1994, Resolution #A251 /94 was adopted: II THA T the report on the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay, be received. THA T the Terms of Reference (pages D231 - D245 of Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Minutes #6/94) be endorsed; THA T staff be directed to take the necessary actions with the partners to initiate the planning process in a timely manner; WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D69 - ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 14. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY (CONTD.) -Report on Membership Selection for Shoreline Steering Committee AND FURTHER THA T The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the City of Toronto and the City of Scarborough be so advised. .. The objectives of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP) are as follows: (1 ) To identify the features, functions and processes which comprise the shoreline ecosystem. (2) To develop an understanding of the dynamics of the shoreline ecosystem as a basis for initiating and evaluating proposals and measuring changes. (3) To minimize danger to life and damage to property from flooding, erosion and associated hazards. (4) To assess the health of the shoreline ecosystem and identify measures to monitor system health on an ongoing basis. (5) To identify the human and natural stressors and ways to reduce them. (6) To establish criteria for assessing impacts of development and public use. (7) To develop solutions to site specific issues within a broader shoreline context. (8) To provide opportunities for wise public use and enjoyment. (9) To identify roles and responsibilities of agencies with an interest and role in shoreline management. (10) To identify research and monitoring needs. ( 11) To identify priorities for shoreline regeneration. The Steering Committee will be responsible for the preparation of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan - Tommy Thompson Park to Frenchman's Bay. The Steering Committee membership composition is proposed as follows: . Metro Councillor . City of Toronto Councillor . City of Scarborough Councillor . Appointee from Waterfront Regeneration Trust . Authority member . Appointee from Conservation Council of Ontario . Appointee for the Ministry of Natural Resources . Six (6) local citizens (2-Toronto, 4-Scarborough) based on applications and interviews. 070 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 . ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 14. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY (CONTD.) -Report on Membership Selection for Shoreline Steering Committee An important component of the plan is public consultation. The Steering Committee will establish a public consultation approach consistent with the local and regional municipalities planning documents and public awareness programs. The Steering Committee will be supported by a Technical Advisory Group from the Authority, municipalities, Metro RAP, Provincial ministries and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. It is anticipated that the term of the Steering Committee will be one (1) year with the final plan prepared by Spring of 1996. An interim report will be prepared by September, 1995 to address some of the immediate concerns (e.g., a continuous waterfront trail at the waters edge through Scarborough). The Steering Committee will report to the Authority at the same time. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Two members of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board are required, along with one senior Authority staff, Water Resources, to form a selection committee to review citizen applications. Victoria Carley and Alan Christie volunteered to sit on the selection committee. A selection process will be developed, in consultation with the selection committee. Applications and information kits will be prepared for distribution to those people interested in applying to become a Steering Committee member. Advertisements will be submitted to local papers inviting citizens residing within the Study Area and interested in serving on the Steering Committee to submit applications/resumes. Organize an information meeting for individuals, interested in becoming a Steering Committee member. Requests will be sent to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, City of Toronto and City of Scarborough for the appointment of a Steering Committee member and alternate. Requests will be sent to selected Conservation Council of Ontario and provincial agencies for the names of their Steering Committee representative. A staff report will be prepared recommending to the Authority the membership of the Steering Committee and subsequently, the persons selected to the positions of Chair and Vice Chair. For information contact: Larry Field, extension 243. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D71 - - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 15. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -1995 Waterfront Monitoring Program KEY ISSUE Continuation of the Waterfront Monitoring Program in 1995. Res. #W19/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to continue the implementation of the Waterfront Monitoring Program at an estimated cost of $ 112,000 in 1995, to be funded under the "lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999". CARRIED BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) has conducted environmental investigations to describe the physical and biological conditions associated with selected waterfront locations. The results of the various monitoring programs are included in Technical Reports, Management Plans, Data Summary Documents, Fish Compensation Plans, and Park Master Plans. The objectives of the program are as follows: . Augment the present state of knowledge of lake processes by further research, data collection and analysis. e Ensure that Authority projects comply with the environmental standards of regulatory agencies. e Generate waterfront development plans that integrate enhancement opportunities into the design, and guarantee the environmental integrity of the site is maintained or improved. . Seek to integrate the monitoring efforts of various agencies to avoid duplication and provide maximum benefit from collective efforts. Within the scope of the MTRCA mandate, the Waterfront Monitoring Program supports many aspects of the Watershed Management Division including: . Shoreline Management Plans; . Project Planning; e Fish and Wildlife Management and Research; . Tommy Thompson Park (Interim Management, Master Plan Implementation); . Plan Input and Review; . Metro Toronto RAP (Coordination of Waterfront RAP Projects); e Coastal Environmentally Significant Areas. . D72 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 - -., SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 15. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -1995 Waterfront Monitoring Program DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE The 1995 Waterfront Monitoring Program will investigate environmental conditions along the shoreline with specific efforts directed within Sam Smith Waterfront Park, Tommy Thompson Park, Scarborough shoreline, and various coastal marshes. Environmental monitoring will be conducted within the coastal marshes at the mouth of the Humber River, Rouge River, and Duffins Creek. Where applicable, monitoring efforts will be directed at investigating as many components of the Toronto waterfront ecosystem as possible. Baseline monitoring typically includes investigations into sediment quality, water quality, sediment deposition rates, fish habitat assessment, fish community assessment, and benthic invertebrate collections. Special studies slated for 1995 include; marsh bird monitoring, waterfront herptofaunal survey, and a waterfront littoral habitat survey. The Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Program has provided insight into the complex ecosystem of the lake Ontario shoreline, and assists in the development and implementation of many of the Authority's shoreline re~eneration projects. The monitoring program is critical for establishing baseline environmental conditions for the planning and implementation of future projects like the proposed Motel Strip, and Cell 1 Capping at Tommy Thompson Park. This environmental information provides a foundation of knowledge that allows the integration of habitat and environmental enhancement opportunities into Waterfront development projects. The habitat enhancement opportunities outlined in the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Projects, 1995- 1999 are a direct result of knowledge gained through the Monitoring Program. The Authority has become a resource of environmental information on the waterfront which is extensively utilized by government agencies, public interest groups, and academic institutions. The Authority has also coordinated joint Environmental Monitoring Projects and collaborated with outside agencies on projects with mutual interests. The Waterfront Monitoring Program is a critical activity that provides a valuable perspective on the ecosystem of the Lake Ontario shoreline. FINANCIAL DETAilS Pending final Authority budget approval, the total budget to implement the 1995 Waterfront Monitoring Program is $112,000, and is comprised of the following components: Labour $ 55,000 Vehicle and Equipment 20,000 Lab Analytical Services 37 ,000 TOTAL $112,000 The program is funded under the "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999" under account #240-01. For information contact: Gord MacPherson, extension 246. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D73 ... ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 16. JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY -Acquisition KEY ISSUE Receipt of support from Metropolitan Toronto for the purchase of the Jolly Miller property and recommendations for further action to complete the acquisition. Res. #W20/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the status of the proposed acquisition of the Jolly Miller site be received; THAT the support of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, City of North York and the York Mills Valley Association be acknowledged; THAT the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be requested to continue to seek the provincial share of the acquisition costs in the amount of $1,600,000; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to complete the negotiations with all of the parties and the City of North York, for the operation of the Jolly Miller, in anticipation of a favourable response from the Province of Ontario. CARRIED BACKGROUND The proposed acquisition of the Jolly Miler property was last considered by the Authority at its meeting of August 26, 1994 at which time the following Res. #189/94 was adopted: "THA T The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to advise the Authority as soon as possible on the position of Metropolitan Toronto Council with respect to financial support for the acquisition of the "Jolly Miller" property. " Metropolitan Toronto Council at its meeting of February 22 and 23, 1995 adopted the attached report from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Parks and Property (pages 0108-0112). Recommendations of that report are as follows: "( 1 ) should Metropolitan Toronto support the M.T.R.C.A. purchase of the Jolly Miller site for flood control and conservation purposes, the purchase price of $3.3 million be funded using the $100,000 from the York Mills Valley Association and the balance of $3.2 million split 50 per cent. Province of Ontario, 25 per cent. Metropolitan Toronto and 25 per cent. City of North York; (2) the provincial contribution be applied as a portion of the balance of regional parkland acreage owing from the provincial assumption of the Toronto Islands residential community; D74 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31, 1995 . -- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 16. JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY (CONTD.) -Acquisition (3) the Metro share of $800 thousand be found within the 1995 Capital Budget allocation to the M.T.R.C.A. Should the payment to the vendor be spread over a number of years, the Metro share be applied in similar amounts, against the allocation for those years; (4) Metropolitan Toronto share in proportion to its .total funding contribution in the benefit from disposal of any density rights on the site; (5) the City of North York accept full responsibility for all heritage restoration and future operating costs of the Jolly Miller structure; (6) responsibility for eventual restoration of the site to greenspace reside with the MTRCA; (7) any use of the site as a parking lot by the Toronto Transit Commission be subject to strict time limitations to be negotiated between the T.T.C. and M.T.R.C.A.; and (8) Metropolitan Toronto support the acquisition of the Markovic property by the M.T.R.C.A. subject to no funds being required from Metropolitan Toronto. The acreage so acquired be applied as a portion of the balance of regional parkland acreage owing from the provincial assumption of the Toronto Islands residential community. " Recommendation (2) provides a potential mechanism for funding the provincial share of the purchase price. The Waterfront Regeneration Trust is investigating the provincial share. The Authority received the following resolution from the City of North York from its meeting of July 20, 1994: WHEREAS the Jolly Miller site is a well known heritage feature in the City of North York and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; AND WHEREAS the majority of the site is flood plain and accordingly should remain open space in its entirety; AND WHEREAS there is great interest in the immediate community and in the community at large that this site come under public ownership and control; AND WHEREAS the local ratepayer association is willing to contribute $100,000 of its own money to help governments acquire this site; AND WHEREAS the present owner of the Jolly Miller property has indicated a willingness to sell the property to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and/or other government body; WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D75 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 16. JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY ICONTD.1 -Acquisition AND WHEREAS the Conservation Authority and the owner have now entered into an option agreement whereby the owner agrees to sell the Jolly Miller site to the Conservation Authority for $3.3 million, 'provided that the Conservation Authority agrees to exercise such option during a 3 month period; AND WHEREAS an appropriate funding agreement for this acquisition would be 50% Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 25% The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and 25% local Municipality (North York); AND WHEREAS the North York portion of the cost would be $800,000 (after the $100,000 from the ratepayer association is subtracted from the tota/); AND WHEREAS the North York Heritage Committee and the North York Development and Economic Growth Committee have recommended that the Jolly Miller site be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; AND WHEREAS the flood plain land should properly be under public ownership; AND WHEREAS the opportunity now exists to take action to acquire this site; THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that the City of North York advise The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the City is prepared to provide a maximum of $800,000 of the $3.3 million purchase price for the Jolly Miller site provided that: (a) the York Mills Valley Association pays $100,000 of the total purchase price; (b) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority provide the remainder of the purchase price within the above-mentioned funding formula; (c) the City of North York receive title to the tableland (including the site of the Jolly Miller structure), and the remainder of the site be placed in the ownership of either The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto or The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; (d) the City of North York agrees to enter into a restrictive covenant agreement whereby the tableland shall remain parkland save and except for the Jolly Miller structure if a suitable and sustainable use can be found for it that maintains its heritage integrity; (e) the Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer report back on the appropriate account from which the funds should be paid and not be taken from regular budget funds; D76 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 '- ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 16. JOLLY MILLER PROPERTY (CONTD.1 -Acquisition (f) City Departments be directed to do all things necessary to carry out Council's instructions; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that the City of North York request the other funding partners commit to their respective funding shares prior to the expiry of the agreement between The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the owner of the Jolly Miller; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that this offer be valid for a period of 12 months. " The York Mills Valley Association had previously indicated a willingness to provide $100,000 and at its' Annual General Meeting in December 1994, adopted the following resolution: "That the YMVA extend the motion that it made on June 15, 1994 to maintain its offer made in good faith to North York, Metro Toronto and the MTRCA, that subject to the approval of the YMVA of the terms and conditions of a final offer to purchase to contribute $ 100,000 for its Capital Budget to the public acquisition of the JM at the time of closing, if an acquisition is made by any, or all of North York, Metropolitan Toronto and the MTRCA by the earlier of December 31, 1995 or the next annual meeting. YMVA representatives to report to the Valley residents on the progress of any negotiations at the earlier of the conclusion of an offer to purchase or the next annual meeting. " The Authority's offer to purchase the property is being extended from February 28 to April 30, 1995. Report prepared by: Brian Denney (Ext. 242) NEW BUSINESS The Chair welcomed Dr. Alan Christie to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board as a Metro Citizen appointee to the Authority for 1995. TOMMY THOMPSON PARK The Board acknowledged the efforts of Brian Denney and Larry Field and congratulated them on the completion of the Tommy Thompson Park Master PlanlEnvironmental Assessment. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 D77 - -... CORRESPONDENCE Letter from the Lake Shore Planning Council, dated March 3, 1995, re: Mimico Apartment Strip - Waterfront Trail Implementation (page D 110 of this report). Res. #W21 /95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THAT this item of correspondence be received and referred to staff for a report. CARRIED TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 2:00 p.m., March 3, 1995. Lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary- Treasurer bb. . - - - . -~- 078 WATER..AND RELATED LAND MANAGE~NT ADVISORY BOARD #1/95, MARCH 31,1995 SENT BY:Xerox TeleCOPier 7020 j 3- 3-95 j12:06PM j 4162524474~ 416 661 6610j' 1 - , ~(;)~~OOO .j~~ . . r,1r: !.L I I I , I LAKESHORE ~ANNING COUNCn.. 185 F>fIb '''ct. ElobiCOl' Outario MBV 2ZS. T~, 1$2-6471 7671 E Dati . ,. Friday March 3rd. 1995 POIt-It- Fax Note I To /Z1~. ~~ tP. . . flrom ~ G~- Ms. Lois Griffm. Chair : CoJCIIll. Co. I Water &: Related Land Management Advisqry Board Pilon., Phon. . Metro Toronto &: Region Conservation Authority Fill , I: /-fltplo Faw II 5 Shoreham Drive i Downsview. Ontario I . . ... ... .- M3N 1 S4 I Re: Mlmic:o Apartment Strip. waterfronl Trail Implementation . I Dear Ms, Griffin. I The Lakeshore Plannina Council (LPC) is ~ade up of a diverse aroup of citizens interested in developments and activities that affect tpe vitality and regeneration of the Lakeshore neighbourhoods of South Etobicoke. The Founcil.s basic goal is to improve the ability of citizens to have meaningful and informed inrlvement in the planninll process. The Lalceshore Planning Council suppons the Mimico Apanment Strip Waterfront Trail Implementation Plan. This imponant project would act as a catalyst for the rehabilitation of the Mimico Apartment Strip. as well as provide ~dditional public access to the lake.s edge in what is a heavily urbani%ed area. I We would be interested in receiving an updare as to the Status of this project and an indication of how we might be able to work in partner I 'p with the Authority. . Sincerely. '~A~f David Godley. Chairperson Lakeshore Planning Council I I cc Ms. Flora Voisey. Lakcfront Home Owne~s AssociatiOn Mr. Bob Gullins. Citizens for a Lakeshore preen way Mr. Michael Harrison. Citizens Concerned iabout the Future of the Etobicoke W aterfront ~ ~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace Vthe metropolitan toronto and-rEi'Qfon- conservation authority minutes D79 APRIL 21, 1995 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, April 21, 1995. The Vice Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10: 10 a.m. PRESENT Vice Chair Lorna Bissell Members Victoria Carley Alan Christie Lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Enrico Pistritto Maja Prentice ABSENT Chair Lois Griffin Members lIa Bossons Joan King Bev Salmon MINUTES Res. #W22/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THA T the minutes of the Joint Meeting held March 3, 1995 and the minutes of Meeting #1/95, held March 31, 1995. be approved. CARRIED DELEGATIONS Old Mill Restaurant Res. #W23/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: , Alan Christie That the delegations for the above item be received. CARRIED 080 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 .- --- DELEGATIONS (CONTD.) Barry Morrison, Principal, Barry J. Morrison and Associates Ltd., spoke as the professional land use planning consultant for the Old Mill Restaurant, item one of the agenda. Adrian Peel, Project Architect, spoke to the BO='lrd n the final proposal for a hotel addition to the Old Mill Restaurant which includes preservatioll of the historic Old Mill ruins in the City of Etobicoke. Madeleine McDowell, Chair, Humber Heritage Committee, spoke to the Board on her concerns about the approval of this project and her letter of April 18, 1995 is attached as page 081. CORRESPONDENCE Res. #W24/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THAT the letter from Madeleine McDowell, Chair, I-iumber Heritage Committee, dated April 18, 1995, attached as page D81, be received. CARRIED WA TER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21. 1995 DB1 - I 163 Humbercrat Boulevard Toronto, Ontario M6S 41.5 - April 18, 1995. The Mayor and Members of Etobicoke Council: I am very concerned about any development on the flood plain or on the ravine of the Humber River. While the changes in the plans alleviate some of the flood plain concern, they do not lessen the impact upon the ravine. The ravine is sand, shale and ground water, stabilized in part by trees and ground cover, which provides the sylvan setting of the Mill. In direct line of vision from the Mill, on the east bank of the river, north of Catherine Street, you can see what denuding and construction can do with shale, sand and ground- water. I am equally concerned about the Mi 11 ruins, which are amongst the most famous ruins in North America. The Mill is a designated building and as such, must be either maintained or restored. The plans do neither of these. What is proposed is not even renovation, but reconstruction and remodelling. Preservation and maintainance of the ruins is not compatible with the addition of a porte-cochere, internal structure proposals and a half-timbered, stucco top. Restoration of the Mill would also be incompatible with such alterations. The various devlopments on the site over the last two centuries and the previous native presence are an important part of the Humber's heritage, historically and ecologically. It marks the northernmost navigability of the river and ties into the waterfront trail development for the province which is also proceeding on the American side of the Great Lakes. Please give all these factors very careful consideration in your decisions. Some of what you are being asked to approve is questionable from an engineering-design standpoint. Some is unacceptable from the standpoint of the Mill being a designated heritage site. Yours sincerely, fJ; J~~ fiV-w-tl1 Madeleine McDowell Chair Humber Heritage Committee D82 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. OLD Mill RESTAURANT (SANTEK INVESTMENTS lTD.) -Proposed Inn Addition and Restoration of the Historic Mill Ruins -City of Etobicoke KEY ISSUE Staff is in receipt of a final proposal for a hotel addition to the Old Mill Restaurant which includes preservation of the historic Old Mill ruins, in the City of Etobicoke. Res. #W25/95 Moved by: lois Hancey Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report concerning the proposed addition to the Old Mill Restaurant and restoration of the historic ruins be received. AMENDMENT Moved by: Victoria Carley Res. #W26/95 Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THAT because this historic structure is in the Humber Valley, this project as designed may have an impact on the Heritage River application and therefore the Humber Watershed Task Force be requested to review and report on the possible impact on the Heritage River application to the June 2, 1995 Water and Related land Management Advisory Board meeting. AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the June 2, 1995 Board meeting on any future indemnification for any claims for flood and erosion damage C:rJd loos of life associated with this development. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND A preliminary proposal for a hotel addition to the Old Mill Restaurant, which included preservation of the historic Old Mill ruins, was presented at Board Meeting #2/94, April 15, 1994 and adopted by Res. #A82/94: THA T the staff report concerning the proposed addition to the Old MIll Restaurant and restoration of the historic mill ruins be received; THA T another staff report on the final proposal for the Old Mill Restaurant be brought back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board prior to going to the Executive Committee for permit approval. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 D83 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. OLD MILL RESTAURANT (SANTEK INVESTMENTS LTD.) (CONTD.) -Proposed Inn Addition and Restoration of the Historic Mill Ruins -City of Etobicoke THA T staff comment in the future report on indemnification of the Authority by the proponent from any claims for flood and erosion damage and loss of life associated with the development. AND FURTHER THA T staff be directed to continue to work with the proponent and his consultants to finalize a satisfactory proposal for consideration by the Executive Committee under Ontario Regulation 158." Staff has continued to work with the proponent and his consultant, throughout 1994/95 to arrive at an acceptable proposal. RATIONALE The final proposal would permit the development of a 62 suite inn to operate in conjunction with the existing Old Mill Restaurant. The inn is intended to provide overnight accommodation for those individuals currently using the Old Mill restaurant and banquet/meeting facilities. The project would result in the preservation of the Old Mill ruins which would house the main reception area for the inn and 15 luxury suites. The stone walls of the ruins would be restored with a new roof being constructed to create a building height of five storeys. The ruins are located entirely within the Regional Storm flood plain. Pursuant to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement, the Authority has adopted a "One Zone" approach to flood plain management whereby new development in the flood plain is to be prohibited or restricted. The Authority's Flood Susceptible Sites Policy, which was in place at the time of receipt of the preliminary proposal, recognized existing buildings/structures within the flood plain and allows for minor additions and replacements subject to the proponent providing a level of floodproofing. The policy is silent on the preservation of historic ruins located in the flood plain that are associated with a redevelopment proposal. Regional Flood protection will be provided to the ruins. All habitable areas will be located above the Regional Storm flood elevation. The balance of the suites would be accommodated in a new guest wing addition to be constructed outside the Regional Storm flood plain. The proposed new hotel structure would marginally encroach below the top-of-bank of a modified valley. The valley has been modified by past construction. For lands immediately adjacent to valleys, the Authority, based on the policy in place at the time of receipt of the preliminary proposal, required that buildings or structures (including paved surfaces) be set back a minimum distance of 10 metres from the top-of-bank of stable valley slopes unless studies by a competent professional shows that the structures will be safe during their life and the buildings or structures will not aggravate or create erosion problems. Staff has received and reviewed a geotechnical study and are satisfied that the proposed new inn wing will not have a detrimental impact on the valley slope. A glazed bridge structure would connect the new wing with the restored ruins. 084 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 -- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. OLD MILL RESTAURANT (SANTEK INVESTMENTS LTD.) (CONTD.) -Proposed Inn Addition and Restoration of the Historic Mill Ruins -City of Etobicoke A new flagstone driveway would be constructed along the fringe of the Regional Storm flood plain to allow vehicular access from Old Mill Road to the inn. Filling to accommodate the driveway will be kept to a minimum and safe access will be provided pursuant to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement. In 1983, the Old Mill ruins were designated as a historical structure under By-law 83-109, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed restoration of the Old Mill ruins would allow for the preservation and enhancement of one of Etobicoke's most significantly historical structures. The applicant has designed the reconstruction of the ruins and the proposed guest wing to complement the historical architectural styling of the Old Mill Restaurant through the reuse of river stone, timber and stucco. Both the Etobicoke Historical Board/Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and The Etobicoke Historical Society have reviewed the details of the application and are in support of the project. The City of Etobicoke Official Plan currently designates the site as "Special Retail" and is governed by Special Site Policy #31 which limits the use of the site to restaurants and business and professional offices. Staff is in receipt of an Official Plan Amendment, circulated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which would modify the Special Site Policy #31 to include a hotel as a permitted use. Staff has deferred comment until a permit, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158, has been granted. A transportation study has been completed to determine whether an additional parking area would be required. This study concludes that the current parking area is sufficient to accommodate the proposed hotel use. WORK TO BE DONE A permit, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 (Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation). will be required to reconstruct the Old Mill ruins within the flood plain and for the placement of fill and grading associated with the proposed new driveway. Should the Executive Committee approve the proposal, staff will process the pending Official Plan Amendment. The proponent and/or his consultant will be available to make a presentation at the meeting. For information contact: Barry Knox (extension 268) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 085 ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1995-1999 -The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto KEY ISSUE Approval of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Implementation Project 1995-1999 within The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Res. #W27/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice . Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Implementation Project, within The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995-1999, (pages 088- 096) be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the following action be taken: (a) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be requested to approve the Project and the annual capital expenditures set forth therein; (b) The Minister of Natural Resources be requested to provide technical approval of the project as required under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; (c) Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be requested; (d) The appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with the project, including the execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The International Joint Commission (!.J.C.) has identified a number of areas in the Great Lakes Basin where remedial action plans should be developed to restore water uses, protect water supplies, and provide recreation and aquatic life. The Metropolitan waterfront from the Etobicoke Creek to the Rouge River and all watersheds draining this area was identified as one of the sites under the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. On January 29, 1992, Metropolitan Toronto Council adopted a Metro Works Committee report identifying a dozen goals for developing the Metropolitan Toronto waterfront and watersheds as diverse healthy and integrated ecosystems providing accessible, fishable, swimmable and drinkable aquatic habitats. Plans include reducing or eliminating chemical and biotic pollutants in the watercourses and atmosphere, controlling the deposit and removal of sediments and lakefilling. 086 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1995-1999 (CONTD.) -The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto In 1994, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan released its Stage 2 report: "Clean Waters, Clear Choices". This report identified that environmental management required an ecosystem approach, a number of guiding principles to assist in decision making and targeted the following eight major areas where action is needed. . Storm water; . Combined Sewer Systems; . Sanitary Sewers and the Sewage Treatment Plants; , . Fish and Wildlife Habitat; . Public Awareness, Education and NGOs; . Laws and Policies; . Land Use Planning; . Monitoring and Research. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's role as identified in the Stage 2 report includes monitoring and enforcing appropriate development and agricultural controls undertaking erosion and sediment control programs, and increasing public involvement and awareness of environmental programs through aesthetic clean-up and rehabilitation projects. In addition, the RAP indicates that MTRCA shares a responsibility for fish and wildlife habitat improvement programs. In preparation of the Metropolitan Toronto 1995 Capital Program, Authority staff had discussions and provided specific project proposals within Metropolitan Toronto that would meet RAP goals. The 1995 project proposes remedial work principally in the Don River and Rouge River watersheds within Metropolitan Toronto to promote fish habitats and naturalization. The original project gross expenditures indicated a 1/3 share between Metropolitan Toronto, province and federal governments. However, in the event a 1/3 share is untenable, the Metropolitan Toronto share may increase to 50% with the remaining share from the federal and provincial governments, local municipalities, Conservation Foundation of the Greater Toronto Area, local community groups and private funding. Regardless of the final share arrangements for each site project, Metropolitan Toronto's annual funding would be $ 500,000. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon approval by the Authority, the project will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for approval. Pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, approval of the Ontario Municipal Board will be requested. FINANCIAL DETAILS The project proposes annual total expenditures of $ 1,500,000. Under this level of expenditure, the annual funding schedule would be as follows: WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 087 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1995-1999 (CONTD.) -The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto $ 500,000. Others (Province of Ontario, Federal Government, local municipalities, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, local community groups, private funding) 1 .000.000. Total $1.500.000. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has included in its five-year Capital Works Program 1995- 1999, $2.5 million for remedial action plan implementation. This annual allocation is subject to budget approval by Council. Projects will only be undertaken where matching funds are available. For information contact: Peter Wigham (ext. 273) , 088 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 1995 - 1999 Within the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto April 1995 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 089 - (1 ) WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has been responsible fo'r developing and implementing a program for renewable resource management. A comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authority in its 1980 Watershed Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authority recognized that its traditional programs were not keeping pace with the pressure of development across its watersheds and that urgent action was required to ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace Strategy (1988/89) was proposed as the Authority's conservation vision for the future of the GTA. In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Commission of the Future of Toronto's Waterfront and Space for All, a report to the Province identifying options for a Greenlands Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area, made recommendations to conserve and enhance the natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace Strategy, Watershed, and Space for All are consistent in their proposals for an ecosystem approach to planning the future of the Greater Toronto Area; recognition of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and the Lake Ontario Waterfront as principal physical resources of the GT A; recommendations for ensuring an interconnected physical resource system, with access and use for inter-regional trails; and the need for co-operative partnerships to implement long term greenspace conservation. Since 1957, Authority programs have pursued objectives which have provided the basis of an inter- regional greenspace system and conserved and enhanced the renewable resources of the GTA. Capital projects for the implementation of Remedial Action Plan recommendations will enable the Authority and its watershed management partners to achieve greenspace objectives and make a positive contribution to the quality of life across the GT A. Initiating this project will be essential to achieve the strategies proposed by the Authority, Watershed and Space for All to balance the pressures for development in the GTA. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seeks the support of its partners to continue "Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace." The "Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Implementation Project, 1995-1999" represents one project which will assist in meeting the goals and objectives of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1980 Watershed Plan as updated in 1986. The International Joint Commission (I.J.C.l identified a number of areas in the Great Lakes Basin where remedial action plans should be developed to restore water uses, protect water supplies, and provide recreation and aquatic life. The Metropolitan Toronto waterfront from the Etobicoke Creek to the Rouge River and all watersheds draining this area (Figure 1) was identified as one of the sites under the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. In 1994, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan released its Stage 2 report: "Clean Water, Clear Choices". This report identified the following: . that environmental management required an ecosystem approach; . a number of guiding principles to assist in decision making, and; . eight major areas where action is required: 090 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 - - Storm water - Combined Sewer Systems - Sanitary Sewers and the Sewage Treatment Plants - Fish and Wildlife Habitat - Public Awareness, Education and NGOs - Laws and Policies - Land Use Planning - Monitoring and Research The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's role as identified in the Stage 2 report includes monitoring and enforcing appropriate development and agricultural controls, undertaking erosion and sediment control programs, and increasing public involvement and awareness of environmental programs through aesthetic clean-up and rehabilitation projects. In addition the Remedial Action Plan indicates MTRCA shares a responsibility for fish and wildlife habitat improvement programs. The MTRCA is a logical choice for implementing a number of the actions recommended in " Clean Waters, Clear Choices" since it is the only government body organized around local ecosystems features - watershed - rather than political boundaries. MTRCA's mandate, experience and proven successes in many areas that are of concern to the RAP make it a good choice in implementing specific RAP actions. MTRCA's original mandate was to reduce the risk of damage from flooding, to acquire and manage conservation lands, and to provide recreational and educational opportunities in conservation areas and over the years has broaden to include the protection and enhancement of natural habitats, the improvement of water quality essential to those habitats through stormwater management and other means, and a commitment to include non-government organizations and the public at large in conservation and environmental issues. In 1992, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority created the Don Watershed Task Force. The Task Force's primary mandate was to develop a "management plan strategy" or regeneration plan (Forty Steps To A New Don), for the entire Don Watershed, using an ecosystem- based approach. The plan would define what a healthy, sustainable Don Watershed would be like, present specific actions to achieve that vision is areas such as water and land resources management, outline regeneration plans for the seven subwatersheds in the Don system, and identify how and by whom the plan should be implemented. In 1994, the Don Watershed Council was formed to guide the implementation of Forty Steps To A New Don. The Don Watershed Task Force and Council are proving to be excellent means for doing the work of regeneration in a large ecosystem and have many of the criteria discussed in Clean Waters. Clear Choices for effective implementation of the Remedial Action Plan (2) PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOAL The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded by the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources. The project covers a five year period from 1995-1999 and would implement regeneration projects within Metropolitan Toronto (Figure 2) that would meet the goals of the Remedial Action Plan's Clean Water, Clear Choices. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 091 - The goal of this project is to: Implement resource management projects that will conserve and enhance the natural resources within Metropolitan Toronto by undertaking regeneration efforts of erosion and sediment control and habitat enhancement and creation. In carrying out this Project, a number of goals and objectives of the participating partners would be achieved, including: . Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan Objective "To conserve, protect and enhance the integrity of the natural systems so that they may benefit the health and well-being of current and future generations." General Policies "To participate in initiatives to protect and regenerate the natural resources of the GT Bioregion, with the Province, the conservation authorities, local and GT A municipalities and the community through: -development of mutually supportive policies and coordinated management strategies to restore and enhance habitat and species diversity, preserve natural features, conserve physical resources, maximize the environmental benefits of public and private investment, and generally improve water, soil and air quality;" . Remedial Action Plan - Clean Waters, Clear Choices Goals -Ecosystem Health; -A Self Sustaining Fishery; -Rehabilitation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat; -Protection and Rehabilitation of Wetlands; -Control of Stormwater Quality and Quantity; and -Clean Sediment 3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The implementation objectives are presented for the project period 1995 - '999 by watersheds and waterfront within the Remedial Action Plan area within Metropolitan Toronto. Sites identified are potential implementation works under the Project. 092 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 . _'4 ~ Etobicoke Watershed Ranford Creek Working with the City of Etobicoke, watercourse naturalization and wildlife habitat enhancement will occur on Ranford Creek, a tributary of the Etobicoke Creek. Etobicoke Creek Working with the City of Etobicoke, watercourse naturalization and wildlife habitat enhancement will occur on lower sections of the Etobicoke Creek. Humber Watershed Black Creek Channel Naturalization Working with the Black Creek Group, natural channel design sites will be developed to improve habitat and water quality. Potential sites include the lower section of the Black Creek between Wilson Avenue to Eglinton Avenue. lower Humber River Weirs The velocity control weirs on the Humber River will be examined as to their potential of blocking fish migration, and if appropriate, regeneration efforts will occur to improve fish passage. Don Watershed Pottery Road Metro Parks and Property have developed a regeneration plan for the portion of the Don River which extends from the Forks of the Don to the Brickworks area. This plan has identified a number of actions which address improvements to the watercourse including tree and shrub plantings and increased involvement of the local community through implementation activities. One of the actions identified in the plan was the presence of three barriers (weirs) which are currently blocking fish passage through this portion of the watercourse. Remedial work at this site would involve adjustments to the barriers to provide for fish passage. In addition restoration of an appropriate pool-riffle sequence, substrate enhancement, and riparian planting is also required. This will provide stream cover and habitat. Potential partners in the project include local community groups. Wilket Creek Metro Parks and Property have targeted three "garden parks" on Wilket Creek for study and ultimately for upgrading. In particular, the portion of the creek which flows through Edwards Garden has been extensively reinforced with gabion baskets. These baskets have seriously deteriorated. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 093 - Depending on the flows, an effort will be made to renaturalize the creek. The work would include a feasibility study for naturalization of the watercourse and storm water treatment options in conjunction with the improvements to the park. This work would be tied into community involvement including lot level improvements for storm water management. Changes in maintenance practices would also be considered. This would result in a major improvement of this area which has high public visibility. Potential partners in the project include City of North York and local community groups. G. Ross lord Reservoir The G. Ross Lord Reservoir was constructed for flood control in the early 1970's. Public concern over the aesthetics of the site has resulted in the establishment of a permanent water body. Since the original design did not include a permanent water body, contours established and the fluctuations following storm events has resulted in the establishment of little littoral vegetation. In addition, direct inflows to the site from the Westminister Creek and from a stormwater outflow from an industrial/commercial area near the reservoir contribute additional pollutant loads to the reservoir. Studies are currently underway to establish detailed inventories of the existing terrestrial and littoral communities. This proposed project will design and test opportunities to create backwater habitats in the reservoir. In addition, the Emery Creek Model for business involvement opportunities for improving water quality at the site will be explored. Potential partners in this project include the University of Toronto and the local industrial community. Terraview-Willowfield Concept Site The Terraview-Willowfield Park area was chosen as a concept site to demonstrate local opportunities to improve water quality, habitat enhancement, and community involvement during the development of the Don Watershed Task Force's regeneration plan for the Don. The 1994 concept plan recommends the establishment of a natural channel, habitat creation, water quality treatment ponds and the integration of the community through the selective disconnection of roof leaders. Partners with this project include the City of Scarborough, Ontario Hydro, Ministry of Transportation and local community groups Rouqe Watershed lower Reaches of Morningside Creek, Scarborough The lower end of Morningside Creek has been identified as a coldwater production zone but is deficient in good spawning habitat due to channelization. Restoration of an appropriate pool-riffle sequence, substrate enhancement, and riparian planting is required. This reach is isolated from the main Rouge by a large instream barrier. A barrier bypass or installation of a fish ladder would re-establish migratory salmonid use of the upper reaches. Potential partners in the project include the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Scarborough and the Rouge Park Management Agency. 094 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 ~ little Rouge Creek North of Twyn Rivers Drive, Scarborough During the 1950s and 60s large amounts of gravel was extracted from along and within the little Rouge Creek. The section of the little Rouge Creek at the hydro crossing has never recovered from this disturbance. Channel naturalization and re-adjustment is needed to achieve an appropriate pool-riffle sequence. These adjustments, in combination, with appropriate riparian plantings will enhance this stream reach. Potential partners in the project include the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Scarborough and the Rouge Park Management Agency. little Rouge Creek South of Twyn Rivers Drive, Scarborough Previous land use in this area has modified the stream channel and armoured the banks with concrete. Removal of the armour and stream channel adjustment to an appropriate pool-riffle sequence will enhance the fisheries potential of this area. Potential partners in the project include the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Scarborough and the Rouge Park Management Agency. Debris Removal and Channel Naturalization at the Woodland Park Dam, Scarborough The Woodland park dam on the little Rouge Creek south of Steeles has broken up and left large amounts of concrete and debris in the stream channel. Removal of the remaining dam structure and the debris combined with channel naturalization would improve the fish habitat in this reach. Potential partners in the project include the Ministry of Natural Resources, City of Scarborough and the Rouge Park Management Agency. Lake Ontario Waterfront Tommy Thompson Park - Cell 1 Wetland Capping The wetland project will focus on establishing terrestrial and aquatic plant communities and specific fish and wildlife habitat components. The shoreline of the cell will be altered to assist the development of diverse plant communities through landscaping designs that create microclimatic conditions induced by prevailing winds, solar exposure, grading, and drainage. Existing soil conditions will be enhanced through the addition of organic material and soil conditioners such as municipal compost and sand. The constructed wetland will be inoculated with a variety of aquatic submergent and emergent, and terrestrial plant species by planting seed, cuttings, propagules, soil cores, and transplants to encourage the development of natural successional communities. Functional fish and wildlife habitat will be created by providing a diversity of shore and substrate types, structural habitat, vegetated shorelines, and seasonally inundated shorelines within the wetland. Specific habitat components will be directed towards improving habitat for but not limited to northern pike, smallmouth bass, common terns, and black terns. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 095 - Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland The Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland is within Humber Bay Waterfront Park situated on the shoreline of Lake Ontario in the City of Etobicoke, within the Metro Toronto and Region RAP area. An embayment located within the Mimico Creek estuary was chosen for this project. The perimeter of this embayment has a well established wetland plant community consisting of several types of plants including arrowhead and giant bur-reed. The interior of this embayment has remained devoid of vegetation. The goal of the Mimico Creek Estuary Wetland Creation Project is to establish a wetland plant community within the embayment. This natural habitat initiative will outline the techniques and design consideration for establishing functional wetland habitat within estuaries that may be used at other similar projects. Humber Bay Park Wetland Creation As part of a major redevelopment and parkland creation project on the Etobicoke shoreline, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) will be creating a coastal wetland within a lakefill embayment at Humber Bay Park East, in the City of Etobicoke. In addition, the MTRCA will be creating a series of offshore islands north of the wetland to enhance fish habitat in the area. 4. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING Implementation of the Remedial Action Plan Implementation Project 1995 - 1999 is estimated to require expenditures of: 1995 $1,500,000 1996 1,500,000 1997 1,500,000 1998 1,500,000 1999 1.500.000 TOTAL $7.500.000 The costs associated with this Project include administration, engineering and design fees and implementation costs. The original project gross expenditures indicated a 1/3 share between Metropolitan Toronto, the Province and the Federal Governments. However, in the event a 1/3 share is untenable, Metropolitan Toronto share may increase to 50% with the remaining share from the Federal and Provincial governments, local municipalities, Conservation Foundation of the Greater Toronto Area, local community groups and private funding. Regardless of the final share arrangements for each site project, Metropolitan Toronto's annual funding would be $ 500,000. 096 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 . .-. -- The annual funding schedule would be as follows: The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto $ 500,000. Others (Province of Ontario, Federal Government, local municipalities, The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto, local community groups, private funding) 1 .000,000. Total $1,500,000. The actual annual level of funding will vary from year to year based on the agreed annual allocations by funding agencies and partners. The annual funding limit for The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is in accordance with the approved Metropolitan Toronto multi-year forecasts. If other sources of funding are available from other sources, actual expenditures may exceed the project total. 5. APPROVALS i) Authority iia) The Ministry of Natural Resources iib) The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (These approvals will be sought simultaneously) iii) The Ontario Municipal Board. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95; APRIL 21,1995 097 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. ALTONA FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN -Correspondence from The Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek KEY ISSUE Correspondence received from The Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek. Res. #W28/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the correspondence received from The Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek, pages 099-0101, be received. AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue to consult with The Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek, other groups, agencies and the local community to finalize an environmental management plan for Altona Forest. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority has acquired approximately 46 ha of forested property in the Town of Pickering known as the Altona Forest (ESA 95). The Authority continues to negotiate the acquisition of additional properties, including Speirs and DiNardo, that would eventually increase the total size of the Authority owned parcel to 53 ha. Staff prepared a short term site securement plan that has guided the implementation of work to deal with the immediate needs of the property including garbage removal, signage, fencing and hazard tree removal. It was also recognized that a long term environmental management plan would be required. Consequently, staff has prepared a draft management plan with input from the Friends of Altona and Petticoat Creak and others. This plan continues to be reviewed by interest groups and agencies including The Friends of the Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek, Pickering Field Naturalists, Save the Rouge Valley System, Town of Pickering and the Ministry of Natural Resources. This interim plan was presented to the Executive Committee at Meeting #12/94 held February 10, 1995. Resolution #E234/94 was adopted that states in part: "THA T the Executive Committee support the concept of a management plan for the A/tona Forest that wH/ preserve the bird sanctuary; AND FURTHER THA T the finalized Interim Environmental Management Plan be presented to the Conservation and Related Land Management Advisory Board for review and appro va/ prior to presentation to the full Authority for approval. " 098 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. AlTONA FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.) -Correspondence from The Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek The general endorsement of the environmental management plan for Altona Forest was needed earlier this year to facilitate negotiations with Mr. J. Murray Speirs regarding the acquisition of his property. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to consult with all interested groups and agencies. All comments will be considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the final Altona Forest Environmental Management Plan. For information contact: Gary Wilkins (ext. 211) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 099 .-' ~ 'i . .---- -- ._--" THE FRIENDS OF ALTONA FOREST AND PETTICOAT CREEK .~ c/o 1434 Rougemount Drive, Pickeriag, Ontario LIV INI ", Phone: 905-509-2311 FAX: 905-509-3682 March 15, 1995 RiEC[E~~f~li) MAR 1 6 1995 Messrs. Gary Wilkins and Tariq Syed Environmental Projects Chief Admini~trlltar's Of "CD Resource Management Section Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority -. - 5 Shore ham Drive Downsview, Ontario. M3N 154 Dear Messrs. Wilkins and Syed: Re: Altona Forest Environmental Manaoement Ptan - JanuarY 12. 1995 On behalf of the Friends of Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek, we are submitting our comments and recommendations on the above-captioned document (hereinafter referred to as "the Plan"). Our review and recommendations outlined below advocate a pro-active approach for protecting, maintaining and restoring the health, heritage and biodiversity ofthe Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek. We re-iterate our commitment to co-operation with the MTRCA to implement the concepts of an ecosystem-based management plan for the Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek. Presently, the Plan does not set forth a clear overall direction or goa/(s) for the" Altona Forest Reserve" (hereinafter referred to as the "forest reserve") and as a result the management policies reflect this weakness and lack of direction. The Plan is an assemblage of little bits thrown together without a well-defined management planning process that should have included a detailed framework. It is our opinion that the document is inconsistent and ambiguous. Various management policies conflict with each other and several policies are missing or need to be properly defined and clarified, The introductory summary of the Altona Forest (features and functions) and its significant linkages (Petticoat Creek and Rouge-Duffin Wildlife Restoration Corridor) is inadequate. 0100 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 . . 2 It is Imperative that the MTRCA choose a goal(s) that conveys a clear. concise statement and overall direction for the Dlannino. management and operations of the Altons Forest, that is, consistent with the decision made by Provincial of Ontario to invest in this area. The objectives also must be spelled-out clearly in the Plan for the protection and restoration of the Altona Forest and Petticoat Creek. Once this exercise is accomplished, it must then be developed into an unambiguous RIan that facilitates long-range environmental planning and protection for the Altona Forest, including public accountability and accessibility to the planning and decision- making process. Innovative park management strategies will be needed to ensure the maintenance and protection of the area while providing for limited public enjoyment. These strategies also will be essential to anticipate and be able to adapt existing management poliCies and programmes in recognition of the "environmental carrying capacity" of the Altona Forest. Reliable, current and comprehensive information is critical to management planning and up-to-date inventories are particularly important in the preparation of poliCies and prescriptions for protecting, maintaining and restoring the natural heritage values of this area. Past reports on the Altona Forest are not detail~d inventories, environmental impact studies/assessments nor do they provide management prescriptions or recommendations. These reports contain basic information on the Altona Forest and are based on a 130-hectare study area. The "forest reserve" will be approximately 66-hectares in size and of a different configuration (53-hectares of tablelands and 13- hectares of valleylands). Of particular importance, is the monitoring for off-site or secondary effects of adjacent development on the forest reserve. The Altona Forest is surrounded by unfriendly land uses; the careful management of human use of the Altona "forest reserve" from adiscent develoDments Is in our view. a critical and Daramount issue. Attached you will find a suggested .policy framework" for the draft Plan in Appendix A; and, detailed comments of the draft Plan by section and page number in Appendix B. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BQt\RDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0101 . 3 Our key recommendations are as follows: . completion of another draft Environmental Management Plan which would include an overall goal, concise objectives and subsequent management policies; and, . preparation of a companion background document to include critical baseline and current information on the Altona Forest; and an analysis and synthesis of this information for the environmental management plan and additional studies required in future. In light of the above-noted comments and recommendations, we would suggest that the MTRCA arrange an appropriate forum for all partners (Friends of Altona Forest, Pickering Naturalists, MNR, MTRCA, Petticoat Conservation Area) to hammer-out the concise objectives, discuss the philosophy behind managing this area and suggest practical ways of implementing that philosophy. Also of note, is the fact that many of our previous comments were not incorporated into this version of the Plan. We are confident that the MTRCA will take into account all of our comments, concerns and recommendations as part of a meaningful consultation rather than just providing a "window dressing" on a plan. Your considered reply to comments, initiatives and recommendations supported by this letter and the attached documents would be greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely, AL TONA FOREST AND PETTICOAT CREEK cc: Mr. Cra her - MTRCA, Board of Directors - MTRCA MNR, MOE, MCCR, MMA, Town of Pickering, Durham Region Mr. Richard Lindgren, CELA Pickering Naturalists, Save the Rouge Valley System Durham Field Naturalists, Canadian Wildflower Society FaN, WWF, Wildlands League, OEN - Land Use Caucus Jim Wiseman, MPP, Dr. J. Murray Speirs, Bramalea Limited Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Parks Canada 0102 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. SECOND ANNUAL METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION BIG BIRDWATCH KEY ISSUE Staff has organized the Second Annual Big Birdwatch event for the Greater Metro Area in order to update information on breeding birds on Authority Lands and raise money for greenspace through The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto. The following report outlines the details of the event. Res. #W29/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report, dated April 3, 1995, outlining the Second Annual Metropolitan Toronto and Region Big Birdwatch be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Management Committee Meeting #19/93, held on November 18, 1993, staff presented a proposal to organize and hold a birdwatching event in the Greater Toronto Area. Based on Management Committee's support, a steering committee with representatives from Education, Field Operations, The Conservation Foundation and Resource Management Section was established to plan and direct the event. The goal of the activity is to gather information on resident breeding birds on Authority lands, raise proceeds for the purchase and protection of greenspace, and offer a recreational activity that demonstrates and highlights the role of the Authority and The Conservation Foundation as providers and stewards of natural and recreational areas in the Greater Toronto Area. A similar annual event held in New Jersey attracts teams on an international scale and raises hundreds of thousands of dollars for conservation efforts in that state. A similar committee has organized the event again for this year as follows: . The event will be a 24 hour breeding bird census on all MTRCA lands, including those managed under agreement with local municipalities. The event will take place from 12:01 a.m. to 11 :59 p.m., on Saturday, June 10, 1995, with an awards ceremony to be held at 5 p.m., on Sunday, June 11, 1995, at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Light refreshments will be served at the A wards Ceremony. . Teams of four members or less will register and compete to record the highest number of bird species during the 24 hour period. Registration will be $40.00 per team. . Registered teams will be provided with a package that includes bird survey sheets, fact sheets and instructions, a MTRCA watershed map, a Metro Parks and Property map and vehicle identification cards. . Prizes will be awarded to each member of the teams recording the 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd highest number of bird species, and each team recording a minimum of 10 confirmed breeding species will be entered in a special draw. Other draws and door prizes will be offered at the Awards Ceremony. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0103 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. SECOND ANNUAL METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION BIG BIRDWATCH (CONTD.) . Proceeds from the event will be donated to the Charles Sauriol Environmental Trust Fund, that has been established by The Conservation Foundation for the acquisition and basic management of environmental lands that form part of the approved program of the Authority . . The event will be promoted through Authority news releases, articles in various magazines and publications, and posters distributed to naturalist clubs, community groups, and selected "birding related" retail outlets. . Once again, the major sponsor of the event will be Bausch and Lomb Sports Optics. They have agreed to provide binoculars as prizes. Other prizes have been donated for the activity by a variety of sponsors including; the Canadian Wildbird Company, Wild Birds Nature Shop, Mill Creek Seed Company, Birders Nature Store, Birds of the Wild Magazine, Yule Hyde and Associates, and the Open Air Bookstore. BENEFITS There are many benefits to the Authority in developing and coordinating this event. The most significant and direct benefits are as follows: . Promotion of Authority lands and conservation areas as venues for birdwatching and other passive recreational uses. . Compilation of a summer resident breeding bird list for the Greater Toronto Area, specifically on Authority owned lands. . Generate financial support for the acquisition and management of greenspace through the Charles Sauriol Environmental Trust Fund, administered by The Conservation Foundation. . Highlight the roles of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and The Conservation Foundation in the provision and stewardship of greenspace in the Greater Metro Area. FINANCIAL DETAilS The costs to the Authority in developing and coordinating this activity are minimal and are far outweighed by the expected benefits. Apart from staff planning and participation, other expenses such as printing costs and the cost of the refreshments at the Awards Ceremony will be deducted from the registration fee. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE Most of the preparatory work for the event has been completed. Staff will continue to solicit additional prizes and sponsors and focus on the promotion of the activity and the distribution of registration information. The target deadline for registration by teams is May 19, 1995. A survey/questionnaire will be prepared for distribution to the participants following the activity. Information obtained through this survey will assist in the planning of the activity for 1996. For Information Contact: Scott Jarvie (ext. 312) 0104 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 -Fishleigh Drive Eros,ion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront -City of Scarborough KEY ISSUE To continue with the construction of the erosion control works along the Lake Ontario shoreline adjacent to Nos. 33-83 Fishleigh Drive in the City of Scarborough. Res. #W30/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT staff be directed to proceed with the final phase of the construction of erosion control works, adjacent to Nos. 33-83 Fishleigh Drive, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996", at a total cost in 1995 of $250,000, subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project was approved under the Class Environmental Assessment process in 1988. Construction on the access road commenced in 1988 and was completed in 1989. Construction of the shoreline protective works began in 1990 and by the end of 1994, a total of 326 metres offshore armoured revetment had been constructed at a total project cost of $1.88 million. A steering committee was established in 1994; comprising representatives from Metropolitan Toronto, City of Scarborough, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, local politicians and various homeowners to review the final details of the easterly termination of the shoreline protection. The consulting firm of W. F. Baird and Associates was retained to carry out the detailed analysis of the various alternatives developed by the committee. The analysis included an assessment of the impact of the shoreline protection to the Needles Bluffs, aesthetics, geomorphology and level of protection. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE It is proposed that the alternate designs for terminating the easterly end of the shoreline protection works be reviewed by the new Shoreline Management Steering Committee. The steering committee for the Fishleigh Drive erosion control project has requested that a decision be made by September 1995, so that the final shoreline protection works can be completed prior to year end. A consultant will be retained to develop preliminary designs for the extension of final shoreline treatment to the west of the existing erosion control works. This 450 metre section extends from below Scarborough Heights Parks to Wynnview Court. The shoreline is lined with broken concrete rubble as interim protection for the construction access road at Fishleigh Ravine. The Shoreline Management Steering Committee will be requested to review the various alternatives as part of the approval process. Funds are allocated in the budget for commencing this work in 1995. Environmental monitoring of the project will also continue in 1995. This work will include erosion WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0105 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront -City of Scarborough measurements, fisheries survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document changes to the aquatic environment. Some plantings of shrubs and trees will be completed along the lower portion of the bluff slope to prevent further surficial erosion. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total cost to carry out the 1995 work program is $250,000. The various components of the work are: Final Design 15,000 Construction SupervisionlAdministration 40,000 Material 80,000 Equipment 100,000 Environmental Monitoring 15,000 TOTAL COST $250,000 Funding availability will be subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992- 1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account Nos. 138-03 and 138-23 have been set up for the project. For information contact: Nigel Cowey (Ext. 244) 6. lAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995 REGION OF DURHAM -Ajax Waterfront Area -1995 Development Program KEY ISSUE Continuation of the development program along the Ajax Waterfront, Town of Ajax. Res. #W31/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1995 development program at Ajax Waterfront Area, Town of Ajax, under the "lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - Region of Durham", at a total cost of $75,000 subject to the receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED 0106 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT REGENERATION PROJECT 1995 REGION OF DURHAM (CONTD.) -Ajax Waterfront Area -1995 Development Program BACKGROUND To date, substantial portions of the Authority owned waterfront lands have been improved to basic park standards and transferred to the Town of Ajax for operation and maintenance. In 1994, a section of waterfront lands was transferred to the Town of Ajax for ongoing maintenance. At Rotary Park, an extension to the existing parking lot was constructed in late 1994 which provided an additional 62 spaces for car parking. This brought the total parking capacity to 133 cars, including 26 spaces at the launching ramp parking lot. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE The major development activities proposed for the Ajax Waterfront under this Project in 1995 include: - extension of parking lot lighting. A consultant will be retained by the Authority to prepare the design and specifications for extending the lighting to the new parking lot; - construction of approximately 500 metres of pathway in the Pickering Beach area; - tree and shrub plantin9s at Rotary Park; and - continued interim management of those Authority owned lands not yet transferred to the Town of Ajax for operation and maintenance. Shoreline erosion monitoring will continue in 1995 and minor erosion control works will be completed to stabilize active eroding gullies subject to funding availability. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget to carry out the 1995 work is $75,000. The cost estimates for the various components of the work are: Parking Lot Lighting $25,000 Pathway construction 30,000 Tree and Shrub plantings 13,000 Interim Management 7.000 TOTAL BUDGET $75.000 Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995 - Region of Durham approved at Authority Meeting #2/95. Account Nos. 230-08, 230-11 and 230-19. For information contact: Nigel Cowey (Ext. 244) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0107 -.. - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING KEY ISSUE Continuation of annual maintenance dredging of Keating Channel, City of Toronto. Res. #W32/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be n;quested to fund in 1995, one third of the cost for the dredging of Keating Channel and the Capping of Cell One in the amount of $230,000; THAT the City of Toronto be requested to fund in 1995, one third of the cost for the dredging of Keating Channel and the Capping of Cell One in the amount of $230,000; THA T the Authority contribute its one third share of the cost of the dredging and the Cell One Capping in the amount of $230,000, subject to provincial funding approval; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority continue with the environmental monitoring program. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) dredged Keating Channel from the time of its construction in the 1920's to about 1974. As the dredging became more expensive and disposal of the dredged material more difficult, the THC sought partners in the work. Transport Canada initially agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, eventually the delta would spread into the north east corner of the Inner Harbour and affect shipping channels where the federal government was responsible to maintain safe navigation depths. The MTRCA also agreed to participate on the basis that if the Channel was not dredged, the threat of flooding in the lower Don River valley was increased. The MTRCA's participation was the subject of an environmental assessment between 1980 and 1986 which was subsequently approved. Hence, a three party agreement was struck which saw the cost of dredging shared three ways during the period 1986 to 1991; i.e., THC, Transport Canada and MTRCA. The cost sharing agreement which began in 1986 was to fund the cost of dredging the material which had accumulated between 1974 and 1986. It did not specifically address the funding of the maintenance dredging which is required annually. The Channel has been completely dredged as originally planned but additional sediment is deposited annually. The channel will fill in over time if annual dredging is not maintained. The federal government, represented by Transport Canada, advised the THC that no federal funds will be available for maintenance dredging unless Environment Canada assumes the federal involvement. The MTRCA has also been advised that no funding will be available from the Federal Government. 0108 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING (CONTD.) During the first three years of maintenance dredging (1992-1994). the THC, City of Toronto and the MTRCA participated in the cost sharing. RATIONALE There is a continuing need for dredging of the Keating Channel. Recent studies for the City of Toronto on Ataratiri confirmed the connection between the dredged channel and Lower Don River flood risks. In addition, some navigation interests still exist in the north east corner of the harbour. THC has estimated an annual siltation rate of between 30,000 to 50,000 cubic metres. The approval of the Keating Channel Dredging Project under the Environmental Assessment Act imposed conditions on the capping of the dredged material within the disposal cells at Tommy Thompson Park. There are costs associated with the construction of the proposed cap which were not part of the original funding for the dredging project. It was anticipated that the cap could be constructed by placing clean fill over the dredged material, which would have been done at no net cost. However, the desire to create wetland habitat, while enhancing the existing fish habitat in the disposal cells which is consistent with the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and the terms and conditions of approval under the Environmental Assessment Act, has resulted in a solution requiring approximately $600,000 in funding over a two to three year period. Cell One is now full and therefore must be capped to meet the requirements of the Environmental Assessment. DETAilS OF THE WORK TO BE DONE The THC will coordinate and carry out the dredging program. It is estimated that up to 15,000 cubic metres of material would be dredged from the channel and disposed of in Cell Two of the Endikement (Tommy Thompson Park). MTRCA staff will continue the environmental monitoring program for the dredging and disposal operations. We anticipate the plan for the wetland cap will be approved by the Regional Director, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, in accordance with the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment and the Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan/Environmental Assessment. Subject to receiving final approval from the Ministry of the Environment and Energy and approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Capping of Cell One will commence in 1995. Details of the construction and implementation of the Cell One Capping will be co-ordinated between the THC and MTRCA staff. FUTURE BENEFITS/PROBLEMS If the regular maintenance dredging of Keating Channel is delayed or deferred in 1995, it is likely that the cycle of the past 15 years will simply be repeated. It is unlikely to get easier to find funds in future budgets. With each year the dredging is delayed, the volume to be dredged increases and the channel capacity decreases. While the existing Environmental Assessment approval includes annual or biennial maintenance dredging, it is possible that if the work was delayed beyond that period that an environmental assessment review may be requested. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0109 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING (CONTD.) Coastal wetlands are critically important ecological components of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Within Toronto, an extensive coastal wetland the Ashbridge's Bay Marsh, was destroyed by the early 1900. Within the Metro Toronto waterfront boundaries, the Humber and Rouge River estuary marshes are the only remaining coastal marshes. The shoreline from Toronto to Presquile Bay, including Frenchman's Bay, Duffins Creek and other coastal marshes within the MTRCA jurisdiction has lost approximately 31 percent of the original 2,044 acres. Within the TTP area, Cell 1 represents only one of many opportunities to replace a portion of the historical Toronto wetlands. Including the embayments, there is potential for approximately 95 ha of coastal wetland habitat creation within an "urban wilderness" landscape. Although, the creation of a wetland at Cell 1 will not alter the history or trend of wetland loss in Ontario, it will offer an opportunity for local wetland rehabilitation with additional opportunities for public education, recreational benefits, wildlife habitat improvement, ecosystem diversity, and other environmental benefits. In addition, the construction of a wetland would be useful as a demonstration of what can be achieved in the way of wetland creation and the management of Confined Disposal Facilities within the Great Lakes basin. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total cost of the Keating Channel dredging for 1995 is $240,000. This is to be shared equally by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission. The total cost of the first phase of the capping of cell one in 1995 is $450,000. This is to be shared by the Authority, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission. The total funding requests therefore for all of the partners is as follows: MTRCA City of Toronto THC Dredging $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 Cell One Capping $150,000 $ 150,000 $150,000 TOTAL $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 The THC has budgeted a total of $80,000 as its share of the dredging cost and the City of Toronto will be asked to confirm its $80,000 share. Funding for the Cell One Capping will need to be confirmed by the City of Toronto ($ 150,000) and THC ($150,000). The Authority has budgeted a total of $230,000 for 1995, subject to provincial funding approval. Funding up to $80,000 will be available under the Keating Channel Flood Control Project within Account No. 113-20. The remaining $ 150,000 has been budgeted as the Authority's share for Cell One Capping, under the Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project 1995-1999 within Account No.2 10-04. For information contact: Nigel Cowey (Ext. 244) 0110 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 -3-5 Kingsbury Crescent Slope Stabilization Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough KEY ISSUE Continuation of the construction of slope stabilization work at Nos. 3 - 5 Kingsbury Crescent, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. Res. #W33/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1995 construction program for the slope stabilization work in the vicinity of 3-5 Kingsbury Crescent, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996" at a total cost of $100,000 subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND Shoreline protection work was completed below Nos. 3 and 5 Kingsbury Crescent in 1991. However, ongoing erosion of the slope and table land is threatening the long term stability at 5 Kingsbury Crescent. In 1992, funding was received from the province to proceed with the necessary studies as required, under the Class Environmental Assessment process for slope stabilization work. The geotechnical investigation and design of remedial works was completed by Terraprobe Limited. During 1993, the Authority commenced work on two of the actively eroding gullies in the vicinity of 5 Kingsbury Crescent. A rubble buttress was constructed at the toe of both gullies followed by top dumping of 19mm clear stone to create a filter drain. During 1994, the buttress was extended along the toe of the two remaining gullies followed by top dumping of filter drain stone. Top dumping of select clean rubble material was placed in two of the gullies for stabilization of the filter layer. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE During 1995, staff propose to continue the slope stabilization measures in accordance with the Terraprobe report. This work will consist of top dumping of select clean broken concrete rubble in the gullies behind 5 and former 9 Kingsbury Crescent properties. In addition, the rubble buttress along the toe will be covered with soil and seeded to provide a natural appearance. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0111 ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 -3-5 Kingsbury Crescent Slope Stabilization Project -Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget to carry out the 1995 work is $ 1 00,000. Various components of the work are: Labour 36,000 Materials 26,000 Equipment 38,000 TOTAL BUDGET $100,000 Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account No. 142-14 has been set up for this project. Report prepared by: Jim Berry (392-9721) 9. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGEN ERA TION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 -Kingsbury Crescent Erosion Control Project -Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough KEY ISSUE Continuation of the construction of shoreline erosion control works along the Kingsbury Crescent sector of the Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. Res. #W34/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1995 construction program for the Kingsbury Crescent Erosion Control Project, City of Scarborough, under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996" at a total cost of $100,000 subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED 0112 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 9. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992 - 1996 (CONTD.) -Kingsbury Crescent Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront -City of Scarborough BACKGROUND Construction of shoreline erosion control work along the Kingsbury Crescent sector of the Scarborough Bluffs has been ongoing since 1980. However, delays in finalizing property agreements resulted in no construction activity from 1982 to 1986. To date, approximately 700 metres of armour stone revetment has been constructed. However, the structure must be raised to the required design elevation. The total expenditure for the Kingsbury Crescent erosion control project to date is $1,975,000. The remaining work is scheduled to be completed in 1995. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE During 1995, the existing revetment will be raised to the design height. Clean concrete rubble will be imported to raise the revetment core to the required final grade. Construction and supervision will be carried out by Authority field staff utilizing the annual equipment supply contractor. The supply and delivery of quarry stone will be tendered in accordance with the Authority's purchasing policy. Environmental monitoring will continue in 1995. This work will include fisheries survey, benthos and substrate analysis to document any changes to the aquatic environment in the vicinity of the project. Shrub plantings will continue along the face of the bluffs to prevent further surficial erosion. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget to carry out the 1995 work is $ 1 00,000. The various components of the work are: Labour $21,000 Materials $35,000 Equipment & Services $44.000 TOTAL BUDGET $100,000 Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992 - 1996", approved at Authority Meeting #3/91. Account Nos. 131-03 and 131-23 have been set up for this project. Report prepared by: Jim Berry (392-9721) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0113 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 10. STORMWATER ASSESSMENT MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE (SWAMP) PROGRAM -Authority Involvement KEY ISSUE Authority involvement in a three year program to assess the performance of new and conventional storm water treatment technologies, such as stormwater management ponds, constructed wetlands, and flow balancing systems. Res. #W35/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report, dated April 10, 1995, be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority has been asked to participate in a three year stormwater assessment monitoring and performance (SWAMP) program involving the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). Ministry of Transportation (MTO), and the Burlington Environmental Technology Office (BETO) of Environment Canada. The purpose of the program is to provide performance assessment and environmental effects monitoring for new and conventional stormwater treatment technologies. Initially, the program will coordinate the monitoring of several provincial/municipal pilot projects (e.g., MTO's stormwater management facility at the Highway 401 /Rouge River crossing, the City of Scarborough's Dunker's Flow Balancing System, and the City of Etobicoke's Flow Balancing System). Typical detention ponds and constructed wetlands will also be evaluated in subsequent years of the program (e.g., as part of the Emery Creek water quality improvement project and Harding Park Regeneration Project in the Don watershed). A Memorandum of Understanding between MTRCA, MOEE and BETO has been prepared and signed by all parties. A similar Memorandum of Agreement between MTRCA and MOEE has also been prepared and signed by both parties. A "Schedule A" (describing project details) is common to both memoranda. The MTO and the proposed local municipal partners will not become actively involved until 1995-96, although there will be MTO and municipal representation on the Steering Committee throughout the program. The Authority's role is limited to providing administrative and accounting services, in addition to technical advice on the SWAMP Steering Committee. The program has been designed to minimize the Authority's administrative requirements. RATIONALE Storm water management guidelines released by the province in 1991 and 1994, backed by strong federal fisheries legislation and increasing public expectations, have established requirements for storm water quality control. Although the Authority has always had an interest in storm water quality management, a recent One-Window agreement between the MNR and the Authority has resulted in delegation of stormwater quality review to the Authority within the Don watershed. This responsibility may be extended to other watersheds within our jurisdiction. 0114 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 10. STORMWATER ASSESSMENT MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE (SWAMP) PROGRAM -Authority Involvement (contd.) The technologies available to meet stormwater quality requirements have evolved rapidly over the past few years, and therefore have not been widely tested in Ontario. There is increasing concern among local municipalities and members of the development community as to the performance of these technologies and their maintenance requirements. BENEFITS Authority participation in the SWAMP program will demonstrate our support for provincial initiatives in the area of storm water management facility performance assessment. Our unique understanding of local municipal concerns will enable us to provide practical direction to provincial monitoring efforts. Information obtained as a result of the SWAMP program will be instrumental in assessing the performance of storm water management facilities at treating storm water quality. The data obtained will have further application in assessing the facilities' performance according to other flow management objectives (e.g., erosion and flood control). which will be of particular value to the Authority. The SWAMP program will establish a framework for ensuring coordination of immediate and future storm water management monitoring programs and for sharing the results of this research among all agencies. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total project budget is an estimated $1.49 million dollars over three years. The MOEE contribution of $70K for the fiscal year 1994-95 has been received by the Authority and deposited in the SWAMP Account #121 -30. The BETO contribution of $90K for the fiscal year 1994-95 is expected to be forthcoming shortly. The principal costs associated with this program include salaries for a project manager and field assistant and monitoring equipment purchases. There is no direct cost to the Authority. For more information contact: Sonya Meek (ext. 253) 11. DON WATERSHED ACCORD KEY ISSUE Signing of the Don Watershed Accord by the Authority. Res. #W36/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority sign the Don Accord. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0115 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 11. DON WATERSHED ACCORD (CONTD.) BACKGROUND In 1992, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) established a Don Watershed Task Force whose mandate was to develop a comprehensive management strategy for regeneration of the Don River Watershed. In May of 1994 the Authority received and endorsed the Task Force's report Fortv Steps to a New Don. The Forty Steps were organized into four sections: Caring for Water, Caring for Nature, Caring for Community and Getting it Done. "Sign a Don Accord, committing your elected council, agency, business, or community group to regenerating the Don" was included as Step 31. The Don Watershed Task Force requested the Authority to sign the Accord. The Accord has been developed and approved by the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. The Accord embodies a commitment to the principles of a healthy, natural environment and has been forwarded to all municipal councils in the Don Watershed, for adoption and support. It is anticipated that this will happen during the month of May to coincide with "Celebrate Your Watersheds! Week". Agencies, community and service groups and private corporations will also be asked to sign the Accord as working partners in protecting and regenerating the Don. Once signed, these individual "Accord's" can then be framed and hung in suitable locations as a reminder to all, of the commitment it represents to regenerating the Don Watershed. The text of the Accord for the Authority would read: DON WATERSHED ACCORD Many people who live in the Don Watershed share a dream: to bring the Don River back to natural beauty and health. The way we choose to treat the Don Watershed is crucial. Individuals, businesses and governments must remedy past environmental problems and forge new strategies to protect and regenerate the watershed for future generations. We recognize that the Don Watershed with its valleys, streams, corridors and headwaters, is a valuable and fragile resource. In order to achieve this dream, we The Chair and members of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) 0116 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 11. DON WATERSHED ACCORD (CONTD.) agree to honour, respect and commit to the three Regeneration Principles for the Don River watershed identified in Fortv Steps to a New Don: Protect what is healthy Regenerate what is degraded Take responsibility for the Don. We will uphold these principles through our everyday actions to assist us in achieving our goal of revitalizing the Don Watershed. WORK TO BE DONE Once all signatures have been obtained the Accord will be placed in the foyer of the Authority's office at 5 Shoreham Drive. For information contact: Adele Freeman (extension 238) 12. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCil -Minutes of Meeting #2/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of the meeting of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Res. #W37/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #2/95, pages F13-F18, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Forty SteDs to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext 238) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 0117 ~ SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 13. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCil -Appointment of Members KEY ISSUE The City of York and the Ministry of Environment and Energy have now appointed their respective representative and alternate to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Res. #W38/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the appointment of the balance of the members to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council to received; THA T these appointments be effective immediately for the period ending November 15, 1997; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority reserve the right to revoke any appointment for any reason prior to the end of the term. CARRIED BACKGROUND The following individuals are recommended for appointment to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council: Regional and Municipal Member: Joe Michevc, City of York Agency and Interest Groups: David Crump, Ministry of Environment and Energy The following individuals were appointed as alternates to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council: Regional and Municipal Alternate: John Court, City of York Agency and Interest Groups: Steve Klose, Ministry of Environment and Energy For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext. 238) 0118 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 14. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE -Minutes of Meetings #1/95 and #2/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #1/95 and #2/95 are provided for information. Res. #W39/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #1/95 and #2/95, pages G 1-G21, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Membership Selection, Reporting Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994, and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94, held October 28, 1994, by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board." These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Gary Wilkins (ext. 211) 15. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY -Steering Committee Appointment KEY ISSUE The formal appointment of shoreline residents, municipal nominees, provincial nominees, Conservation Council of Ontario member and Authority member to the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21, 1995 0119 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 15. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY -Steering Committee Appointment Res. #W40/95 Moved by: Joanna Kidd Seconded by: Maja Prentice THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the appointment of members for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Board nominate a representative and an alternate for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/95, the Authority adopted Resolution #A 71/95 which stated: "THA T the membership selection and reporting procedures for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee be approved; THA T the staff be directed to request The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, The City of Toronto and The City of Scarborough to appoint a councIl member and an alternate to the Steering Committee; THA T staff be directed to request selected federal and provincial agencies to appoint a senior staff person and an alternate for the Steering Committee; THA T staff be directed to invite applications from residents to participate on the Steering Committee with (2) City of Toronto residents and (4) City of Scarborough residents to be selected; THA T staff be authorized to take all other necessary actions to form the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee; To this end, Authority staff has been working with the project partners to establish a Steering Committee for the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan. As described in the ISMP Terms of Reference, the Steering Committee is composed of representatives from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, The City of Toronto, The City of Scarborough, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Ministry of Natural Resources, local residents, and an Authority member. A public information session was held on Thursday, March 23, 1995 and was attended by over 45 residents. Applications to join the Steering Committee were circulated to all interested citizens, and in response, 28 applications were received. A selection committee was struck which included Mr. Brian Denney, Director, Watershed Management Division; Mr. Alan Christie and Ms. Victoria Carley, Authority members. All of the applicants were interviewed on Tuesday, April 11 and Wednesday, April 12. In total, six Steering 0120 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 15. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY (CONTD.) -Steering Committee Appointment Committee members were selected, two representing the City of Toronto and four representing the City of Scarborough. Staff has also received appointments for the Steering Committee from the participating agencies. RATIONALE The ISMP Steering Committee will provide the necessary framework for the Authority and the partner municipalities to develop the plan. The ISMP Steering Committee will be a valuable component of this project by providing direction and approval to the various aspects of the plan. The overalllSMP will support the various policy directions in the Metro Toronto Waterfront Plan, the City of Scarborough waterfront policies, the waterfront policies of the City Plan (City of Toronto) and the Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy (Waterfront Regeneration Trust). DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE Upon Authority approval of the Steering Committee members, Authority staff will convene the inaugural meeting of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will review, approve and initiate the ISMP project. Status reports on the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan and the work of the Steering Committee will be brought before the Authority on a regular basis. For information contact: Gord MacPherson (ext. 246) 16. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY -Steering Committee Members KEY ISSUE Membership approval of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee. Res. #W41 195 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Alan Christie THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the following members be named to the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee; AND FURTHER THAT all residents that applied to be Steering Committee members be officially thanked and kept involved in the development of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARDS #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 0121 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 16. INTEGRATED SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOMMY THOMPSON PARK TO FRENCHMAN'S BAY ICONTD.) -Steering Committee Members BACKGROUND The following individuals are recommended for appointment to the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan Steering Committee: Councillor Ron Moeser, City of Scarborough Councillor Harvey Barron, City of Scarborough (Alternate) Councillor Ken Morrish, Metro Toronto Councillor Brian Ashton, Metro Toronto (Alternate) Councillor Steve Ellis, City of Toronto Councillor Tom Jakobek, City of Toronto (Alternate) Mr. Jim Kelleher, Waterfront Regeneration Trust Ms. Belinda Dusbaba, Resident, City of Toronto Mr. Christopher Blythe, Resident, City of Toronto Mr. Jim Dike, Resident, City of Scarborough Ms. Wendy Paquette, Resident, City of Scarborough Mr. Gary Baldey, Resident, City of Scarborough Ms. Liz Oliver, Resident, City of Scarborough Mr. Glen Harrington, Conservation Council of Ontario Dr. Alan Christie, Authority Member Victoria Carley, Authority Alternate To be determined, Ministry of Natural Resources. For information contact: Gord MacPherson (ext. 246) 0122 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #2/95, APRIL 21,1995 ~ NEW BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD AGENDAS Res. #W42/95 Moved by: Maja Prentice Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the agendas of the Advisory Boards be circulated to the Chairs of the Don Watershed Council and the Humber Watershed Task Force for information. CARRIED TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 11 :05 a.m., April 21, 1995. Lorna Bissell Craig Mather Vice Chair Secretary- Treasurer bb. ~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace 'the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes D123 JUNE 2, 1995 WATER AND RelATED lAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, June 2, 1995. The Chair of the Board, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PRESENT Chair Lois Griffin Members lIa Bossons Victoria Carley Alan Christie Lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Joan King Enrico Pistritto ABSENT Lorna Bissell Maja Prentice Bev Salmon MINUTES Res. #W43/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THAT the minutes of Meeting #2/95, held April 21, 1995, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATION Markham Centre Official Plan Amendments 21 and 22 Staff from the Town of Markham being Jim Baird, Director, Strategic Planning and Policy; Paul Nodwell, Manager, Parks and Open Space Planning; and, Mary-Francis Turner, Commissioner of Planning, gave a presentation on the Markham Centre Master Plan and the associated secondary plans for the Central Area and south Unionville Area Planning Districts. 0124 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. FORMATION OF THE LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ALLIANCE (lOCAA) KEY ISSUE In January of this year, the General Managers and Chief Administrative Officers of the eight Conservation Authorities which border Lake Ontario between the Niagara River and the Trent River, agreed to create an informal alliance to find ways of working together for the protection and regeneration of Lake Ontario and its shoreline. Res. #W44/95 Moved by: Alan Christie Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report on the lake Ontario Conservation Authority Alliance be received; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority support the informal alliance of the eight Conservation Authorities that border Lake Ontario from the Niagara River to the Trent River, to facilitate working with each other, our member municipalities, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the community, to promote an ecosystem approach to the regeneration of lake Ontario and its shoreline. CARRIED BACKGROUND Lake Ontario and its shoreline are major natural resources that, like the watersheds that drain into it, must be managed, protected and regenerated in a comprehensive and integrated manner. An ecosystem approach to the management of these important natural features is required. Conservation Authorities along the north shore of Lake Ontario have played and continue to play an important role in the management, protection and development of the shoreline. However, as funding becomes increasingly difficult to raise, the staff of the eight Conservation Authorities between the Niagara River and the Trent River have expressed concerns about our ability to adequately deal with the many shoreline issues and opportunities that exist today along our waterfronts. As a result of discussions among the eight Authorities, it was agreed that there was merit in forming some form of strategic alliance which would allow us to work together, where appropriate, to achieve our mutual objectives. It allows for opportunities to share information, expertise and the ability to speak with one voice on issues which affect the Lake or its shoreline. It also allows us to work together on projects or studies rather than duplicating them for each Authority's shoreline. Based on the agreement that we should pursue some form of strategic alliance, a set of goals and objectives were developed. The goal and the objectives of LOCAA are: WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0125 ...- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. FORMATION OF THE LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ALLIANCE (lOCAA) (CONTD.) GOAL To promote and implement the ecosystem approach for the regeneration of Lake Ontario and its shoreline. OBJECTIVES (1) Work together with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and our member municipalities to develop integrated shoreline management plans for the entire Lake Ontario waterfront between the Niagara River and the Trent River. This objective can be met by establishing a structure for regular communications among the member Conservation Authorities. Ultimately this could evolve into the development of a coordinated Conservation Authorities strategy which would outline the minimum role of the member Conservation Authorities in waterfront resource management and recreation and provide for an implementation framework that would include priorities and funding that are based on the entire waterfront and not just each member Conservation Authority's section. Opportunities may also emerge for the sharing of expert staff and/or developing joint programs. (2) Assist in the implementation of programs and projects along the waterfront of Lake Ontario. Conservation Authorities have a long, successful history in natural heritage stewardship including activities such as land acquisition, and public and private lands enhancement and restoration. The larger area of coverage that is being proposed by the creation of this alliance will be at a scale that will create new opportunities for acquisition, enhancement and restoration activities through funding and partnerships with national and provincial governments and non government organizations; i.e., Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Great Lakes Clean Up Fund, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. (3) Playa leadership role by acting as one voice on lake wide issues and by promoting regeneration and the ecosystem approach in leading by example. The scale of such an alliance will allow the member Conservation Authorities to influence policies and programs affecting Lake Ontario as well as highlight to others the valuable work of Conservation Authorities. This in turn will enhance the profile and credibility of Conservation Authorities. (4) Identify opportunities to provide a consistent approach for waterfront programs and policies among the member Conservation Authorities. Such a seamless approach will foster the consistency that some funding and program partners prefer, as well it presents a common approach which would be appreciated by municipalities and landowners. 0126 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2.1995 ... .- - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. FORMATION OF THE LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ALLIANCE (lOCAA) (CONTD.) (5) Provide opportunities to deal on a collective basis with issues and opportunities for stewardship initiatives, not only along the waterfront but within the watersheds that drain to the lake. At this stage, the kinds of activities that are envisaged to be undertaken under the auspices of LOCAA, centre around information management, assisting the Ministry of the Environment and Energy in achieving its commitments under the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan, working with the Ministry of Natural Resources in the development of fish management plans and working together on public information and education programs. The opportunity to share expertise and information, plus the opportunity to attract additional sources of funding, which would not have been available on an individual Au.thority basis. will result in certain efficiencies and will make us more effective in delivering programs related to the waterfront. CURRENT ACTIVITIES At this time there are two activities that LOCAA is pursuing. The first IS the creation of an integrated data base which will develop core sets of data that each Authority should have with respect to its waterfront. This allows for the sharing of data and provides a mechanism for accessing this information by the public, other agencies and municipalities. This is particularly important today as we all try to meet the requirements of the new Planning Act. Funding has been made available for this work from the MOEE and funding is also expected from the province through the Provincial Facilitator's Office. A second initiative is a one day seminar promoting an integrated shoreline management approach to the planning and management of our shorelines and promoting the need for an integrated data base by highlighting the information requirements under the new Planning Act. It will also provide an opportunity to showcase some specific shoreline management plans and projects across the LOCAA section of Lake Ontario. For example, one of the presentations will be on Metropolitan Toronto's new Waterfront Plan and new Official Plan. This seminar is set for June 22, 1995 and will be held at the Boulevard Club. All Authority members and the shoreline municipalities will be getting an invitation shortly. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The LOCAA alliance does not suggest nor require funding to flow between Conservation Authorities. It does however provide opportunities to access new sources of funding as well as opportunities to save money through efficiencies that will arise as we find new ways of working together. For information contact: J. Craig Mather, extension 240. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0127 ..- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCil -Minutes of Meeting #4/95 KEY ISSUES The minutes of the meeting of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Res. #W45/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #4/95, pages F29-F36, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Fortv Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman, extension 238. 3. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL - 1995 Work Plan KEY ISSUE Report on the 1995 Work Plan of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, 1995. Res. #W46/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1995 Work Plan for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, pages D129-D149. be received. CARRIED 0128 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCil (CONTD.) -1995 Work Plan BACKGROUND "The Don Watershed Regeneration Council: Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference" adopted by Authority Resolution #A224/94 requires that the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (Don Council) Chair "report on a semi-annual basis on projects and progress; (and that) annual Work Plans will be developed and submitted prior to the end of the first quarter of each year." The Don Watershed Regeneration Council is considered a sub-committee of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. The Authority approved the membership of the Watershed Council at Meeting #12/94 held on January 27, 1995. The first meeting of the Don Council was held on February 9, 1995 and has met monthly since then. Minutes of each Don Council meeting are provided to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board following each Don Council meeting. The Terms of Reference for the Don Council established four working committees including: Community Outreach and Education; Projects and Concept Sites; Heritage, Names, and Trails; and, Watershed Reporting and Monitoring. Each of these committees have met a number of times to consider the development of initial Work Plans to achieve the goals of the Don Council of protection and regeneration of the Don Watershed and, more specifically, to assist: i) the Authority, other agencies, and the public with the implementation of the Don Watershed Task Force's report "Fortv Steps to a New Don"; and ii) in the implementation of the recommendations of the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices: Recommendations for Action" as they pertain to the Don Watershed. The Terms of Reference for each committee are attached with their individual Work Plans. These Work Plans will be subject to revision but are based on an initial assessment of what are priorities and opportunities at this time. A fifth working committee has also been established to consider specific actions that can be taken by the Don Council to address regulation and policy issues at federal, provincial, regional and local levels that are identified specifically in "Fortv Steps to a New Don". It is anticipated that a report from that committee will be forthcoming in the early fall. FINANCIAL DETAilS The funding necessary to initiate the actions identified in the Work Plan is available in Account # 1 1 8- 1 O. In addition, applications have been made through Great Lakes Clean Up and other avenues to provide additional funding and summer staff support. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 238. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0129 -- DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL WORKING COMMITTEES WORK PLANS and TERMS OF REFERENCE May 24, 1995 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitian Toronto and Region Conservation Authority established the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (Don Council) to protect and regenerate the Don Watershed and, more specifically, to assist: i) the Authority, other agencies and the public with the implementation of the Don Watershed Task Force's report, "Fortv Steps to a New Don"; and ii) in the implementation of the Recommendations of the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices: Recommendations for Action" as they pertain to the Don Watershed. The Goals, Membership, Organization and Terms of Reference for the Don Watershed Regeneration Council adopted by Authority Resolution #A224/94 established four working committees including: Community Outreach and Education; Projects and Concept Sites; Heritage, Names, and Trails; and Watershed Reporting and Monitonng. Each of these committees have met 3 times to explore the role the committee canlwill play; to expand on the initial Terms of Reference provided by the Authority and to develop initial Work Plans. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND WORK PLANS: The Terms of Reference and Work Plans have been developed by Don Council members assisted by Authority staff. As more information becomes available these Work Plans will continue to be elaborated and refined to quide the work program, to ensure coordination between the committees and to enlist resources from other sources to achieve the work set out. The following includes the individual Work Plans and Terms of Reference for the: Item Paoe A. Community Outreach and Education Committee B. Watershed Reporting and Monitoring Committee C. Heritage, Trails and Names Committee D. Projects and Concept Sites Committee 0130 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2.1995 - A. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE MANDATE OF THE COMMITTEE 1 . To raise public awareness and understanding of issues and opportunities relative to the protection and regeneration of the Don River Watershed. 2. To assist in building partnerships to share the on-going responsibility for the future health of the Don River Watershed. OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMITTEE To identify and take responsibility for those projects and initiatives among "The Forty Steps to a New Don" which fall within the Committee's mandate, in particular the preparation and dissemination of educational, promotional and stewardship material and programs. Through the above, it is intended to foster broad public support for regeneration of the Don thorough everyday actions and decisions and to encourage the public to "take ownership" of the Regeneration Strategy. TARGET "PUBLICS" In order to achieve the maximum support and educational benefits, the" public" has been divided into the following sub-groups: 1 . Municipal Councils 2. Business and Industry 3. Residents 4. Schools/Youth Groups 5. Community Organizations 6. Rural and Farm Organizations Educational and promotional material will be prepared targeting the various levels of understanding, interest and specific issues, where applicable - e.g. Business and Industry: site development, recycling, pollution management. EDUCATIONAL AND PROMOTIONAL TECHNIQUES The various target groups require different approaches to achieve cooperation and commitment. Suggestions are as follows: 1 . Municipal Councils: . Determine the steps already being implemented; . Commend Councils for these efforts; . Recommend additional actions needed and any assistance that may be available (financial, partnerships) 2. Business and Industry: . Information meetings with "umbrella" groups - Chamber of Commerce, Board of Trade, Business Improvement Areas; WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0131 .... . Brochureslliterature to large industries and office complexes outlining the connections between industrial and commercial activities and the Don, and . Brochures/literature to large industries and office complexes outlining the connections between industrial and commercial activities and the Don, and providing technical information on possible improvements (e.g., storm water management on site, reduction in pavement, management of waste); . Arrangement of partnerships including financial commitment for specific projects. 3. Residents: . Meetings with Ratepayers Associations; . Literature to households on the "steps" applicable to individual properties and occupants (owners and tenants). This could take the form of a series of information bulletins sent out with regular municipal mailings (e.g., water bills); . Neighbourhood meetings with all property owners adjacent to the Don Valley. 4. SchoolslYouth Groups: . Preparation of course material on environmental protection and regeneration with specific reference to the Don; . Presentations to youth groups; . Assistance in developing projects (e.g., clean-up, regeneration, monitoring) for individual groups. 5. Community Orqanizations: (social, environmental, educational, religious) . Presentations on the Strategy and the steps that are applicable; . Dissemination of literature to members; . Arrangement of partnerships. 6. Rural and Farm Orqanizations: . Presentations to rural residents associations; . Information meetings/seminars with Agricultural Federations. WORK PROGRAM The primary mandate of the Committee is to raise awareness of environmental issues and opportunities and to engender responsibility for the future of the Don. The Committee's first responsibility is STEP 40 - To undertake programs to achieve changes in personal lifestyles and government actions that will help protect and regenerate the Don and the larger ecosystems of which it is a part. The priorities for the first year are as follows: 1 . Sionino of the Don Accord The target is 200 signatories which will include government agencies, Municipal Councils, Boards of Education, individual schools and community groups. 0132 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - 2. Don Challenqe . Identify groups to be "Challenged" - schools, service groups, and other community organizations. . Develop "Challenge" programs ranging from site specific projects to long term responsibilities (e.g., monitoring, education). . Coordinate "Challenge" programs with other work program priorities - preparation of educational material, Don Accord, Speakers Bureau. 3. Speakers Bureau To promote the FORTY STEPS, to initiate "Challenges", and to encourage grassroots regeneration groups. . Prepare a slide show; . Prepare a list of speakers to include members of the Don Council, MTRCA staff, Municipal staff, environmental consultants and interested residents. 4. "Celebrate Your Watershed!" Week . Develop ideas for Don activities and assist at the events. 5. Educational Material . Prepare pamphlets, information brochures, etc. on appropriate management of individual properties with emphasis on storm and waste water, pesticides and fertilizers and naturalized planting; . Secure financial sponsors - government agencies, community groups, business and industry. 6. Make the Don a Livmq Part of the Watershed Schools . Develop resource kit for School Boards and individual schools; . Develop and promote projects suitable for adoption by schools e.g., "Yellow Fish Road", "Adopt the Don"; the "Don Festival"; . Explore opportunities for naturalization of school sites, particularly those bordering the valleys. 7. "On The Don" Newsletter . Develop standard topics for the newsletter; . Coordinate the preparation of articles and work with MTRCA on format and publication; . Review and revise mailing list; . Secure financial sponsorship. ~ J> COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION WORKING COMMITTEE -I m ;lQ 1995 WORK PLAN J> z May 2, 1995 0 ;lQ ITEM OBJECTIVE OR TARGET TIMING COUNCIL MEMBERS RESOURCES REQUIRED m INVOLVED ~ -I m Don Watershed Accord 200 signatures by December Municipal by May 15. 1995. Draft letter, Council members to follow-up with 0 95. M.Buchinger June '95. specific groups. ~ Launch business, interest group Z campaign by June 15, 1995. 5 contacts from each council Staff time to produce letters, track, 0 member. signing. 3=: Press Release during Watershed J> Week. Staff time to attend Z meetings etc. J> G') m Staff time to produce Accords. 3=: m Z Don Challenge To encourage agencies. Draft Challenge June 13; Antony Niro Staff time for development, letters. -I businesses, etc to make and other council members to tracking. J> specific commitments to For discussIon at June 29 Don assist in reviaw of challenge 0 < regenerating the Don. Council meeting; and and to tailor it for different Production of an information en target groups. package to go out with or on 0 Finalized for August Don Council request. ;lQ meeting. All council members. -< ~ 0 Launch September 1995 Staff to orchestrate with J> agencies. ;lQ 0 Logo To develop a logo watershed For discussion at Committee on May Margaret Casey Adele Freeman to check on contest ~ W for use on all Don materials, 17. 1995 to generate possible approach used by METRO RAP and CD signage etc. approaches to recommend to Don schools. Ul Council on June 1, 1995 '- Potential costs associated with C Launched as part of the Don professional design. Z m Challenge Sept.95 !'J Speakers Bureau Development of a text and i1st Initial presentation to Don Council Tom Ward, Dennis McKee: MTRCA staff development of ~ (D of speakers to promote on June 29, 1995. Mark Wilson information package (D watershed awareness, production of slides etc. Ul "Forty Steps", Don Accord, and Speakers list developed over Scheduling of speakers. Don Challenge. summer and list of engagements. Identification of opportunities. Trainrng early September. Information package over Summer. 0 ~ W W e ... w ~ ITEM OBJECTIVE OR TARGET TIMING COUNCIL MEMBERS RESOURCES REQUIRED INVOLVED Education: Familiarize Don Council June 3. 1995 Council members to suggest Adele Freeman to arrange. Watershed Tour members with watarshed sites to be visited at May 6, 1995 maeting. Bus, lunch. Education: Address wise managemant for June 1995 initial draft to test in Debra Martin-Downs to reviaw MTRCA Staff ~ . Pamphlets for Residents persons hving adjacent to York Mills area. staff draft. adjacent to Valley lands watarcourses. Layout -i Finalize for September 1995. Don council mambers to m :xl contact service groups to Production X> arrange distribution. Z e School Programs Meke the Don a Living Part of Presentation by Ecowatch - Bill :xl the Watershed's School Clemens on May 17, 1995. m ~ On the Don Newsletter Pubhcation dates: Margaret Buchingar Staff -i m - end of May e - end of August Layout design ~ - end of October Z - early January e - early March :!: Golf Course seminar To identify opportunities for November 1995 Councillor Bill O'Donnall Staff to organize program with a X> Z golf courses. sponsoring club, potentially X> Thornhill. c;) m :!: Municipal Workshop Promote sharing of watershed September 1995 To be assigned Staff assistance m management information. Z -i Full presentation on Forty Steps. X> Watershed Regeneration Council, e committee work. Don Accord, Don < Challenge and the Watershad Report Cii 0 Card. :xl -< Multicultural Develop appropriate materials Identify key indiViduals who will Join CI:I Pilot project and opportunities to involve an the Council as associate mambers 0 X> ethnic community in the and assist In this pilot project. :xl regeneration of the Don. e ~ w - CD U1 c.. C Z m ~ ... CD CD U1 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0135 .2 B. WATERSHED REPORTING AND MONITORING COMMITTEE MANDA TE OF THE COMMITTEE 1 . To publish a Don Report Card every three years to mark and celebrate the progress in the regeneration of the Don Watershed. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE . To utilize the report card or other format to notify a range of audiences of the health of the watershed and regeneration activities within the watershed in a manner which leads to increased public awareness and action directed toward protection and regeneration of the Don. . To assist in the sharing of information on monitoring programs and their improvements. . To track regeneration activities throughout the watershed by government, community groups, etc. . To promote the work and visibility of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. TARGET AUDIENCES While there are many publics, reporting will be considered for presentation at three levels addressing the interests of: . The general public including all watershed residents, and persons carrying out activities within the watershed. . The involved community/activist and political audience. . The agency, scientific and academic public involved in designing, collecting, analysing and maintaining monitoring programs and records. REPORTING FRAMEWORK Reporting on the health of the watershed may be appropriate at different levels including: . Watershed basis; . Subwatershed basis; and . Municipal level. The four categories of StepslActions established in "Forty Steps to a New Don" also provide a potential framework: . Caring for Water . Caring for Nature . Caring for Community . Getting it Done 0136 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 REPORT CARD APPROACH In developing the report card the committee will consider the following: . Use marketing/advertising experts to advise on how to reach target audiences and take a marketing/sales approach to the report card (i.e., we are "selling" the concept of healthy watersheds: we want to effect change); . Use of a public awareness survey to provide a benchmark on public perceptions on watershed issues and watershed awareness; . Include a second set of questions with the public awareness survey - to test proposed "indicators;" and, . Use focus groups ("wise heads") for comments and input. WORK PLAN DEVelOPMENT 1995 April - May Set objectives for each audience Identify indicators per audience Scope out possible formats June 1 - Present proposed audience objectives, indicators and format to Don Regeneration Council as the first "focus group" June (1 st-2nd wk.) - Present above to additional focus groups ("wise heads") such as public, media, marketing advisors, etc. Revise objectives, indicators, and format based on input received Scope out community monitoring opportunities June 29 Report on final objectives, indicators and format to Don Council July - Sept Data collection (including secondary data) Ensure baseline information exists Administer public awareness survey - Obtain video footage, if desired - Select community monitoring focus Oct - Dec Create Report Card - Finalize community monitoring elements 1996 Jan 30 Deadline for completion of content for Report Card Feb - Mar - Production of report card (graphics, printing, etc.) March 30 - Public Release of Report Card April - Launch community-based monitoring process Test and evaluate report card WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0137 -- C. HERITAGE, NAMES AND TRAilS WORKING COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE MANDATE OF THE COMMITTEE To support the work of the Don Wl'Itershed Regeneration Council to protect and regenerate the Don Watershed and specifically to take steps to restore lost human connections with nature and our cultural heritage in the watershed in accordance with The Don Watershed Task Force's report, "Forty Steps to a New Don". To work with the Public Authorities to identify desirable trail linkages within the Don watershed. To work with the Community Outreach and Education Working Committee in the area of raising public awareness in relation to cultural heritage sites trails and safe public access to the watershed. To provide opportunities for the community to become involved in the work of Regeneration Council through the Working Committee. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE To focus on the following steps from" Fortv Steps to a New Don": Step 24 Provide safe pedestrian access into the Don's public natural areas Step 25 Create continuous watershed trails between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Step 28 Honour our cultural heritage throughout the watershed. WORK PROGRAM: The Working Committee formed three subgroups to concentrate on the areas of Heritage, Names and Mapping as follows: The Heritage subgroup Will update the third draft of the Don Watershed Heritage Study, using an approach consistent with municipal recognition of heritage sites, and including new information gathered to date. The work will include adding architectural sites, reviewing contemporary sites, and obtaining additional information on cultural heritage sites and points of interest within the watershed. The Names subgroup will identify a process for involving local communities in nami,ng the various unnamed tributaries of the Don River, and by working with the MTRCA and the various Municipal Authorities. In addition the subgroup will make recommendations on appropriate signage for watershed features. The Map subgroup will prepare an inventory of maps and trail information that is available from various public and private sources. The subgroup will determine the kinds of maps that would be most useful to the public, and develop concept maps for particular areas within the watershed to demonstrate the process of involving the community in preparing such maps and trail guides. It is fully intended that such mapping will make reference to cultural heritage sites and environmentally 0138 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - significant areas within the watershed. This subgroup will also identify desirable trail linkages with particular attention to providing access to project sites within the watershed. Opportunities to obtain corporate sponsorship for the preparation of maps, information pamphlets and signage, and the publishing of the Don Watershed Heritage Study, will be explored by the Working Committee. The Working Committee may set up an Archaeological subgroup once appropriate historical sites and interested participants have been identified. In addition, some interest was expressed in promoting a photo archive for the Don watershed. WORK PLAN DEVelOPMENT: The Work Plan for the committee and for each subgroup will identify some measurable success indicators for the first year of operation. We will identify what we hope to achieve and how we intend to proceed to our target. Some degree of flexibility will be required as the work unfolds and it may be necessary to revise our targets. An important overriding objective is to have as many people in the community involved as possible. Heritaqe Subqroup Work Plan: During the next two to three months, the subgroup will work with the MTRCA Archaeologist, Bob Burgar, to update the Don Watershed Heritage Study for public and municipal review. The approximately 160 "contemporary properties" listed in the 418 sites in the third draft of the study will be reviewed and edited as appropriate. A special section will be added to profile interpretative sites that are open to the public and suitable for school visits. Copies of source documents for individual sites (Appendix B) and other site information (Appendix C) will be searched out and steps will be taken to field check as many sites as possible. Contact will be made with the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) of each municipality and other heritage bodies in the watershed for input to the study. This will begin within two months and continue until the end of November 1995. Specific opportunities for involving the public in providing further input to the Study will be investigated with the Community Outreach and Education Committee. Our goal is to have the Don Watershed Heritage Study updated and ready for publication before the end of 1995. Names Subqroup Work Plan: 1995 May - Obtain firm references for all stream names where possible, i.e., site maps, personal communications, etc. June Additional Research. July Integrate 1991 data into GIS system. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0139 - August - Identify approach to LACAC groups at June 28 meeting. - Develop press release and appropriate mapping to enlist local newspapers regarding naming the unnamed tributaries. Develop with Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). - Broaden consultation to other groups, local municipalities. September Summarize new information. - Prepare new GIS map for broad circulation and for further input. November - Develop signing recommendations in consultation with Trails subgroup. December - Prepare final map for broad scale approval including MNR if required. Trails Subqroup Workplan: 1995 April/May - Collect existing trail maps. June Prepare rough draft trails map for Sherwood/Sunnybrook Park area. July Identify candidate trail maps for inclusion in publication. August - Develop process for producing and funding trail book/maps. -September October - Finalize formats, sponsor, printing distribution arrangements. Initiate next map projects. November Print limited quantities for review, comment, etc. 0 ... ~ HERITAGE. NAMES AND TRAILS SUB-COMMITTEE 0 1995 WORK PLAN ITEM OBJECTIVE OR TARGET TIMING COUNCIL MEMBERS INVOLVED RESOURCES REQUIRED Map Inventory To complete an inventory of maps Initial inventory complete by May Circulate the inventory to other council Don Cross completing initial inventory. available in paper and computer file 1 st., with additions to the data committees for review and comment. Authority staff to archive paper products form. base throughout 1995. for future use. Heritage Report To complete the editing of the Draft review by Bob Burger and Review of final taxt by Community Bob Burgar staff time for review ~ Heritage Report. John Court by June 16th. Outreach for commercial possibilities. Possible data or graphics consultation for marketable product. '-1 :m June 28 meeting with LACAC :JJ representativas. X> Z Public Consultation on To consult with representatives of Meet with LACAC representatives Council presentation on report in October Staff time. 0 the Heritage Report LACAC groups and municipalities. on June 28th. Allow 60 days for Printing costs. :JJ m replies and revise In September. - ~ -I Names of Water Courses To establish names for streams in Process conformed by May 23. Present to Council as part of draft trails Staff time for meetings m consultation with community groups map for Sherwood Park araa in June. 0 and municipalities. Names for pilot map project area MNR consultation on river namas. ~ presented to groups and Submit new stream names to Council by Z municipality in June. August. Municipal input on community names. 0 ~ Revise maps by September. MNR - Geographic Namas Board review of X> Z submission (by Dac. 95) ,X> G) Trails Identification Inventory existing and identify Inventory by May 31 Review trails at June 29th. Council Staff time m ~ proposed trail linkages for pedestrians Classification by June 9 meeting. m In greenspace nodes. Z -I Ensure no duplication with municipal X> 0 efforts. < Cii GreenspacefTrail Map To develop a map for publication and Rough draft by June 14 Review map draft at June 29th. Council Staff time 0 possible sale, identifying natural and meeting. :JJ -< cultural features in greens pace Metro staff and printing time. OJ nodes. 0 Possible Ont. Hydro staff and print time. X> :JJ Ensure no duplication with munrcipal 0 efforts. Printing Costs 'II: to) - CD (11 c.. C Z m ~ ... CD CD (11 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0141 .. D. PROJECTS AND CONCEPT SITES WORKING COMMITTEE DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE MANDATE OF THE COMMITTEE The mandate of Don Watershed Regeneration Council is to put the vision and plan for regeneration, prepared by the Don Watershed Task Force, into action. One of the mechanisms through which the Don Council will create action, is through the work of a Projects and Concept Sites Working Committee. As a subcommittee of the Don Council it is the mandate of this committee to: . Support the municipalities and others in the implementation of the concept sites identified in the report "Forty Steps to a New Don". . Identify new concept sites and support proponents in their implementation. Concept sites are locations in the watershed that provide the opportunity to integrate steps and actions addressing activities in caring for water, nature and community. . Identify and promote the implementation of strategic projects that address major watershed issues. A strategic project can be formed around a site or a group of sites where there is a single issuelimpact that has a profound effect on the watershed. . Work in concert with the staff at municipalities and government agencies to identify and support concept sites and strategic projects. . Ensure that public consultation is an integral component of the committee's work. The Committee will utilize the report" Forty Steps to a New Don" as a guide in their efforts to Protect what IS healthy, Regenerate what is degraded and Take Responsibility for the Don. With respect to the Committee's obligation to implementing the" Forty Steps", the following "Steps" have been identified as being, in whole or in part, the responsibility of the Committee. CARING FOR WATER CARING FOR NATURE 3) Restore a more natural cycling of water In already urbanized areas 13) Id!lntlfy the natural ecosystems and species in the watershed 4) Keep SOil at construction sites out of sewers and streams 15) Naturalize buried and channelized streams 6) Keep industrial and household chemicals out of the Don 16) Improve the Don's stream habitats and connections for fish 7) Reduce the amount of pestiCides and fertilizers entering the Don 17) Protect and regenerate lowland forests, meadows and stream side vegetation 9) Manage contaminated snow like stormwater 18) Protect and regenerate upland forest habitats wherever pOSSible 11) Ensure that rural lands contribute to the Don's health 19) Protect and regenerate wetlands in the watershed 20) DeSignate natural areas throughout the watershed 21 ) Enhance the network of green COrridors that link natural areas, on the tableland as well as In valley and stream corridors 22) Improve the aesthetics of the Don's natural areas A complete list of Steps and actions for which the Committee is responsible is provided in Appendix 1 . 0142 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE Within the breadth of the mandate for the committee, an initial set of objectives have been identified. These objectives fall into three categories that address either the implementation of: A) existing concept sites; B) new concept sites; or C) strategic projects. The objectives vary in scope from those that can be addressed in a few months to those that will take several years to initiate and complete. As these objectives are met more new objectives and detailed work plans will be set. Implementation of Existino Concept Sites . Review and identify the status of existing concept sites - Cum mer's Mill - North York - G. Ross Lord - North York - Harding Park - Richmond Hill Lower Don - Various projects and areas Pomona Mills - Markham Rupert's Pond - Vaughan - Settlers Park - Markham Terraview/Willowfield - Scarborough . Identify and prioritize activities that are required to support the implementation of existing concept sites. - Ensure that public consultation is included in the implementation process . Seek partnerships, funding and in kind contributions for implementation of existing concept sites. . Establish one and three year work plans for supporting the implementation of existing concept sites. Identification and Implementation of Future Concept Sites . Establish criteria and a procedure for identifying future concept sites. Include consultation with staff at municipalities and government agencies as well as the public. . Develop a list of potential concept sites for consideration. . Identify and prioritize activities that are required to support the implementation of new concept sites. . . Establish one and three year work plans for the development of concept plans for future concept sites. Identification and Implementation of Strateoic Projects . Develop a list of strategic projects for consideration. Identify" steps" and actions as well as critical issues in the watershed that can be treated as individual projects. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0143 ..... . Include municipal and agency staff in the identification and implementation of strategic projects. . Provide opportunities for the public to be involved in the implementation of strategic projects. . Seek partnerships, funding and in kind contributions for the implementation of strategic projects. . Establish one and three year work plans for advocating and participating in the implementation of strategic projects. 0 .... ~ ~ DRAFT GENERAL WORK PLAN FOR THE PROJECTS AND CONCEPTS SITES WORKING COMMITTEE Don Watershed Council Don Watershed Council Don Watershed Council Don Watershed Council April 6 May 4 June 1 June 29 Review projects end Review outline of Review outline of ~ Review Projects end concepts terms of committee work for committee work for future concept sites Concepts draft 1 and " -f reference and eXisting concept 3 year work plans m generel work plen sites Review outline of ::I:J committee work for )> stretegic projects Z 0 .... ::I:J m ~ -f m 0 ~ Projects and Concepts Projects and Concepts ProJects and Concepts Projects and Concepts Projects and Concepta Z March 21 April 20 May 25 July 11 .0 June 15 ~ Discuss criteria and Rpvlse terms of . proceoure for ReVise outhne 01 Revise work plans as )> Prepare terms of reference and general "'1 IdentllYlng future Z reference and I commillee work for required end begin ,)> work plan concept sites new concept sites to Implement G) generel work plan m Review stetus of Outline committee and strategic ~ work for 1 and 3 year proJects m eXisting concept sites time frames Z -f DISCUSS process for Compile work )> Identify needs end priorities IdenllfYlng stralegic oulllnes for Exisllng 0 proJects Concept Sites, < Identify preliminary Future Concept (ii Outline commlltee S.tes. and Strategic 0 work tor 1 and 3 year hst 01 strategic ::I:J time frames projects based on the Projects -< Steps and Achons end ~ personal knowledge Prepare 1 and 3 0 year work plan )> Outline commIttee ::I:J ! work for 1 and 3 year 0 lime frames ~ (.oJ - (D U1 c.... C Z m N .... (D (D U1 :E ~ HERITAGE, NAMES AND TRAILS SUB-COMMITTEE ... m 1995 WORK PLAN ::u ITEM OBJECTIVE OR TARGET RESOURCES REQUIRED ~ TIMING COUNCIL MEMBERS INVOLVED :2 C Map Inventory To complete an inventory of maps Initial Inventory complete by May Circulate the inventory to other council Don Cross completing initial inventory. ::u available In paper and computer file 1 st., with addItions to the data committees for review and commant. Authority staff to archive paper products m ~ form. base throughout 1995. for future use. ... m Herltage Report To complete the edIting of the Draft review by Bob Burger and Review of final text by Community Bob Burger staff time for raview C Heritage Report. John Court by June 16th. Outreach for commercial possibilities. Possible data or graphics consultation for ~ marketable product. :2 June 28 meeting with LACAC C representatives. 3: ~ Public Consultation on To consult with representatives of Meet with LACAC representatives Council presentation on report in October Staff time. :2 ~ the Heritage Report LACAC groups and municipalities. on June 28th. Allow 60 days for Printing costs. /;) replies and revise in September. m 3: Names of Water Courses To establish names for streams In Process confirmed by May 23. Present to Council as part of draft trails Staff time for meetings m :2 consultatIon with community groups map for Sherwood Park area in June. ... and municipalities. Names for pilot map project area MNR consultation on river names. ~ presented to groups and Submit new stream names to Council by C < municIpality in June. August. Municipal input on community names. (ii 0 Revise maps by September. MNR - Geographic Names Board review of ::u -< submission (by Dec. 951 ll3 0 Trails Identification Inventory existing and Identify Inventory by May 31 Review trails at June 29th. Council Staff time ~ proposed trail linkages for pedestrians Classification by June 9 meeting. ::u C in greenspace nodes. =It W Ensure no duplication with municipal CD efforts. C1I c.. GreenspacefTrail Map To develop a map for publication and Rough draft by June 14 Review map draft at June 29th. Council Staff tIme C :2 possible sale, identifYing natural and meeting. m cultural features in greens pace Metro staff and printing time. N nodes. -' Possible Ont. Hydro staff and print time. U) Ensure no duplication with mUnicipal U) C1I efforts. Printing Costs C -' ~ C1I c ... Appendix 1: Steps and actions to be addressed by the Projects and Concepts Working Commltlee. ~ en STEP ACTION SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES WATER Step 31 Restore a more natural Initiate stormwater retrofit projects cycling of water in already urbanized areas. Introduce stormwater Best Management Practices In already urbanized areas leg. Parks, open spaces, etc.) and ensure that they are designed to be compatible with existing land uses. ~ .-t Modify existing stormwater management ponds to improve water quality control :m ::0 Use opportunities of municipal infrastructure replacement and maintenance to improve X> Z stormwater quality. For example, replace conventional storm sewer pipes with perforated pipes C that allow storm water to Infiltrate into surrounding soils. ::0 m Plant trees in commercial. industrial. and residential areas, to increase evaporation and infiltration and to ~ -t reduce surface runoff m C As home owners. take actions that Improve infiltration and stormwater cycling at the lot level. Community Outreach ~ Z Disconnect roof leaders from sewers and allow water to flow onto lawns and gardens. Community Outreach C 3: Create naturalized depressions or backyard ponds. Community Outreach X> Z IX> Use hard surfaces sparingly, emphasizing instead permeable ground covers and native trees and Community Outreach C) m shrubs. 3: m Step 4) Keep soil at construction ProvIde training on proper erOSion and sediment controls during construction for all participants in the Z -t sites out of sewers and streams. construction process. Including developers, contractors. consulting engineers and regulatory agencY'staff. Community Outreach X> C Provide demonstration projects and on-site technical support. < en Step 61 Keep industnal and In planning serviCing for new developments, and in retrofitting older areas. incorporate safeguards against Policy 0 ::0 household chemicals out of the spills. -< Don. Policy o:l Require oil grit separators for storm sewers in new industrial/commercial areas, and retrofit with 0 X> this technology in older, high risk areas. ::0 C Step 71 Reduce the amount of Continue to review current pesticide and fertilizer application practices, and find opportunities to reduce or Policy and Community =It W pesticides and fertilizers entering eliminate the chemicals, or substitute alternatives. Outreach to the Don. U1 Encourage professional users such as municipalities, golf courses, and others to regularly review <- their use of pestiCides and fertilizers based on annual use reports documenting the types and Community Outreach C Z amounts of pesticides used and reasons for their use. m !'J ... CD CD U1 ~ -I m STEP ACTION SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES :xl :t:> Step 9) Manage contaminated Design snow disposal sites to control and treat runoff. Z snow like stormwater. e :xl Use impervious pads with peripheral drain system where groundwater infiltration is a concern. m and as a means to collect surface drainage for further treatment. ~ -I m Control surface meltwater runoff using stormwater Best Management PractIces. e Routinely clean up litter at snow disposal sites during spring melt to reduce its dispersal into ~ Z natural areas. e ~ Step 11) Ensure that rural lands Include rural lands in a watershed stewardship program to guide remedial efforts and promote Best :t:> contribute to the Don's health. Management Practices. Z :t:> c;) Prepare and implement remedial plans that are sensitive to the special circumstances of long and m ~ short term farm operations. m Z Promote federal and provincial programs in this area, such as rural conservation clubs, the Great -I :t:> lakes Clean-Up Fund, Ontario Environmental Farm Plan Program of Agriculture Canada. or e Remedial Action Plans. < Cii Use Best Management Practices in remedIal plans, such as: 0 :xl Reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides (see step 71; -< g:J 0 Establishing permanent buffers. or riparian vegetation. between agricultural fields and streams; :t:> :xl Evaluating crop practices on highly erodible land. rotating crops, or considering other agricultural e 'It uses or reforestation. W (D NATURE Ul (.. Step 131 Identify the natural -Identify and map the natural habitats of the Don, such as aquatic, wetland, lowland, and upland, to C Z ecosystems and species in the better understand habitat functions and interrelationships in the watershed. m watershed. !" Describe the size and condition of habitats. and their linkages and relationships to each other. ... CD CD Identify the wild life communities that live in or migrate through those habitats. Ul Monitor changes to natural habitats and species over time. making use of residents' memories as well as ongoing data collection. Attempt to determine the cause of changes that occur. Categorize the form and function of natural habitats in order to establish priorities for protection and regeneration. Encourage naturalist groups including the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and Toronto Field Naturalists. e the Ontario Field Ornithologists. the Ontario Field Herpetologists. and others to continue gathering data on ... the distribution of flora and fauna in Ontario, especIally by watershed. ~ ..., c ... ~ DO STEP ACTION SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES Step 15) Naturalize buried and Identify the locations of buried and channelized streams In the watershed. channelized streams. Use the subwatershed planning process to guide stream regeneration projects and to integrate them with Policy stormwater management retrofit projects. Incorporate naturalization of buried or channelized streams in large redevelopment projects and remedial ~ works programs wherever possible, focusing on functional as well as aesthetic improvements. Policy -I Step 16) Improve the Don's stream Provide diversity of habitats in streams, using logs. boulders, and stream side plantings. In nature, 20 to m ::II:l habitats and connections for fish. 30% of the surface area of streams provide cover for fish, and at least 10 percent of that cover consists J> of logs and other woody material. :2 C Stream side vegetation should include a diversity of native species, with about 50 percent trees and other ::II:l woody plants. m ~ Improve fish passage throughout the Don system, using the Federal Fisheries Act and other mechanisms. Policy -I m C When remedial works are reqUired on existing Instream barrters, incorporate modifications to ~ allow fish passage. :2 C Ensure that no new instream barriers to fish passage are created. 3: J> Use the Community Fisheries Involvement Program and other stewardship programs to educate and :2 J> involve the community in enhancing aquatic habitat. G') m Step 17) Protect and regenerate Encourage the creation of riverine forests, shrub thickets, and grass meadows as habitat for wild life. Policy 3: m lowland forests, meadows, and :2 stream side vegetation. When enhancing lowland habitats, plant only native trees. shrubs. and herbaceous plants that one would -I J> expect to find In local natural ecosystems. C < Step 18) Protect and regenerate Establish a cooperative planting program between municipalities and agencies to enhance existing forested (ij upland forest habitats wherever areas. e ::II:l possible. -< Provide nesting boxes for birds where sUitable trees are not present, In cooperation with schools, ClO residents, naturalists and other groups. e J> Emphasize the role that backyards and school grounds can play in providing forest habitat in urban areas. Community Outreach ::II:l C 'l:t Provide information on the importance of controlling non-native trees such as Norway maples, which seed W into natural areas. to Ul Where appropriate. use public parks as showcases for naturalization programs using native trees and c.. C shrubs. :2 m Step 19) Protect and regenerate Map all existing natural wetlands in the watershed, using eerial photography and fiald surveys. !'J wetlands in the watershed. ... Include small wetlands that do not meet current protection criteria and temporary wetlands that to to provide breeding areas for many amphibians and insects. Ul :E )> -I m STEP ACTION SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES :IJ )> 2 Encourage residents and community groups to become Involved In the creation of wetlands as wild life Community Outreach 0 habitat. Promote the Adopt-A-Pond program as a means of increasing awareness and involvement. :IJ m Emphasize the role backyards and parts of school grounds can play in increasing wetland area on the Community Outreach ~ tableland: long grass and ferns produce humid habitat, and temporary pools of water can provide breeding -I m grounds for amphibians. 0 Identify wetlands and wet areas that can be made more natural in appearance and function. requiring less .~ :2 maintenance. 0 3: Step 20) Designate natural areas Involve naturalist groups, government agencies. schools, universities and colleges, and other interested )> throughout the watershed organizations and individuals in the Identification of candidate sites for designation as significant areas. 2 )> Aid municipalities In developing criteria for designating Locally Significant Areas within the watershed. G') m 3: Develop stewardship programs with individuals or groups to preserve, enhance. or restore nature on public Community Outreach m 2 or private properties, such as streams, wetlands, cOrridors, or woodlots. -I )> Step 21) Enhance the network of Identify all areas that function or could function as linkages between natural areas within the watershed 0 green corridors that link natural and also between the Don and adjacent watersheds. Give attention to extensive provincial lands such as < en areas, on the tableland as well as in the Highway 407 Parkway Belt and hydro corridors, abandoned rail lines, wooded areas, valley and stream 0 valley and stream cOrridors. corridors, and narrow tableland areas between the headwaters of adjacent stream corridors. :IJ -< Provide well vegetated corridors for animal movement within the watershed, with sufficient diversity of llI:I 0 form for feeding. resting, and breeding areas for different species wherever possible. )> :IJ Provide animal crossings across major barriers, such as highways, whenever possible. These may be 0 "" associated with pedestrian and cycle crossings. W - U) Encourage individuals and interest groups to be active in rehabilitating corridors. Community Outreach U1 c.. Step 22) I mprove the aesthetics of Support community native tree and shrub planting projects, ravine clean-ups, and approved stream and C the Don's natural areas. valley regeneration projects. 2 m N Continue summer youth stream and valley clean-up employment programs. Policy . ~ U) Initiate" Adopt-a-Stream" programs for litter clean-up among schools and service clubs throughout the U) watershed. U1 Address the problem of sanitary sewer odours In valley and stream COrridors by fllting vents with charcoal Policy filters, detouring trails, or other means. 0 ~ ~ U) 0150 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. DON VAllEY BRICKWORKS REGENERATION PROJECT KEY ISSUE Approval of the revised Don Valley Brickworks Regeneration Project Plan. Res. #W47/95 Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Don Valley Brickworks Regeneration Master Plan dated May 5, 1995, be approved; THAT Authority staff direct the consultants to finalize Phase 2, Design Development and Phase 3, Contract Documents; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to approach The Canadian Pacific Railways to explore options for potential future use of the railway right-of-way for future parking on site. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Don Valley Brickworks was purchased in 1987. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto accepted the site for management under agreement with the Authority in 1989. The site consists of 16.5 hectares in the valley of the Don River, located west of Bayview Avenue in the Borough of East York. The site contains an assemblage of buildings formerly used by the brick making industry between 1890 and 1990. In 1993, a revised project was adopted for the regeneration of the site. The new plan addressed the important geological, environmental and cultural heritage resources located there while working within budgetary constraints. The project includes the retention and preservation of many of the original buildings, and the development of the site for public use and access through the interpretation of geology, natural environment and cultural heritage resources. In March on 1994, the Province of Ontario announced that it would fund the provincial share of the project, $2,250,000 through jobsOntario. Subsequently, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto approved its $2,250,000 share of the project. The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto is actively soliciting donations to raise the remaining $500,000. During 1994-95, a number of studies have been undertaken to provide the necessary information to refine the scope of the regeneration work and to initiate the restoration of the existing chimney on site. These studies have included Phase I of the Environmental Audit; Heritage Documentation and Analysis; Chimney Restoration; Brick Making Process; and, Artifact Recording. The detailed site planning commenced in February 1995. At meeting #12/94, the Authority adopted Res. #A285/94: "THA T the consulting team led by Oleson Worland Architects be retained to complete the analysis, detailed design, contract drawings and construction supervision for the Don Valley Brickworks Regeneration at a total estimated fee of $ 519,500 plus GST to be awarded in phases subject to successful completion of each phase to the satisfaction of the Authority, with the first phase having a upset fee of approximately $ 135,000 plus GST;" WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0151 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. DON VAllEY BRICKWORKS REGENERATION PROJECT (CONTD.) The consultant team has been guided in their work by the Brickworks Technical Steering Committee. The committee consists of representatives from the Borough of East York; East York LACAC; Ministries of Natural Resources; Environment and Energy; Culture, Tourism and Recreation; Friends of the Valley; The Ontario Historical Society; The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Parks and Culture Department; and, Authority staff. RATIONALE A substantial component of the detailed site planning has been completed. The investigations have resulted in a modified design that builds on the three original themes of regeneration of the site, the geological heritage and the cultural heritage of the site. Specifically the revisions to the plan have addressed: . modification of the quarry wetland complex and placement of the theme gardens to improve their integration, circulation and interpretation opportunities; . revisions to the buildings identified for retention to reflect the findings of the heritage documentation and analysis study; and . site servicing, including the potential provision for future overflow parking on the CPR right- of-way. The revised plan has been presented to the Technical Advisory Committee, The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Brickworks Planning Committee and at a public tour and forum held on April 8, attended by approximately 115 people. The Technical Advisory Committee and the Brickworks Planning Committee have accepted the revised plan in principle and directed that the consultant team prepare final construction drawings and final detailed costing for the final review. The consulting team and staff of the Authority will be holding additional meetings with local interest groups to discuss details of site planting and treatment of the wetlands as well as opportunities for public involvement in restoration activities. To date the Canadian Wildflower Association and The Toronto Garden Club have identified an interest in undertaking restoration activities in the quarry area. A pottery group has identified an interest in utilizing a portion of one of the buildings and have been asked to develop a business case for review. It is anticipated that initial quarry grading, site cleanup and demolition of a number of buildings will be underway during the summer. The specifications are also being drawn up for the regeneration of the chimney. It is anticipated that this work will commence in August of 1995 following Authority approval. A number of issues have been raised with respect to site servicing and the provision of additional parking on site. The 1993 project anticipated that water, telephone and hydro service would require some upgrading, however, did not contemplate the need to provide new service to the site. A broken water supply on Bayview Avenue must be replaced and Authority staff will approach East York to provide the same. Authority staff, in consultation with Metro Parks and Culture staff, will approach CPR to explore the use of the right-of-way for the provision of future parking on site. The site will be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists as well, through the Don and adjacent trail systems. 0152 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. DON VAllEY BRICKWORKS REGENERATION PROJECT (CONTD.) The consultant team has been able to make the revisions to the work plan substantially within the $5 million dollar original budget allocation. It is anticipated that contributions of volunteer labour, plant materials and other services will augment the initial $5 million dollar budget. It is the direction of the Authority staff to ensure that the essential work of site servicing, grading, wetland and stream construction, cleanup, demolition of buildings and building repairs be the first priority for the funds committed. This will provide an attractive and available framework to attract future partners to the site and for the ongoing contribution of volunteers in site regeneration activities. A reduced copy of the plan is attached as page 0153. FINANCIAL DETAilS Funding is available to continue this work as noted in the allocations from jobsOntario, The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Fund raising through the Conservation Foundation is on target. Report prepared by: Adele Freeman, extension 238. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2, 1995 0153 .~ I --- ~ - ~ -- ,.0' IMJI'I./' /all .-..-......... . '''''.11'. '",111P/11f11J "" - &1l!!!L11ltU nwt IMF /If/1lM'" . - auJrUll/Jlr MASTER PLAN .- 0' L '. - DON V ALLE.RI(:K WORKS --- ...........a~...... I,~ n.~~""" --- -. - -- I " - TOTAL P.02 .--- 0154 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 -South Marine Drive and Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Projects, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough KEY ISSUE To continue with environmental monitoring and tree and shrub plantings at the South Marine Drive and Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control sites. Res. #W48/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the 1995 work programs for the South Marine Drive and Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Projects, City of Scarborough. under the "Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996" at a total cost of $80,000, subject to the receipt of provincial funding approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND The South Marine Drive Erosion Control Project was a ten year project which was completed in 1993. The work comprised the construction of shoreline protective works, through lakefilling, as well as partial slope stabilization. The backshore area along the base of the bluffs was regraded to collect surface runoff and groundwater seepage to create a "wetland" environment. Aquatic plantings and native plant species were incorporated to naturalize the area. The Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project commenced in 1988 and is approximately 70% complete. The completion of the shoreline protection works for the easterly 260 metres of the project has been delayed because the necessary agreements have not been obtained from all the benefiting property owners. The projects have incorporated a maintenance access road which will also serve as part of the Metro waterfront trail system. DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE The key components of the 1995 work programs include monitoring, tree and shrub plantings and interim management. Aquatic monitoring activities at both sites will include fisheries survey, benthos, and substrate analysis. Information collected will be documented to assess any changes to the aquatic environment in the vicinity of the projects over the duration of the work. In addition, erosion monitoring of the bluff slope will be carried out to document the change in crest recession so that an assessment can be made on the effectiveness of the erosion control works. Several houses along Guildwood Parkway are situated close to the bluff crest and erosion is monitored on an annual basis to determine long term safety and establish priority should further remedial action be required. The design study for the project identified certain houses which would ultimately be threatened by erosion over the long term, even with the shoreline protective works in place. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0155 ..- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VAllEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -South Marine Drive and Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Projects, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough Monitoring of the shoreline protective works will be carried out to document any structural change and/or impact on the nearshore lake environment. Tree and shrub plantings will be carried out as part of the ongoing program to stabilize the bluff slopes. This work will include bio-engineering techniques to assist in the stabilization process. FINANCIAL DETAilS The total budget to carry out the 1995 work program for the two projects is $80,000. The various components are: South Marine Drive Guildwood Parkway Erosion Erosion Control Control Environmental Monitoring $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Bluff Planting/Bio-engineering $10,000 $20,000 Interim Management $ 5,000 $ 15,000 Total Budgets $30,000 $50,000 Funding is subject to final approval from the Province of Ontario. This work will be carried out under the" Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992- 1996", account #134, set up for South Marine drive Erosion Control Project and #135, set up for the Guildwood Parkway Erosion Control Project. Report prepared by: Nigel Cowey, extension 244. 6. DELEGA TION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HAZARD MANAGEMENT -Ministry of Natural Resources to Conservation Authorities KEY ISSUE On April 19, 1995 correspondence (page 0157-0158) was received from the Minister of Natural Resources advising that conservation authorities will have sole commenting responsibilities for development proposed in areas subject to riverine erosion, slope instability and soil instability. Res. #W49/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Alan Christie THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Minister of Natural Resources delegation to conservation authorities of development review responsibilities in areas subject to riverine erosion, slope instability and soil instability, be received and endorsed; 0156 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. DElEGA TION OF DEVelOPMENT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HAZARD MANAGEMENT -Ministry of Natural Resources to Conservation Authorities AND FURTHER THAT the Authority's watershed municipalities be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1983, conservation authorities were delegated provincial development review responsibilities for riverine flood plain management. In 1988, conservation authorities were similarly delegated provincial development review responsibilities for hazard management along the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River system, including flooding, erosion and dynamic beaches. Effective March 29, 1995, the delegation to conservation authorities of provincial hazard management interests were extended to include development review responsibilities in areas subject to riverine erosion, slope instability and soil instability such as areas with high water tables, organic or peat soils and leda (sensitive marine) clay soils. The MNR continues as lead administrative agency having overall responsibility for hazard management programs and policies. The purpose of this delegation is to recognize current conservation authority expertise and activities and to facilitate streamlining of development approvals. RA TIONAlE Authority staff has evaluated the scope of work included in this new delegation and does not anticipate any additional workload or operating requirements. The Authority has had policies and criteria addressing riverine erosion and slope instability since the adoption of its 1 980 Watershed Plan. Its recent policy update - the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, 1994 - appears consistent with new provincial policy. The Authority's plan input and review activities have addressed erosion and slope instability issues in accordance with Authority programs, policies and criteria. The Authority does not have leda clays within its jurisdiction. Areas of high watertable andlor organic soils are typically associated with wetlands or discharge areas and are generally identified through ESA study initiatives. While this delegation may facilitate streamlining of development approvals, further MNR/CA partnerships are needed to address the streamlining of environmental, ecological and water management interests associated with valleyland and waterfront resources. Until hazard management decisions are fully integrated with environmental, ecological and water management decisions, conflicts, confusion and delays will continue to result. The MNR/CA Memorandum of Agreements (such as for the Don River watershed) target the resolution of this issue; however, a broader provincial delegation would expedite results. In the interim, endorsement of full hazard management interests from the province to conservation authorities is supported and should be endorsed. FINANCIAL DETAilS Implementation of this policy by authorities will continue to be eligible for provincial grant. This supports current MTRCA project initiatives such as the Fill Regulation Extension Project. No increase in operating costs are anticipated. Report prepared by: Renee Jarrett, extension 315. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0157 i'..:..~ . ... --l) , pJ___ ,. Qu".n's Park ~ Ministry of M'OIsto' Ministere des M'OIS1'O I ! : ToconlO. Onla"o Natural Richesses APR 2 I i91:> , M7A lW3 , 416 1314-2301 Resources naturelles '- Ontano C'.:-; .1,.:-i-..,.;.....~"'..:... ]4iQ..: .:...:. ~'..I.u-U..-.' ....'...1~ ~: ....JoJ. ; APR 1 9 1995 ~ 95-01252-MIN ,i '. Mr. William Granger Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive North York, ontario M3N 1S4 Dear Mr. Granger: This letter is with regard to the responsibilities of Conservation Authorities in commenting on development proposals. The Government of ontario is continuing to move forward on reforms promoting greater local involvement in decision- making, streamlining of municipal planning and other approval processes, and imprpved environmental protection. ontario's Conservation Authorities continue to be important partners in this process. In 1983, Conservation Authorities were delegated commenting responsibility on flood plain management matters. This was followed in 1988 by a similar delegation of commenting responsibility for matters related to flooding, erosion, and dynamic beaches along the shorelines of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system. At present, the Ministry and Conservation Authorities continue to independently review and provide input to municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on development matters related to riverine erosion, slope, and soil instability. Although Authorities and the Ministry share similar objectives, this overlap and duplication of efforts have occasionally led to differences in comments which, in turn, have sometimes resulted in confusion, delays and expense for development proponents. As part of th,!2 current Planning Reform initiative, there is an opport~nity to clarify the roles and responsibilities related to these important hazard management issues. . . . 2 015"8 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAG!.MENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 . , - 2 - I "' - ~ --- ~ Through their flood plain, watershed and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River shoreline management planning initiatives, .j Conservation Authorities have made good progress in streamlining approval processes and strengthening provincial-municipal partnerships. By extension, I believe that it would be appropriate to recognize the well-developed expertise and capabilities of Conservation Authorities in the evaluation of riverine erosion, slope and soil instability matters and to formally confirm Conservation Authorities as the lead commenting agency. This would result in further streamlining of approval processes, the promotion of environmentally sound development, and the provision of an economic stimulus for the province. As of March 29, 1995, Conservation Authorities, where they exist, will have sole commenting responsibilities on development proposed in areas subject to riverine erosi~n, - slope instability and soil instability, such as in areas of high water tables, organic or peat soils, and leda, or sensitive marine clay, soils. Implementation of this policy by authorities would continue to be eligible for provincial grant. Where Conservation ~uthorities exist, I have asked Ministry staff to focus the"ir comments on all other matters of direct interest and concern to the Ministry. Where Conservation Authorities do not exist, the Ministry will continue its commenting role on these matters. ..: The Ministry of Natural Resources will continue as lead administrative Ministry having overall Government responsibility for hazard management policies and programs. In this regard, the Ministry will continue to provide leadership, policy direction and advisory assistance to the Conservation Authorities. Your continued participation in the delivery of this important component of the overall provincial hazard management program will serve to strengthen the partnership between the Ministry and the Conservation Authorities. Yours sincerely, '1 ??-/~ ~ - Howard Hampton Minister WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2, 1995 0159 -- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. MNR/MTRCA MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, DON RIVER WATERSHED -Status Report KEY ISSUE Status report and recommendation for extension and further action regarding the MNRIMTRCA Memorandum of Agreement, Don River Watershed. Res. #W50/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be authorized to extend the . MNR/MTRCA Memorandum of Agreement, Don River Watershed, for an additional five year period; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to discuss a comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement to include all watersheds under the jurisdiction of the Authority with the Ministry of Natural Resources Greater Toronto Area District and Huronia District. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #4/94, the Authority authorized the implementation of a pilot project with the Ministry of Natural Resources Greater Toronto Area District intended to streamline planning and permit approvals within the Don watershed (Res. #A 114/94). The Don River watershed was chosen as a result of the Don River Watershed Strategy being undertaken at the same time. Due to delays in finalizing the wording of th~ agreement, the pilot project commenced on September 1, 1994. The project has resulted in the Authority assuming the Ministry's responsibility for commenting on planning and development review applications, including subdivisions, consents, site specific official plan, zoning by-law amendments and site plan control. The Authority also assumes the Ministry's responsibilities for review and issuance of permits and approvals for limited types of works pursuant to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and comments relative to mitigative techniques required under the Federal Fisheries Act. RATIONALE Between September 1, 1994 and April 30, 1995, a total of 209 planning applications have been received within the Don watershed as well as 13 permit applications involving Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and Federal Fisheries Act interests. In most cases, the Authority and Ministry concerns have been similar (the storm water quality control requirements of both agencies on the Don are the same). Authority staff have had 10 include more detailed comments on fisheries habitat mitigation and timing guidelines for in-water works; however, it has not yet been necessary to refer a formal fisheries compensation plan to the Ministry for review and Federal approval. In accordance with the agreement, Authority staff have been providing memoranda to the Ministry where watercourse alterations are involved. Ministry staff have not identified any areas of concern with the staff recommendations in these memos. Authority staff have not identified significant workload or technical problems in implementing this agreement. 0160 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. MNR/MTRCA MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, DON RIVER WATERSHED (CONTD.) -Status Report The feedback received on the Don watershed agreement has been very positive. The development industry and public agencies that are required to deal with both agencies have indicated that the agreement has both streamlined and simplified the approvals process. No complaints or concerns have been received from applicants or approval agencies. Two initiatives currently underway should further promote the streamlining process. The Authority is in the process of finalizing the Don Watershed Fisheries Management Plan (a recommendation of the Don Strategy). Once this plan is approved by the Ministry and Authority, staff will be able to more comprehensively address fisheries issues in accordance with the plan. Fisheries compensation agreements will still be processed by the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The second initiative is being undertaken by the Ministry and involves direct delegation to conservation authorities of approvals for works defined as "Major Works" pursuant to Ministry guidelines regarding the Lakes and River Improvement Act. Under the current agreement, major works must have an approval issued by the Ministry through the Authority. The recent approval of Bill 163 has given the Ministry the ability to delegate approvals and it is understood that Ministry staff are currently drafting a regulation in this regard which will identify MTRCA. as well as other Authorities in the Greater Toronto Area, as approval agencies. Given the success of the one year pilot project. staff is recommending that the Memorandum of Agreement for the Don River Watershed Strategy be extended for a five year period, effective September 1, 1995, with appropriate provisions to modify the agreement in accordance with a Ministry approval of the Don Fisheries Management Plan and pending Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act regulations. . In addition, staff is recommending that we continue to discuss with the Ministry a comprehensive Memorandum of Agreement to include all watersheds within the Authority's jurisdiction. The current agreement has involved liaison with only one area team within the Ministry's District Office. Expansion of a Memorandum of Agreement to cover the entire I\!ITRCA jurisdiction would require agreements with the other three area teams (Durham, Halton/Peel and York North) through the District Manager. As well, the Mono and Adjala area of the Authority is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry's Huronia District. FINANCIAL DETAilS No additional administrative costs are anticipated as a result of the extension of the Don River Watershed Strategy agreement. Staff will review and report on technical, administrative and financial issues arising from discussions on the expansion of the Memorandum of Agreement to other Watersheds. For information contact: Richard Lloyd, extension 281. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0161 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. MARKHAM CENTRE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 21 and 22 -Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed KEY ISSUE Report on the Markham Centre Master Plan and the associated secondary plans for the Central Area and South Unionville Area Planning Districts, Rouge River watershed, Town of Markham. Town staff gave a slide and map presentation, and also answered questions, at .the beginning of the meeting. Res. #W51/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT approval in principle be given to the concept of the Unionville Special Policy Area designation expansion as proposed within the Markham Centre Official Plan Amendments 21 and 22; AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff be authorized to finalize Authority comments related to the Markham Centre Official Plan Amendments. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1992, the Town of Markham commissioned a study of lands known as Markham Centre, generally south of Highway 7, north of the proposed Highway 407 right-of-way, east of Highway 404 and west of McCowan Road for the purpose of developing a Master Plan for a new urban centre (Attachment 1). The intent of the Plan was to provide a wide variety of residential, commercial, recreational, cultural and institutional activities in a compact urban core with lower density development in adjacent neighbourhoods and districts. The Rouge River Valley serves as the centrepiece of the community. The planning process involved a number of consultation charrettes and resulted in the development of a Master Plan based on an approach to community development known as 'New Urbanism', which will achieve a built environment that is diverse in use and population, scaled for the pedestrian, and capable of accommodating the automobile and mass transit. The built environment must have a well defined public realm supported by architecture reflecting the ecology and culture of the supporting region. Additionally, in accordance with the provincial interest to extend the Rouge Park north of Steeles Avenue along the main branch of the Rouge, special provisions were incorporated for lands within the first thirty metres of the regulatory flood plain or stable top of bank; the exception is to allow for roads within this buffer, but not closer than 10 metres from the valley or stream corridor edge. The Markham Centre Master Plan constitutes the basis for Official Plan Amendments 21 and 22. Official Plan Amendment 21 represents the Central Area Planning District which forms the westerly portion of the Master Plan consisting of approximately 368 hectares of land. Official Plan Amendment 22 represents the South Unionville Area Planning District forming the eastern portion of the Master Plan and accounting for approximately 127 hectares of land. 0162 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. MARKHAM CENTRE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 21 and 22 (CONTD.) -Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed These OPA's have been approved by Markham Council and are currently in circulation by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for final review. The framework for the secondary plans was established through the development of the Master Plan. This is a departure from the standard approach to planning at this level which normally defers dealing with issues such as servicing and layout to the subdivision approval stage; rather, the Markham Centre Master Plan attempts to address these issues up-front and delineates a conceptual layout within which development is to take place. The framework for development being proposed in the Central Area and South Unionville Area Planning Districts was based on provincial, regional and municipal policies and related initiatives. These were also reflected in the overall Markham Centre Master Plan. Additionally, a number of studies were undertaken in support of the Markham Centre Master Plan, including but not limited to, transportation, servicing, and the natural environment. Transportation A detailed Markham Centre Study Transportation Assessment was prepared which includes recommendations on the road system required in the Central Area and South Union vi lie communities to service the proposed development. It also confirmed that the communities can support transit and addressed the transit requirements within the road network. This assessment also provides the framework for new roads and crossings reflected in the Markham Centre Master Plan. ServicinQ A Master Servicing Study was completed by the Town of Markham for the 'Future Urban Area' including the Central Area and the South Unionville communities. The study included an assessment of storm water quantity, quality and erosion controls, road crossings of watercourses, management of tributaries and development limits. It concluded that the proposed development within Markham Centre can occur with minimal environmental impact on the Rouge River system and in accordance with the proposed greenway system of the Town's Natural Features Study. Natural Environment The Town of Markham completed a Natural Features Study in March, 1993. A linked greenway system was proposed to improve Markham's environment by protecting and enhancing natural features including valleylands. The Markham Centre Master Plan seeks to maintain and promote these natural corridors. The proposed greenway system of the Master Plan integrates tableland parks with the valley system while ensuring that sensitive natural areas of the valley and significant tableland features are protected, and where required regenerated. A linked trail system is a key component of the greenway system. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 0163 ~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. MARKHAM CENTRE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 21 and 22 (CONTD.) -Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed MTRCA PROGRAM ISSUES The centrepiece of the Markham Centre Master Plan is the Rouge River Valley and its associated tributaries. Through the development of the Master Plan, urban design principles were established for the protection and integration of this important natural resource with the urban community. Through Authority staff's involvement in the development of the Markham Centre Master Plan we noted a number of areas which required further consideration in terms of potential impacts on the Master Plan and individual community plans, including: . the management of a number of tributaries within the study area; . the extension of Special Policy Area designation to certain areas within the study area; . the extent, siting and design of servicing and crossings within the Rouge River valley; and . the review of specific components within the Greenlands Concept Plan as related to the management of the Rouge River and its associated tributaries. Tributarv Manaqement Authority staff have been working with the Town and their technical representatives to resolve a number of outstanding issues related to the management of several tributaries within the Markham Centre lands. Of these, three tributaries within the study area require special consideration and are identified as tributaries 4, 5 and 6 on Attachment 1. Tributary 4 is situated in the centre of the Central Area Planning District, flowing from the south to its confluence with the main Rouge River. This tributary is proposed to be protected through the study area. Authority staff review of the technical information for this tributary noted a discrepancy in the upstream drainage area, basically, a storm water detention facility draining to this tributary has increased the upstream drainage area to approximately 192 hectares at the Highway 407 right-of-way. Additionally, crossings of this tributary need to be accounted for in the updated modelling. This has resulted in the need for further flood plain mapping to the south boundary of the study area prior to finalizing the development limits within the Master Plan. Tributary 5 flows from the west, between the CNR right-of-way and Main Street, Unionville, within the Central Area Planning District. This tributary is proposed to be enclosed at the 125 hectare upstream drainage limit (Main Street, Unionville). Authority staff have undertaken a field inspection to assess this proposal. The tributary appears to be intermittent in nature with an ill-defined channel. Modifications to this tributary would require the approvals of the Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources. Tributary 6 flows from the south within the centre of the South Unionville Planning District. This tributary is proposed to be enclosed at the 125 hectare upstream drainage limit. Authority staff have also looked at this tributary to assess this proposal. The tributary appears to be intermittent with an ill-defined channel. Modifications to this tributary would require the approvals of the 0164 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. MARKHAM CENTRE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 21 and 22 (CONTD.) -Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources. Additional upstream drainage area information related to proposed Highway 407 is also required to confirm the limit of the 125 hectare drainage limit. Policy provisions will need to be incorporated within the individual secondary plans to allow for flexibility in revising the Markham Centre Master Plan should the results of further detailed analysis demonstrate unacceptable impacts associated with the currently proposed management of these tributaries within the study area. Special Policv Area Extension Both the Central Area and South Unionville Planning Districts include Special Policy Areas (SPA) as approved by the municipality, Authority and the province pursuant to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement, 1988. Within the Central Area Planning District, the existing SPA designation applies to lands situated on the south side of Highway 7 from midway between Village Parkway and Sciberras Road to midway between Main Street, Unionville and Kennedy Road. The extension of the SPA limit in this instance is considered a minor adjustment to the existing boundaries given the .availability of more detailed flood plain mapping information for this area. In addition, the Special Policy Area boundary is proposed to be extended to include the Sheridan Nursery lands in the location of the existing greenhouses. Staff has assessed this extension and has carried out a site review and has no objection to this proposal. In the South Unionville Planning District the existing SPA designation applies to lands in the vicinity of Riverbend Road and Campbell Court extending east to McCowan Road. Once again, the extension of the SPA limit in this instance is considered a minor adjustment to the existing boundaries given the availability of more detailed flood plain mapping information for this area. An additional area on the south side of the Rouge River within the Central Area Planning District has been identified for development. These lands are not contiguous to an existing SPA, rather the resultant flooding is due to a backwater effect created by the CNR crossing of the Rouge River. The depths of flooding under a Regional Storm range between approximately 0.2 and 0.4 metres. Further review is needed in this area prior to finalizing comments on the Secondary Plans. Any proposed extension of the SPA boundaries within either of the planning districts entails the approval of the Authority and the province and would necessitate an amendment to the Town's Official Plan. Staff recommend that an approval-in-principle of these SPA extensions be granted. Servicino and Crossinos During the preparation of the Master Servicing Study for Markham Centre a number of issues arose related to valleyland crossings and servicing of the lands. Within the Central Area Planning District there are four proposed crossings of the main Rouge River and six proposed crossings of its tributaries. One proposed crossing of a tributary is proposed for the South Union vi lie Planning District. The number of crossings proposed was determined on the WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2, 1995 0165 .... SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. MARKHAM CENTRE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 21 and 22 (CONTD.) -Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed basis of the Transportation Study and represent the minimum requirements to service traffic flows through the proposed community. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to demonstrate that the crossings can be designed such that impacts to Regional Flow levels are negligible; however, specific recommendations related to the sizing of these structures have not been made. Authority staff recommend that the Secondary Plans include detailed siting and design policies to address this point. The Town encountered difficulties at the confluence of the main Rouge River and the Beaver Creek where the south road requires a broad crossing of the Beaver Creek stream corridor. Given the constraints in this area (Highway 407 right-of-way, broad flood plain) Authority staff are of the opinion that every effort possible has been made to minimize the intrusion of this crossing on the Beaver Creek. This two lane crossing also avoids the need for a six lane crossing of the main Rouge River valley as originally contemplated by the Town. The Master Servicing Study has identified the need for seven storm water management facilities within the Markham Centre lands. The preliminary pond locations are shown on Attachment 1. Given the high densities proposed within the districts and the associated land requirements for community uses, the opportunity to locate these facilities within the valley, provided both technical and environmental criteria are satisfied, was assessed. A siting evaluation demonstrated that these ponds were compatible with MTRCA valleyland policies; however, there may be specific design issues associated with ponds 6 and 7 which may entail a more innovative approach to servicing. The preliminary design of Pond 6 results in the loss of minor system flow to the tributary east of Main Street. This tributary may contain permanent flow and may provide seasonal fish habitat during spring and fall high flows on the main Rouge River. Proposed Pond 7 requires the lowering of the tributary invert to the main Rouge River valley floor. Any proposed modifications to this tributary would be subject to the approval of the Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources. Staff are also concerned with the proximity of the roads surrounding this proposed facility if changes in the size of the pond are required at the detail design stage. The issues of servicing and watercourse crossings will undergo further review at the next design stage, at which point an assessment related to the siting of proposed crossings and servicing will need to demonstrate compliance with the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, 1994. Policy provisions will need to be incorporated within the individual secondary plans to allow for flexibility in revising the Markham Centre Master Plan should the results of further detailed analysis demonstrate unacceptable impacts associated with servicing or crossings. With the exception of Ponds 6 and 7, staff believe the servicing can be accommodated with no adjustment to the Markham Centre Master Plan. 0166 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 8. MARKHAM CENTRE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 21 and 22 (CONTD.) -Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed Greenlands Concept Plan The Markham Centre Master Plan developed a Greenlands Concept Plan which elaborates on the park system and detailed guidelines for the management of lands within the valley to ensure protection of significant and sensitive natural areas, while identifying restoration and recreational opportunities. The Rouge Valley will be managed on the basis of preservation of established natural communities and existing regeneration areas and restoration and enhancement of areas disturbed by agriculture or other uses. Management of all areas will be undertaken as part of a process of naturalization, including preservation of established and regenerating areas, planned introduction of native plants and careful integration of human activity. In certain instances, portions of the valley and stream corridor are proposed for more active recreational uses such as baseball diamonds, soccer pitches and formal gardens. The basis for this is that the lands identified for such uses have limited tree and shrub cover with no indication of natural regeneration underway and are currently used for agricultural cultivation. Another area of special consideration is the existing golf course lands west of Main Street, Unionville, which has been identified as an area suitable for landscape restoration with potential for continued use as an activity area for general public use. The Greenlands Concept Plan is intended to be used in consultation with the Authority to develop plans or programs in valley and stream corridors. All proposals would need to comply with the Town of Markham Natural Features Study and the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. CONCLUSION The Markham Centre Master Plan is a unique planning approach which integrates the development of new communities with the natural resource of the Rouge River and its associated tributaries. It intensifies land use within the study area and requires up-front consideration related to the framework of development and infrastructure. It results in a more urban park setting for this reach of the Rouge River valley. Authority staff are supportive of the Town's efforts and are working to finalize all appropriate details and policy provisions within the secondary plans. The individual secondary plans will need to incorporate an adequate level of flexibility to allow for possible changes to the Master Plan as a result of more detailed technical information. Through preliminary discussions with Town staff, staff believe this can be accommodated. To this end, staff recommend that approval in principle be given to the concept of the Special Policy Area extension and that staff be authorized to finalize comments related to the Markham Centre Official Plan Amendments. Report prepared by: Luch Ognibene, extension 284. :E J> - ~ m :0 J> I ~ o :0 I ~ , ~ c m _ -\c _~. ~I 0 o~p ~~:'--:'~'-'Zf'~~ "s-~t: If! t:!"i- !~-=i ; ~~---;:;';~"---o,"'i~- - ~ .-'..& :/ ~ ,,,,', :. II II ,,_ / ' ~--===F:~DQ;--}-----:--;---- - .:==~. ,.:2:::: 'I': i --, == 0 - =-.~!\~~ '" -25 ha =,:::;:::::-,-:----// ==-==3 ~ffl'.' rTI' '~ .~L'-'_-==--=:; J;~ tl '. \\ 1 ,. ==_.... w~ P _~.;~ . ,-=,... . n f I I ~f:;=-=~...... F~~::--~ : ........ I, -::....- :::. =_ ~ ~---.....I HGHY'" NO' ~ If I IF====; I - <." - --,-~- - - Rouo. J> ~ __.: _ ..;.;.;~~;a;:-=-~=--" , ~ / -=;==---., ~ - ':-- 2 II ~" _ ... I ;;, ,. ." _ . _ _ J, -- - J> , ' I . '/, 20ho'-:=-=1 C,'2h r ", u /,- I ." .=-----, ..... 'I .1 _ _ _ . =r=, - J' . ~~--, ,..J 0 ~ -.' - "----yl' I,' \, -==---~~ : '" J-' _. ,~ - 11- ..f. ,_' . -1,:-' /~,- - r-:;::, -=!:::::'''_~' '_,==_ _-~_ . - ~..,'.~ "', - m =' \',',,/ I . 40 ha=='=' ~f'5\'- ~ I' " lID. "'~r;;;o~ -:=: l ~.. "'-:.. /:' ", ~ \~'^\v::" , .' - I -1~ '/;~b:?~ A-\'/I ~'-~ r '<'j(' -:.,s=: ':-:. - ~ :=======~-==~;:""- "z::; '~ m -r-/ _ .'- ' _~~_/~r ~~~ @ , @,,- c <:=:c::==='=s-- '., ---..~f------ I ---.' 2 I I .~ ___ ~ ~ ,~' - - c: --=- --, ""-- -~ -\ -' - , .~.._ __ ~ ~._ _. ' - -=-- ~- -:-- - '.'. ~ - "'" I "'1 -. ... d< :::::------; ,/ "l ~~-"~'- --' r /1-----... . J> I ~ _ _~ \ '\ -~ 'f --'- _______1-::-.:-1..-:..../ '., - ~ /,,/,'/-/1. .....,~ '- '. ,,,,<;" /r::-Ti' ~ - - i::--=--..J, ;'-,y~' \'\ I 0 = ~ ~ ',___.r-JY;:J r-;;' .....,...-.:~'0.-:-;: -'III ~~~/_I;JII/ :.,.~'" 'r~,' 'ii.J!,.!r.,i.I == ItQ>; ~~;0iY~11 :5 I' <D '\!:' I' .e,' - =-,====' _ ... _,;~ - - - '~,-' ,--:-- --+-::..."7 / ^'~~ --.. ,--- 1'-.' - . '~ (I) ',; ~. ''''/ =_._!I_'.I_"-I_,-=_~~'1" ~- - .\ //.'-.#'>//_-:---'1 I.I.'~' .I.IU" \'" 0 _ _ ..- __ _ ,. l:t=:f____ '''' -- "~,,., :...--J .......... ,. ~ /. i I _, _', , -L-...."..."'<"""':"'."."'=':::!:::!:lt:l..,;......:-:"-...;..:.-f~/,.,{v~-::.- .,~J.,_,\:.....,.~I.. i-!!' ,~.==:=:::::-"--" , I :0 .. 'p ~52 h = ~ 34 na / , -. - ,J~--..:.,..-, -~ I,. ''--'-'uao'.JJ', . - -J- ./~I -. -< _, _.:E ~"",""-'_ a-~~-" uu __.-' :::::..' - :.=/Hi>' --1 ",',.; . ,-,,-,---:aL--J~~",~ ' - - t-:...J1.....c' - <? ,- - - - .. - =-- - .... - / '. ,;~, ' / '" -:::"'_~'" _~ ~__ _' ./;:' c:' _ ~~-=-JI".". -=--:. _ _ ___~I / 71ho ~ .-;:;/":-;, -' ~,.- - . ~/..- ,~.~'", ~. 'OlXl ,..... - .~/ :; ~ ===--'/ ,~_) _~% - I~~ ~"~ ~ I. :;."". _,' _ I " _ ,/ ,:----::-.--:-7. f}>.:;~ /r _ ..-,:'. - ',iI . , '-1~ 96ho "." . I. . '. E~ I 1 J> _ '-~ i I 1_ ~:.;/.' _ . '-- = - l' ,. " :0 __ _" _I ", .",.=-,- - ;jj=.. 1Cf=-1~'~ .II~.. '--;:-;/' f:' 0 \ _;.,; _ ,. "'....~ ~....u.. - --. , 'L . 'U:,,"E """ _:- ..1/1' .1 - I~" .. "'/ ~ i 'l:I: _ . W - U) ~ c... C 2 m ~ ~ U) U) UI LEGEND: f -..::: -..::: ~ Note Base plan preoarec by Malone Given FIGURE 3 =::=J REGIONA, S70RI.' FL::::DO"",N c=J ~::~~.L:E_h9~~,~~~E" Parsons Limited January. 1994 ca OREL/MINAR' oo.,=, Lc:.;nON Actual drainage area limits and pDnd sizes M arkbam Cen Ire S I udy _ __ STOR~l D;:;~tNA3~ AI:;:' =-'t.'I"~A:lV Will be flnal.ze~ at the Cia;: ~lan of , ," _~ '. subdiVISion staae Preliminary Storm Drainage 1 ha STOR.' ::>R"N';;;E ARE" - Areas and Pond Location Plan Scale N T S 0 A A ~ en 'oJ 0168 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #3/95, JUNE 2,1995 - NEW BUSINESS SUMMER EXPERIENCE PROGRAM Staff introduced Mercilyn Baxter and Christina Tenaglia, students employed through the Summer Experience Program working in the Plan Review Department. TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 11 :45 a.m., June 2, 1995. Lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary- Treasurer bb. ~ 'AtJrking Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace 'the metropolitan toronto and - region conservation authority minutes D168 AUGUST 18, 1995 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, August 18, 1995. The Chair of the Board, Lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PRESENT Chair Lois Griffin Members lIa Bossons Victoria Carley Alan Christie Lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Joan King Enrico Pistritto Paul Raina Bev Salmon ABSENT Lorna Bissell Maja Prentice MINUTES Res. #W52/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT the minutes of Meeting #3/95, held June 2, 1995, be approved. CARRIED 0169 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 DElEGATIONS Comfort Livino Housino Coooerative Res. #W53/95 Moved by: lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina That the delegations for the above item be received. CARRIED Mr. Andrew Payton of Robins Appleby and Taub, the solicitor representing Comfort Living Housing Cooperative, spoke to this item. Old Mill Restaurant Res. #W54/95 Moved by: lois Hancy Seconded by: Paul Raina That the delegations for the above item be received. CARRIED Madeleine McDowell, Chair of the Humber Heritage Committee, spoke to the Board on her concerns about the approval of this project. SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES (CURB) PROGRAM - Status Report KEY ISSUE To report on the status of the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0170 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES (CURB) PROGRAM (CONTD.) - Status Report Res. #W55/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report dated August 2, 1995, on the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program be received for information. AMENDMENT Moved by: lIa Bossons Res. #W56/95 Seconded by: Joan King THAT staff be directed to further investigate options to accelerate the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. THE AMENDMENT WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1991 the Authority produced a Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan which identified bacterial pollution sources, estimated their impact on water quality and presented remedial options necessary to improve water quality in the Centreville Creek, Bruce Creek and East Humber River watersheds. The Plan recommended that 30 manure storages be constructed, 31 livestock access sites be fenced, and 122 septic systems be repaired to control bacterial pollution sources in these watersheds. At Meeting #8/91, held on November 29, 1991, the Authority adopted Res. #242/91 which states in part: "THA T THE Authority enter into a five year agreement with the Ministry of Environment to implement the Clean Up Rural Beaches Program to improve water Quality within the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority watersheds;" The Authority is in year 4.5 of the five year Program. Since September 1991, residents in the Bruce Creek and Centreville Creek watersheds have been eligible to apply to the Program. As of April 1995, residents in the East Humber River watershed are also eligible to apply for assistance. Under the CURB Program residents are eligible to receive financial assistance to control livestock access to watercourses, properly dispose of milkhouse washwater from dairy operations, construct manure storages and repair or replace faulty septic systems. The Program focuses on rural watersheds with downstream beaches. - -~_.- .- -- 0171 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES (CURB) PROGRAM (CONTD.) - Status Report To date five septic systems have been replaced and two fencing projects (totalling over 1.3 km of watercourse) have been completed. In addition, two experimental projects have been undertaken in the Town of Caledon. The first is a "vegetated filter strip" which captures contaminated runoff from a beef operation and directs it onto a grassed strip where the vegetation can absorb the available nutrients. This project was constructed in 1993 and is currently being monitored. The second project is a "constructed wetland" which is designed to capture and treat contaminated runoff from a dairy operation. Construction of the wetland is planned for the fall of 1995. Monies received under the CURB Program have also been used to match funding from other agencies such as the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Canada. This has made it possible to complete three fencing projects and a manure storage in areas outside of the CURB watersheds. In addition to project implementation, staff have been promoting water quality awareness in the rural community through attendance at local fairs and meetings, presentations and tours. Educational materials such as a panel display and three-dimensional model have been produced to illustrate water quality issues. Flyers have been circulated to residents in the eligible watersheds to inform them of the Program. News releases and articles featuring successful projects have been highlighted in local newspapers. Based on the success of the CURB Program in Ontario, the ACAO has made a submission to the Province with respect to an expanded CURB Program. FINANCIAL DETAilS The CURB Program is currently funded at a ratio of 75% Ministry of Environment and Energy and 25% MTRCA. Funding for the Program is available in accounts 117-09 and 117-08 respectively. For Information Contact: Ann Marie Weselan (ext. 323) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0172 - -~ - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. OLD Mill RESTAURANT (SANTEK INVESTMENTS lTD.) -Proposed Inn Addition and Restoration of the Historic Mill Ruins -City of Etobicoke KEY ISSUE Implementation of a Liability Reduction Agreement indemnifying the Authority from any claims for flood and erosion damage and loss of life associated with the Old Mill Development. Res. #W57/95 Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the execution of the liability Reduction Agreement. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #3/94 held on April 22, 1994, Resolution #A82/94 was adopted which states in part: "THA T staff comment in the future report on indemnification of the Authority by the proponent from any claims for flood and erosion damage and loss of life associated with the development. " In response to direction received at Authority Meeting #3/94, Staff requested that the firm of Gardner Roberts, Barrister and Solicitors, draft a Liability Reduction Agreement indemnifying the Authority from any actions, suits, claims, demands and proceedings, by the Owner, for flood and erosion damage and loss of life associated with the Old Mill development. The agreement is similar to that used by the Authority regarding golf course development within valley and stream corridors. In addition, the agreement requires that the Owner arrange for public liability and property damage insurance coverage naming the Authority as insured. WORK TO BE DONE On execution of the agreement, the Owner will proceed with his permit application pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158. For information contact: Barry Knox (ext. 268) -- - - ...--.----.----- --- -~- ---'.--~---~..:-----_. on-H. =---- ~~73 7- ---.' WATER AND RELA;ED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY. B.OARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 _ r . _H' .-_ _ _. _' _.' _; ___ = '" SECTiON I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION RELEASE AND INDEMNITY This Release and Indemnity made as of the day of June, 1995. RECITAlS: L WHEREAS in this Release and Indemnity "Authority" means The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and "Owner" means "Santek Investments Inc.". n. AND WHEREAS Owner owns certain lands and premises as more particularly dcscnDcd in Schedule "A" attached hereto (the "Lands"), which lands and premises are susceptible to flooding in a Regional Storm and subject to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region CoDSCIVation Authority Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation as same may exist from time to time (hereinafter called the "Regulation"), and may be subject to Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority programs and policies. m. AND WHEREAS Owner has applied to the Authority for a pcnnit (the "Permitj pwsuant to the Regulation, or is proposing to make certain changes, alterations, improvements or additions (the "Work") to the Lands as described generally in the final plans and specifications for the application for the Pemrlt or the Work; =-:"- ~ ~-.- 'wATER AN-ORELATEO- LAND-MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #~/9-5-,':AU<iUST'-18:'-;9-95 : ~ - - - - - - D1~4 - - -...- --- ~ .... ".-. -;."-- - - . - -- ; -..---- - -- - - - --- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - - - - 2. . IV. AND WHEREAS the Lands and Work may be subject to change and to damage due to natural processes including flooding. erosion and slope instability; V. AND WHEREAS Owner has agreed to enter into this Release and Indemnity. NOW 1HEREFORE in consideration of one ($1.00) dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the Owner. from each of the Authority, the Municipalities, as hereinafter defined, and the Province of Ontario (the "Province"), the Owner covenants, declares, stipulates and agrees with the Authority, the Municipalities and the Province as follows: 1. Owner hereby releases Authority, its member municipalities and the municipalities within each member municipality (all of whom arc hereinafter referred to as "Municipalities") and the Province from any and all actions, suits, claims, demands and proceedings Owner may have against any or all of them as a result of any losses, costs or expenses suffered or incum:d by Owner resulting from any damage, injury or loss to or interference with the Work or the Lands or any improvements, buildings or structures erected thereon, ~n~ by or in any way related to or connected with water flows or precipitation, or the lack thereof including flooding, ._.._._o_-=---=- :04""_ - . __..__ _._____0_ -=- o~_._ __ _.~_ ....~._-_~~ - ---:-----n17~ -: .~_._ . WAl'ER..Ar!IO_RELATED LAND MANAGEME~ ADVISORY B.~4/9S':'AUGUSI 18, -1-995. SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION _ - - 1 - erosion, ice, or nm-off, whether or not such OCCUIrcDce resulted from any act or omission, negligence or in breach of a statutory duty or policy or otherwise of the Authority, the Municipalities or the Province, including; the granting or giving of any consent, approval, license or permit to anyone for the doing of anything. Owner further covenants and agrees not to make any claim or to commence or maintain any action or proceeding against anyone as a result of any such damage, injury, loss or interference by which any claim could arise against the Authority, the Municipalities or the Province or anyone or more of them, for contribution or indemnity under the Neilir~~ Act or otherwise. 2. Owner shall indemnify and hold hannlcss the Authority, the Municipalities and the Province from and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings brought or made by anyone in any way connected with or related to or arising out of the granting of the Permit or the doing of the Work. 3. Owner further agrees that: (a) this Release and Indemnity may be registered against _the title of the Lands; (b) prior to any conveyance, sale or transfer of the Lands or any part thereof to any~, Owner shall cause such transfcrcc or puIChascr to enter into a release and -- - - .~_~_ .... -;;_. _-=-- ~~_~ --.I" __. -- . . .., - -."- - - -- - -: .. -- - --. --' - - - - - - . .. - - - - - . ~ --- . -- - . --: -~. ---wAJ"ERAND RELAT.ED LAND~AN~~EM~T ADYJSQRY ~~A~O..#4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 - -Of7li ------"----- - - -- --- - - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - - 4. - indemnity in the same form and content as herein provided with such changes as may be reasonably required by Authority so that the rights and benefits as herein provided will enure to the Authority. the Municipalities and the Province to the same extent as if the Pun:bascr or Transferee bad executed -this Release and Indemnity in the place and stead of the Owner; (c) Owner shall execute such further and other documents and papers and do and p"lfoan and cause to be done and performed all such further and other acts and things as may be n~cessary or desirable in order to give full effed to this Release and Indemnity and every part of it; (d) all reasonable costs and expenses of the Authority in the preparation, execution and registration of this Release and Indemnity shall be paid by Owner; (e) Owner shall mange for public liability and property damage insurance including personal inimy liability and contractua1liability insurance coverage in an amount of DOt less than $2 million doUars naming the Authority as insured and shall provide proof of such iDsurance upon the commencement of the Work and when requested thereafter, which proof sball be substantially in the form attached as Schedule "B- hereto. - - '. .. -- --= - - "- . -' - - . --' - . .. - - -.:=--- .-.0177 ~ --.- :_--_.~WAT~~fAND RE~TEo-LAND MAiWrnEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4-'95, AUGUs-f18, 1995 - '.. __a - ..--:-:;..-:- '".-. ..'_ ___ . ._, ____ - a_..___ +____-- _ SECTION I.. ITEMS FOR AUT-HORITY CONSIDERATION - - - - -- ~ 4. This Release and Indemnity shall enure to the benefit of the Authority, the Municipalities and the Province together with their members, official representatives, officers, directors, employees and agents and their successors and assigns and be binding upon the Owner and its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Owner bas executed this agreement by its proper officers under seal on the date first above written. SANTEK INVESTMENTS INC. Per: Name: cis nde: and: Name: nde: I have authority to bind the Corporation . WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0178 ----_ ~_ ..... ~._. 4_ .....-...- - -.. -"':..- - -- -- -----:- . -:- - -... - . - - SECTI~.I -IT-EMS ~OR AUTHORI'!" CONSIDERATION .- --- --. -".. .~- -;...-- "- -- -- .- - - - - - - - 6. SCHEDULE" A" DESCRIPTION OF LANDS FIRSTLY: Parcel A-3, Section M-306, in the City of Etobicoke, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as more particularly described in Schedule "B" herein; SECONDL Y: Part of Lots 1 and 2. Concession II, from the Bay, Humber Range, in the City of York, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto designated as Part 1 on Plan 64R-9600. . ._- ~... ---'- -. WATER ANt) i~LnElr LAN~~:~~NA'G~MEril)~~VISORY BOARD- #479?i"UGUS"- ',i 1995 -'- D179 - .- .-- . - ~. . '._. .":h _;.."__ -- - - . . _. ~ - -----"" ---- . . SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - 7. - SCHEDULE "B" CERTIFICATE The following undersigned hereby confirms that it bas arranged for the following insurance: 1. INSURED: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2. KIND OF INSURANCE: Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, including personal injury liability and contractual liability insurance coverage. 3. POUCY NUMBER: 4. AMOUNT: Not less than $2,000,000 for all damages arising out of all bodily injury and property damage regardless of the number of claims arising from the event causing injury or damage. s. PREMIUM PAID TO: 6. EXPIRY DATE: . 7. This insurance policy provides that there will be no change, alteration, cancellation or teImination of the policy prior to the expiry date without giving at least thirty (30) days written notice to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. NAME OF COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL Per: And Per: , - WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0180 - -...- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE -2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke KEY ISSUE Resolution of Authority interests regarding a referral to the Ontario Municipal Board of an official plan amendment and zoning application to permit an 82 unit addition and amenity facilities to the existing building at 2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke on the Humber River Valley south of Finch Avenue. Res. #W58/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Authority staff be directed to advise Comfort living Housing Incorporated, the City of Etobicoke and The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto that the redesigned site plan addresses the concerns of the Authority as related to this property; AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff consult with representatives from the City of Etobicoke regarding the planning process to be followed with respect to these applications and take the appropriate actions to resolve all matters related to the Authority's appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. AMENDMENT Moved by: Joan King Res. #W59/95 Seconded by: lIa Bossons THAT staff prepare a supplementary report to be made available at the August 25, 1995, full Authority meeting, with respect to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's position with respect to the redesigned site plan proposal. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority meeting #12/94, held on January 27, 1995, Res. #A304/94, was approved: "THA T staff refer the approval of official plan and zoning code amendments (File Z-2134), Comfort Living Housing Cooperative Incorporated, 2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke to the Ontario Municipal Board and seek party status; THA T the firm of Gardiner, Roberts be retained to represent the Authority at the hearing; 0181 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE (CONTD.) -2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke THA T staff continue to discuss revisions to the current development applications with the proponent in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing; AND FURTHER THA T staff report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board providing a status update prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. .. The Comfort Living Housing Cooperative is a 1 25 unit, 1 2 storey apartment building sited along the sideslope of the Humber River valley, extending from the top of the valley wall to the bottom of the valley floor and terminating approximately 10 metres from the Regional Storm flood plain. Beyond the limits of the existing building and parking lot area, the southern third of the property is wooded with a watercourse flowing in an easterly direction from Islington Avenue. The entire property, with the exception of a small piece of tableland, is fill regulated pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158, and a permit will pe required from the Executive Committee in order to accommodate this proposal. An earlier report presented at the Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #7/94, January 20, 1995, provides further background information. In an attempt to resolve the issues associated with this development proposal, Comfort Living Housing Cooperative met with staff from Metro Planning and the Authority for the purpose of discussing a redesign which would satisfy both parties. The outcome of those meetings was the development of a preliminary site plan prepared by Cole Sherman & Associates (Drawing 09590- A 1 /May 8, 1995) which the proponent has requested be considered by the Authority. REDESIGNED PROPOSAL The redesigned proposal for the Comfort Living Housing Cooperative has shifted the parking garage extension such that it is now contained within the existing 'built area footprint' as previously defined by Authority staff, with the exception of a twenty foot overhang at the fourth floor only, to provide for a recreation deck. To make up the lost number of units, the overall height of the proposed addition has increased by two additional storeys for a total of 12 storeys (17 storeys at rear). however the overall density of the proposal remains the same. The redesigned proposal does not interfere with the watercourse, slopes or vegetation associated with the southern ravine. Construction access will be limited to those grassed areas on the property which are void of woody vegetation and will be fenced off prior to any activity and monitored frequently to ensure no impacts. The proposed works will require a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158 at which time further details regarding construction access, rehabilitation and sedimentation control will be addressed. Additionally, the proponent is prepared to undertake plantings in areas which are currently grassed, which will result in the enhancement of the habitat and vegetation communities in this area. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0182 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. COMFORT LIVING HOUSING COOPERATIVE (CONTD.) -2745 Islington Avenue, City of Etobicoke MTRCA PROGRAM ISSUES Section 4.2.2 of the Authority's 1994 Valley & Stream Corridor Management Program sets out policies, criteria and implementation procedures which apply to areas of existing development within valley and stream corridors that have not been designated as Special Policy Areas or Two Zone Concept areas. Specifically, subsection (B) notes that major additions are additions to existing buildings or structures that exceed 50% of the total area of the existing building or structure and that these shall not be permitted. The redesigned submission is still considered a major addition. Notwithstanding this, Authority staff had previously advised the proponent that a redesign which contained all development within the existing 'built area footprint' would be a reasonable option, recognizing the existing development pattern on this site and the ongoing nature of the proposal, which began prior to the approval of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. This option was discussed in the report presented at the Water & Related land Management Advisory Board on January 20, 1995. The redesigned site plan addresses our previous concerns and would result in no further valleyland encroachments beyond that which is developed. Metropolitan Toronto appealed the site specific zoning application; however, approved the official plan amendment as it is in compliance with its Official Plan. Based on discussions with Metro staff, this redesigned proposal appears to generally satisfy their outstanding concerns related to this matter. The City of Etobicoke had approved the original applications for this development; however, a desire was expressed by many Councillors to see Comfort Living Housing Cooperative resolve the concerns of the Authority. The proponent has advised that upon the Authority's concurrence with the redesigned site plan they will consult with the City of Etobicoke regarding issues of technical adjustment and the appropriate process and application procedure to follow. CONCLUSION For reasons noted above, staff is of the opinion that the redesigned proposal is acceptable. Further consultation with both Metropolitan Toronto and City of Etobicoke staff will be required to confirm that Regional and local municipal urban design and land use issues have been satisfactorily addressed in the redesigned proposal. Subject to this confirmation, Authority staff will take the appropriate steps to withdraw its appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Report prepared by: luch Ognibene (ext. 284) 0183 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #5/95 and Meeting #6/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #5/95, June 1, 1995 and Meeting #6/95, June 29, 1995, of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Res. #W60/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #5/95 and Meeting #6/95, be received. BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext. 238) 5. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE -Minutes of Meetings #3/95, #4/95 and #5/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #3/95, #4/95 and #5/95 are provided for information. Res. #W61/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Paul Raina THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #3/95, #4/95 and #5/95, as appended, be received. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0184 - . - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.) -Minutes of Meetings #3/95, #4/95 and #5/95 BACKGROUND The Membershio Selection. Reoortina Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related land Management Advisory Board." Copies of the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #3/95, #4/95 and #5/95 are provided. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (ext. 331) 6. BRUCE CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT -Village of Almira, Town of Markham -Rouge River Watershed KEY ISSUE To request the Rouge Park Alliance to endorse and support a project to rehabilitate a degraded stream channel on the Rouge River watershed. Res. #W62/95 Moved by: Joanna Kidd Seconded by: Enrico Pistritto THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Rouge ParI< Alliance be requested to endorse and support a project to rehabilitate a degraded stream channel on the Rouge River in partnership with the Town of Markham, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the landowner and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority contribute $4,000 for the development of alternative rehabilitation design concepts and costings for the project subject to the confirmation of funding from the other partners. CARRIED 0185 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 - - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. BRUCE CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT (CONTD.) -Village of Almira, Town of Markham -Rouge River Watershed BACKGROUND Since the-1960's, Bruce Creek just north of 19th Avenue, in the Village of Almira, has been dammed, creating a 4.5 hectare pond on the leGrice property. The pond provided a combination of open water and wetland habitats which supported a variety of wildlife species, plant communities and a warm water fishery. The pond was also a community amenity providing opportunities for skating and fishing, and aesthetic appeal. The pond was a significant landscape feature for the immediate residential properties and has been identified in the Markham Natural Features Study as a Environmental Protection Area (Valleylandl. Ecological Restoration Areas (Ecological Corridor) and Activity Linkage. The dam and pond also acted as an instream barrier and contributed to a degraded aquatic ecosystem. large barriers, such as this dam and berm, obstruct the migration of fish populations, preventing them from reaching spawning areas and summer and winter refuge. Pooling of water behind a barrier increases the water temperature by increasing the surface area exposed to the sun and by reducing the water velocity. As water temperatures increase, the solubility of oxygen in water decreases, giving rise to lower levels of dissolved oxygen. The build up of sediments in online ponds disrupts the natural channel development downstream and can detrimentally affect the riparian vegetation and the aquatic habitat. In the spring of 1994, the berm at the Almira pond failed and the pond emptied. Since that time, the creek has eroded through the sediments that were previously deposited in the pond, creating a new stream channel. The existing stream has cut down approximately three metres into the pond substrate, at the deepest point, and appears to be actively eroding upstream towards the northern limit of the leG rice property (- 300 metres). The unstable banks are continuously collapsing and the water transports large amounts of sediment downstream. In the fall of 1994, Mr. leG rice, the owner of the property, approached MTRCA and MNR staff to discuss options to restore the site. It was eventually agreed that there may be opportunities to rehabilitate the watercourse to meet the objectives of the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan, and provincial and federal policy while meeting the objectives of the landowner and community. In this regard, MTRCA staff have been working with the Town of Markham. the Ministry of Natural Resources and the landowner to draw up a terms of reference for a study which will result in a number of preliminary design alternatives and associated costing for rehabilitation of the stream. The landowner is also having discussions with the Town of Markham staff concerning the possible severance of his property and, a result of these discussions may be, the public ownership of the valley corridor and the stream rehabilitation site. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0186 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. BRUCE CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT (CONTD.) -Village of Almira, Town of Markham -Rouge River Watershed RATIONALE The failure of the berm on the leG rice property has re-instated the possibility of fish movement through this reach of Bruce Creek. However, the resulting condition of this area raises the following concerns: . sediment transport downstream may damage potential and existing spawning habitat in the short term; . sediment transport will contribute to the existing maintenance problems associated with Toogood Pond; . continuing upstream erosion may extend the damage onto adjacent properties; . the unstable banks pose a hazard to people walking in the area; . there is a loss of community recreational opportunities; . the unvegetated mudflats and eroding watercourse are unsightly. A rehabilitation project for this watercourse reach is consistent with the recommendations of the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan and with provincial and federal objectives and policies for fisheries management. To date, discussions have been focused on the modification or mitigation of the barriers at Toogood Pond, Milne Dam and Bruce's Mill, all on Bruce Creek. However, because the failure of the berm on the leG rice property has resulted in significant environmental and social impacts, this site warrants a high priority for considering rehabilitation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The project has been divided into two phases: Phase I is design and costing; and Phase II is construction. Following approval by the Authority, MTRCA staff will: . forward this report and a terms of reference for Phase I of the rehabilitation project to the Rouge Park Alliance, and request endorsement and support. Provided the Rouge Park Alliance is in support of the project and the Authority's role, the following action will be taken: . continue to co-ordinate the project, working with the Town, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the landowner; . pursue additional funding for Phase II. 0187 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. BRUCE CREEK REHABILITATION PROJECT (CONTD.) -Village of Almira, Town of Markham -Rouge River Watershed FINANCIAL DETAILS Phase I of the project will be tendered at an upset cost of $15,000. The proposed funding strategy is: Rouge Park Alliance $4,000 MTRCA $4,000 Town of Markham $4,000 landowner $3,000 The share from MTRCA will come from the Rouge River Fisheries Management Plan account. It is anticipated that Phase I will be tendered and completed in the fall of this year. Phase II will be initiated in 1996 once funding has been secured. Report Prepared by: Mary Asselstine (ext. 304) 7. AJAX WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN -The Regional Municipality of Durham - Town of Ajax KEY ISSUE To adopt the new strategic Ajax Waterfront Management Plan as prepared by the Town of Ajax in the Regional Municipality of Durham. Res. #W63/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan be endorsed; THAT the Master Plan required under the Waterfront Agreement with the Town of Ajax be amended to incorporate the strategic direction and vision outlined in the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan; THAT the Revised Master Plan provide the basis for subsequent multi-year capital projects for the Durham Waterfront within the jurisdiction of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; AND FURTHER THAT the Town of Ajax, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be so advised. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0188 CARRIED SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. AJAX WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.) -The Regional Municipality of Durham - Town of Ajax BACKGROUND In 1970, the Authority was designated as the implementing agency for the Waterfront Plan for all sectors in which it had jurisdiction except for the central harbour area but including the Town of Ajax waterfront. The goal of the lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program as approved in 1981 is as follows: "To create a handsome waterfront, balanced in its land uses, which will complement adjacent areas, taking cognizance of existing residential development and making accessible, wherever possible, features which warrant public use." The Authority in conjunction with the Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham have prepared a Master Plan for the lands from Duffin's Creek to and including Carruther's Creek. This plan provides for protection of the marsh areas, development of trails, habitat regeneration, parking and washroom facilities, and an interpretive centre and marina. The acquisition of over 3.2 km of shoreline at a general depth of 400' south of lake Driveway has provided the linking of three activity nodes: 1) the Duffin Creek mouth and its marshes, the proposed marina at the foot of Harwood and the beaches and marshes of Carruther's Creek, north of Pickering Beach area. The plans for the Ajax waterfront have been implemented through technical and funding approvals for multi-year projects covering the periods 1972-76, 1977-81, 1982-86, 1987-1991, 1992-94 and 1995. In 1992, the Ajax Waterfront Plan Study was initiated with the purpose of developing a long range strategy to establish a management plan to embody the vision and values of the community through a public participation process and the principles outlined in "Regeneration" by the Royal Commission on The Future of the Toronto Waterfront. In May 1995, the Town of Ajax released the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan (see attached summary). The waterfront vision is illustrated in the Master Plan design which: 1 ) elaborates on the waterfront trail link, education centre/wildlife station and boat launch ramp in the Duffin's Creek node; 2) includes the Harwood Point node with a public building; open space and gardens linked with the opportunity for a public marina; and 3) provides for public use and wetlands protection in the Carruther's Creek area. 0189 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. AJAX WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.) -The Regional Municipality of Durham - Town of Ajax The plan also elaborates on the public use of the more passive and naturalized sections of the waterfront. At its May 15, 1995 meeting, the following resolution was approved: 1 ) That Council receive Report No. 36/95 from the Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation entitled "Waterfront Management Plan - Phase 4, Final Waterfront Management Plan"; 2) That Council endorse, in principle, the Waterfront Management Plan dated May 1995; and 3) That Council direct staff to initiate the process of amending all relevant policies in the Town of Ajax District Plan, Region of Durham Official Plan, and the Town of Ajax Zoning By-law to implement the recommendations of the Waterfront Management Plan, and bring appropriate amendments forward for Council's consideration. Ajax Council is also pursuing amendments to the District Plan and Zoning By-law to implement the Management Plan. At its August 1, 1995 meeting, Council enacted By-Law 88-95: -District Plan Amendment #38 (Ajax Waterfront) and By-law 89-95 Rezoning By-law - Ajax Waterfront. RATIONALE The Ajax Waterfront Management Plan reflects the ecosystem principles put forth by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, community participation and inputs. the direction outlined by the lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program and the Master Plan prepared by the Authority in accordance with the waterfront agreement with the Town of Ajax. This plan also provides the specific direction in modifying the Master Plan and its implementation through subsequent multi- year projects. The plan also recognizes the need to prepare an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan to provide the framework for the implementation of shoreline projects such as the public marina. Staff of the Authority have provided input to the plan and support the direction as consistent with the Authority's objectives and the established waterfront planning principles for the Ajax sector of the waterfront. For the proposed District Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, staff have provided written support. The major shift is for the Harwood Point area from private development (Residential/Commercial) to "Public Use" while maintaining the public marina opportunity. Staff received direction at Executive Committee #6/95 to represent the Authority interests on referrals of parts of the Durham Official Plan and direction to proceed with acquisition discussions which includes the private lands at Harwood Point. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0190 - -, - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. AJAX WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN (CONTD.) -The Regional Municipality of Durham - Town of Ajax DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham should be advised of the Authority's support. Staff will, subsequent to the Authority's support, prepare a Revised Master Plan to reflect the direction outlined in the Ajax Waterfront Management Plan. Staff will also be developing the next multi-year project for the Durham waterfront this fall and will utilize the Revised Master Plan as a basis for the Ajax section. FINANCIAL DETAILS Any financial commitments to implement the plan will be through the multi-year project and annual budget approval. For information contact: larry Field (ext. 243) -::. -.~-:-:-~------ -Z' ~- " - _" ~~_ ... -;:.".- -~- -==:.;....,---:-- _ -- ...".. __ - - .. -' 0191 WATER AND .RELAtED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95: AUGUST 18,1995 - ---- . SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - ., - .." - - . - - --.- - " - - - -- . - - . - . I . f "4- "' TOWN OF AJAX . WATERFRONT MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY 1995 ExECUTIVE SUMMART .. . ~ . " .. .... -. .___. ___ __._~J'__...._. ~_._ -___ ---.--.--- .r_~~.- WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 . 0192 .-. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION -"e ....--.-..- _ -- --- .-- ---------"- 0..J:l:.::: \[.g5:.'J~~ry.~q;~~ G!:U~G!J~i~]~]C~"! If; 5:. ~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , -- The Town of ~ h.s ~drd d strdtcglC: W dtClTlQlt M.wsmalt PI.." mdt IdcntJh~ 10119 tam 9Od1s, oblcctJYC5 dIld d VlSIOI\ fer me wdmTront. The pnmdIY gcwI of th.s PI." IS to CIlSI.R c1wt the wdtafrcnt 1_ dn: dPpropndtcty YSCd ,n Wd'/S Nt.elect the v..lu~ of me CXllIlmun.ty, wh.Ic pn:sawl'J ..nd ~ me W4tcmont from OVCN~ or O\Ie'-d~mcnt. Pol.cxs cmphdSlZe the need to plQtCl:t the CIMlCftIlIClt, '..,fnle ttnlan!l d b..ldna: In lIS potmtldl to save d munlccdl, ~lOIIdl .me! pIOVlncdl rok In tounsm, ~dDOn .."d cccnornlC dcvciopmmt. To ..d11CVC mIS, me PI.." is b..scd 011 ecsystan pnncclcs thdt dSIIlIIIe Nt the wdtefrtlnt .."d lIS surroundin9s dn: d Cl:llIIplec system of mdl1Y ,"~dted elemenlS. The ec:csymm dPPIOdCh to cw,"'"!I dCl%Pn Nt dll dSCcctS of the C1Mronment die ~ted dIld IntcrdCt WIth eddl otha dS p.IIt of d lIIl!Ilc, Cl:llIIplec system. ThIS dPPlOdcn furtha dSSUlIIa mdt In the ~dtJOII . pol/Qa fer the UK of I.nd, the ~.tJonshrps dnd Intadcpcndenc~ bctweocn eccno""c:s, developmenf, do9Y, dIld me C1Mronmenf m\lSf be real!I".nd. 1"hc W drefronr R~madl1on T IUSf 1 culS forw..,d the foIlOWln!I eccsystCIII pnncples dS !Icncrd! !lUidclina Nt dctMtles .."d Idnd uses dlon9 the wdtcrTront be "oWn, !J'ft1'I, uswbk. diwrs1t, apm, ~, aJllh"",,d, i/fori_ MId ~trr~" W^TERFRONT VISION 1"hc re.lllZdDOll of the foIIow,ll!I VISIOn WIll dcnlCYC mlft ,mport.nt gOdls: (1) the wd~t IS d The foremost Issue whtch must be dddrcsscd In the !IdmCllfl!l p!da fer the mon: ccmmun'tY .md IS d fClClls PI.." IS the l.de of c:cmmumtY pnncpla fer dJm::t1l!l fer the munlcp.l.ty; (2) me dn:d pmmn d drvcnc the fucun: of the wdtcmont l."ds. Stanmlll!l from d IWturdl .."d humdn C1Mronment, .me! (3) there ec.sa "\YI dtafront Vision', the principles wdI _ dS d dIl IntnnsIC lint bctwftn me wdtefrtlnt .."d the ...Jue system '9d1nst whidl further wdrdront polices, Town's idenoty . ~ hdS bcccmc Icnown dS "mr opnons .."d opporrunmes will be rud!ed. Such d ~f piIa. defined set of pnncpla docs not pn:scndy - . ~ It dslfdt to .chtcvc my c:cn- 9ew1s. . . . . . . . . i i i Aj.a W.tafront Viaon ~ ; ; i i i The ~ W.rafront IS . dyn.n1C foaJS fer the CCIIImunoty It ~ lis d 9.chcnn!1 p/,<<z. . ~ fer intadC%lon with ClIdt other ! i..,d the IIdturdl G\~wo. dnent. 1l. faa,s pn:scna d 1wrm0lllClUS ~ 1 divasdy of rcac.lriorwI, aJlwdl ..,d educdhONl fdl1a """.en j !~ d S19nk.nt c:cntnbubon tow.ds the Town's itlmttty ~ i. ., identrty wft.d, IS syncnymous wrth ~ ~ty of liIe, i 1 public ~ of _PJ.Y aIibn:, .,d . Cl:llIIlIIUIlIty wft;d, 1 i ~ its IWtur.J dttnbuta. 1 i i i i in. ~t is d Yit.I _ why pcapic \N.c, worIc, ...t i l..,d pI.y in~. 1 i ~ 'TI. W-m- R.,.,-- T.. .. ~ "..-..1..,-., dMir.-l '" rhr ~ ..,.j ..o...r...- <'i ~ I.wlo ........ IN -m share ai Ulor 0...... CP!.U@Uu .. .. . ; :.:_~---:.- "'- -.. .-:.-_. -.:...._- _-.r J. -~ - - - _. - ~- -- . -- -. . . --- .- - - -.. - ..- - . - - .. - _.- - - --_..... . .____a- _ 0193 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST-18,-1995. . ____ .- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - - - .. - -- - --~~---~ - . - _. E:.. :,i ~ :: r:[.g ~ ~ :] ~ 'j ~ '2' ~ 1] ~&OO&"~]Zl]~~ L:" ~ 5:. ~~ . '. ~RPlHl DESIGN fulJy oICI:mIbk . . CD-QperolllYe vcntIR _th ~, ReglCn. FollowtII9 me c:cIkcon .md 1eVIe'N oS b..dground MTRv" SdlooI BoWs, M,n,stry of N..turoll lIliarm..non .ne! _119 publIC ,npur !rem fOQJS Rcsawas, ere. -- 9ftlUP wotsnops, the WoIrafTant ttlIif ccmm.tte'I: wat-cd to dMop ,dc.s .md ccnc:epn rowotrd ~ Duffin M.nft pnx2UClJon 01 . m..stClJ:lI..n for the WoIterTront. . 120m sctb..dt oIS per M.nlSO'y of N..cural From m.s c:cIl..bor.oon, 01 c:cIi<<tJon of dCSl,n ,deds Rescun:e' Wed.nds PoliCY Stdtcmcnt ..Id WoImiront mlllW9Gl'ent pnncplcs wlIS ,enerdted . lClIIe fdocs rtI.ted to Educ.loon Cenm: moly ..Id these '0_ expressed .n three MlISteIP1." be pcm.blc _m.n 120m ,f plO"cn no net loss .n Concepf1. These ~nwl p~ wee rhen -n..nd funcnon tMcen before . lGlCS 01 open pu~11C fcNms to 'lIITler . no motenzed WoItt:r am inpur ~d.di"! me _ praented by rhe pl..m. . alnftnue pl..nnn, PlO9rdm c:cna:nrr..nn, on .re..s With thIS ,nout ,n Iwnd, me wcrlan, ccmm,tte'I: could of humdn ,ntNSIOI'I .. b..mer be.c" eolst shore then wan. towWs . synthCSlS of me ,dtUS .tnd me . lam..! lIC:m to woIter's cd,e oppCSlte G..mett pnx2uClJon 01 . consensus pi." to 4C,ICYe the Town Onve for 'CE sk..ong on b..y YISIa'I 01 me w.miront. Roury P..,. l'he r.",e oI,d_ _th'" rhe pl.m reprcsenred <In intaC,4"!ellble c:cIlecoon 01 ccnCCl:lts wfl'C, could . c.I/IOe wh..f be Judged .tnd me lxsr 01 -:, brought together . I.undl'II9 '.mp dosed to moron7ed adfr WIth .tddioon.l'npIlt to lam the MmerpL.n for the sauaure to support c.lnodhy..k schocl, stor.,e WoIteftcnt YISIa'I. Ths f.wl dCSl9" (Sft lU'3e 61 ) IalWs ha evolved _ the best dements of the d1reoe . plCllIotes educ.loon M1d .poreadoon CI:lllCI';lts The m.ngement IS 01 .eult of further . pMm9 lot ~h,ured to .ta:emmod..te more .8mcment 01 these dements through disamIons wim Ip<<a for Rowy Parle me wcrk."! CCIlIm'tree, Councl, external ~enacs ..Id the public. . pl.ygraund - r~ oIlIaMlla ~m to broider . !'CUp l'he follow.n, dcuds the dcme'lts 01 the FInal . WoItt:r pl..y lIred 01 spl.sh p.m, Wolter tcITCl'Its, M~1.n de,n. slides . da,n link WIth HMS ~ re:ogn~ .w:l 5.coc Po.nt plCllIota aw: Instay . pJ.y lots Me fully ~ . w.reiranr rr..l W WIth Pidcnn, Tr..l . op.ndcd p.lYtl;on budclin, WIth fully .a:essblc . best 10000DOn for bo.t IlIUlICh f.cJity beause wGIv' c,lI/ll]e roams, c.lllteaV mtolurolnt wim . .Iru:Iy publidy owned IWhO .,d posgbk cqwpment Ialt.1s - rcmow:d _ reidentwl ncighbou,j,oods .- poor .m,eca, _ cancans . Iwndshcll - bo.t IlIUl'Ic" stor., RMCZ, wIcs - _, lUitcd . open .. ~ 01 MChtteaur.J me'lt .w:l to Indusm.I .. 4lPlOPNte theme . Town of Pic::lcnn, irNau9.tin9 simil. fdty - . dipped 9fm "listen'"! field. . no formal _0"9 CZlUId be 01 CDoOper_ VCIIT\ft, pambly ., . Fann.li7a ~ UR ddfecnt lite wtth.n P"telr:erm, . auta .10000DOn for c,r!drms' the.~, avic: . Educ:.non CamfiWildWc Sr.hOn .ddrasa plCllIClta lIppm:WbOn of Ntur.l Cl'IYIlOftlllf:nt - . pond . wed.nds, 9'ClIt I.lrcs, Aor. .w:l f..UN . ~cs for dose InterllCtlan -m Wlite' Wlmout . CZlUId Include fisj, f""'tchery inaudin9 into lerlSIt/IIe wctI..nds ..d/or . wculd fc..tIft poona:r cancterY tnhosprr.blc I.I.c cnwonmatt (;l~ ana .' - - . . --..-.. _._~--- - .~-- -~-. - - .... .-:;-__. -=_----:--._ __ ..1" .-- .. --- WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISOR~- BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0194 .. SECTION I -ITEMS FO-R AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - - . - - - .-- -.. - - - - .--. - ~~"'i~::: 7f:..7 ..r:. ~ ] ~ ) ~ 'el ~ ? lAlLU~&'1']~]~'? . - .. - -- ~ .::.:. '.'::' ~c ODen SP'~ 8< G.rdeni ifl9mlicnt: th~ n~ to lIeI:l.I~ th~ proOeny ,n publtc owncnnrp Once th,S IS dCh.cvcd, the omer publ'C ~ ,lIustT.t~, th~ open ~ ~.ng m~ publ,c obrCCDVe c:.Jn proceed ,n .n .pptODn.te omefr.m~ buJd.ng serves rwo funcnOlU. Pnm.m." ,t _th the 1m0000~g~ m.t even cIS ~ pubhc p.,l, - dCCllIImocl.tes .~.s oi publIC <:Dn9~.tlon pl~cIS, ft., HdlWOod Pant represents dIl ,mpOlt.nt CVlC faun'..m, sftercmlloctcul1, ",eIlOIWl g.rdem ."d 1'IISI:lUICE. fta oi ert~ loindsc.Iol"9. 11M.dds to the dpQedl oi th~ focus yet ,n .n non..nlNsrve m.nner. W.ta PI.nt Scocondly, but WIth g~.t suc:cm, m.s openness dlXDIIImod.tes ."d contInUa the c:amdot Imkdge . l!llIUIIClcd flCktY now bcaxna . pant of between th~ aft!. symmi. ontaest VIeWS 'nfO DLmr plOIIIote publ,c .w.reness, Public M.nn. - cduc:.JtlOtl ."d undem."ding . Vdft~ ".rur.lldIl~pe .dds ro divers.ty of A _~r munloo.litY sftould G1p.t.l,ze on such . 9Iftn~ SI!lmftGUlt .ssct . the w.tl!l', -=I there '" few opportIlnloes wind, mon: ~ link l."d WIth T*".n Hill Wdtcr th.n . publ,c mdrln'. It CXlntlnues the ~~cdd~~bH~P~t~~.~ recognIze, ,dentlHes .nd stralgthcns ec.mng uses b th~ c:cmmunlry yer mls ~ .s Shll ~ much . ~.,nrroducnon oi n.rur'h7ed wcodIors fOC1lsel w.tefront .nd people pl.c:c. W,th,n thIS foc:us, . tcbogg.n uUge tow.rds wie slopes lIIdM. . . rr..l connecnons plOlllote bcrrer linlc.ge WIth neghboumoocl . pn::sents . mong ,nter.ctICI'l between I."d -=I W4ter, P'~ Be.dt . CZlnMCtS the ,. _th the Town -=I pmalts .... oncntdtlDn wftic:h .s praently M!lcaed . th.t is, . ~r.tIOl'1 oi P.r.disc PMk _th be.d1 front dCl2SSIng me Town.... the '*; -=I, cruta cohCSM: p..k -. . provtda dIl ilMong demn.aon but promotes . climln.tIOn oi L..tev.ew Blvd c!imln.tes CXlnAia:s daMhes wh.c:h _ pm:lCllllllWreIy pdSSIYf: ,n betwem pedatndn .md vt:l11CJl.r tr.ff;c IWtu~ ,e., sadling ..Ion9 pII!I'S ar ~.lcw.teS, . sm.1I Sl:dle mulD'UR communitY butldin, Wdtdnng the swf ."d gulls, ~ w.tdnng, recogrnza pmcnt .bscncr: oi such . f.dity . abw:Mng bo.l:S a they """'9.te the lw.b:lw, =uId ,ndud~ srn.n CXlIfVG1ICIlal c:ommero.1 ctl:. component . bowling 9lftI'lS dCI:DIIIlllod.te . rKlUtion.l ~r.phlc:.Jlly, such . fdty plaI!I'll'S . ,e.nw!y apporNnIty ..,J"c:h IS .eIccnve oi the bcn.gn 'ntruSlOn in~ the IWtur.ll.ndsuoe. At tlns Mighbourhoocl's .anosphcre Ioc:.Jflon, the.. oi dc.n '* hi! ...... proteer 49- - panel is SIft: oi ensrmg d~dMOo., .Rows the OlIIe'It w_ dC%IOn wn.c:h und_lIna the QdItIOJI.te lIldttl!l' WIthin Wdtcro::lUlW time ~ m.ddf ."d Iuds to I.nd~. .Also, the .me h.Cour spots, dClln9 a dItificwI _ v.;I\ aedtc Ioc.J . pIOtida s1wcmg in winter Iwbrt.t far _ _ dqlWtIC spcaa. More . bo.dw.8r ftts wd wn:n.n dw.acr eI ~, .dds illam.lIOn IS required ~ detannnc the f:llIStII19 to divasty oi lr..l o.~~lOI: c:Iwr<<:r_a oi liner.! dJt ..d rn-f.orc ... inte9r.ted shorcIine m....dlJl!l'tla'lt pJ.n would be <:.mamas M.ush undaT_ pnor to Mry fomwI caadcr.hOr'I eI . -.iN in Older to d__ the nsq:NCtS th.t ..c:h . . ad! pnv.te owncrsh;p is lr~ to public F.cd.ty would POK to _ ..d Jo...,ht: -. alIlad The b.wder public VlSIOI'I ~ by the thIft . Iftb.a to ~ detl!l'tlllncd dwaugh QUleIt clana'll:S ml!l"lbOned .bove stMa _ ... _tw1 CDmmumtY dagn proem ~..d.ng Runnymede's lJl~ ~ --:,..-..... ...-----. ---'. --- - - 0195 '< -.; -WATER-AND RELATED iA~NAG9nEm1)~iSffifF1ffiA-RD#4/95, A0l1U:SI-'18:1995 _.- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION - - I _____ --. -:.--... - - - - " . - - ~.- j:, ,:; i:. :::: ~7:..'7 J.:. =: ) ~ ~ ~ !> G!l <] au ~ III & @ J G:Al !] 0011 r;:. ~ /':. 1j THE NEXT STEP The M~stcrpl." dell!n .s d c:oncepnul <Cdl'ZdCcn at 'me wdrerfrcnr VI!IOI'l ~nd pnnccles. It sen me coul!e --- for me next two dcc.tdes. but to auIy beg,n .ddihon41 stees Me to be r dkcn ImplernenClll5 me ,ndMdu41 elements at mc pi." -U ~ rile C%lI'lnnucd encrr of rile wCJrb,,! committee .,d co-oper~con of me two ComcrvdOcn Aumonces, Obv.ousiy, artdln clancna at me pl~n (ie. W,ldlife SUtlCll, Pmon,,,"! Am Centre) Me Ion! teml pnl!CaS. The sm.illcr ~c, mCft .mmcdwce pl'OtCCtS (ie. RotM'f P~rt, Inte,r.ucd Shoreline M"'~9ernent PI~n) _II be pwsucd fim ."d bcccme incolpor~m2 _mln mc Town' s 5 Y Cdr UOIt.I FCftl2h"! pnxcss. Fol~ mn. det..lcd del!n walr _II be l!:qUlrd fer e.ld, elemenr ~r me dpcropn~~ "",c. For ell_ple, fer me Rotdl'f P.ulc ccnc:cct mlS wril an..l: me precsc sc.k ...d C%lI'lf,9U1~non of me folChncs, me lIIlIClUnt ."d IClc.Icon at p.lr1a,,!, me scun:r: 01 ~p,ul ..,d opcr~Dn9 ccpalSCS ....d tile dct..Icd CIl5I"ftIltl9 walr ncaswry for IC'S constNc:tlOft. . Public ou~ ."d cdu~con sITcuId .Iso foalS on me VISIOn .,d pnnap/a espoused by rillS docwncnr BRMdalln5 me _CD at wtwc dtc W ~tafTant MMW9emcnr PIM! mrt:nds to CCQlIlplisl. wJI f.ditdrc !I<lOd commumatlCll ."d ~dCcr dppm:ldncn. Thrs " me fmt at nwny steps to dtc A...,. W dCafronc at ttmonow. G'lL.i'll!a n WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 0196 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION -- .- ----...- - JI Ii ~ ~ ~I .. 1~,llll 1~lnl' III!II; 0197 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #4/95, AUGUST 18, 1995 - -....- NEW BUSINESS TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 11 :30 a.m., August 18, 1995. lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary- Treasurer pI. ~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace 'the metropolitan toronto and -region conservation authority minutes D198 OCTOBER 6, 1995 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95 The Water and Related land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, October 6, 1995. The Chair of the Board, lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PRESENT Chair lois Griffin Members lIa Bossons Victoria Carley Alan Christie Joanna Kidd Joan King Paul Raina Bev Salmon ABSENT Lorna Bissell lois Hancey Enrico Pistritto Maja Prentice MINUTES Res. #W64/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Paul Raina THAT the minutes of Meeting #4/95, held August 18, 1995, be approved. CARRIED 0199 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 DFLFGA TIONS ThA Municipality of MAtropnlitan Toronto VallAY and ShnrAline RAgAnAration ProjAct 1 gg'-1 ggS -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough RA~ #W6Sf95 Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King That the delegations for the above item be received. CARRIED Mr. Gerard Arbour of 81 Fishleigh Drive, spoke in support of this item, and requested the Authority include 81 and 83 Fishleigh Drive in the recommendation to ensure protection and safety for these properties. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 0200 SEC..TION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough -Final Design Eastern Sector KEY ISSUE Revised final design for the eastern sector of the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project. Res.. #W66/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to proceed with the completion of the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in accordance with the revised design Option C-3; AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff investigate further options to ensure the long term safety and protection of Nos. 1 and 5 Midland Avenue. AMENDMENT Moved by: Joan King Re~ #W67/95 Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THA T Authority staff investigate further options to ensure the long term safety and protection of Nos. 81 and 83 Fishleigh Drive. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED 0201 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 ~FCTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CON~IDERATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough -Final Design Eastern Sector BACKGROUND The Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project was approved under the Class Environmental Assessment process in 1988. Construction on the access road commenced in 1988 and was completed in 1989. Construction of the shoreline protective works began in 1990 and by the end of 1994, a total of 326 metres of armoured revetment had been constructed for a total project cost of $1.88 million. Based on the Metro Waterfront Plan and Regeneration Project and the Scarborough Waterfront Plan, the MTRCA felt it was necessary to review the impact of the works on the Needles Bluffs to develop a balanced approach for completion of the Fishleigh Project. At meeting No. 2/95 held April 21, 1995, the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board adopted RF!~ #W3..OL9.!i: -That staff be directed to proceed with the final phase of the construction of erosion control works, adjacent to Nos. 33-83 Fishleigh Drive, City of Scarborough, under the -Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Project 1992-1996 -, at a total cost in 1995 of $250,000, subject to receipt of provincial funding approval. " A working committee was established in 1994; comprising of representatives from Metropolitan Toronto, City of Scarborough, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, local politicians and various homeowners to review the final details of the easterly termination of the shoreline protection. The consulting firm of W. F. Baird and Associates was retained to carry out the detailed analysis of the + various alternatives developed by the committee. The analysis included an assessment of the impact of the shoreline protection to the Needles bluffs, aesthetics, geomorphology and level of protection. Four major designs were developed of which two designs were further refined. The benefits, costs, and impacts of each design were assessed in detail. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0202 SE~TION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ~ONSIDERATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough -Final Design Eastern Sector The four design options and modifications are: DESIGN OPTION DESCRIPTION Ootion A (Orioinal Desion) Revetment to gullv East of Midland Ave. Modified Option A Submerged breakwater to gully East of Midland Ave. OPtion B Revetment Protection to Midland Ave. Option C-2 large headland at existing terminus of the revetment. Modified Option C-3 Small Revetment at the existing terminus of the revetment. Option D Reinforcement of existing offshore shoal Authority staff reviewed the various options and used the following criteria to assess the options. The preferred final design must be cost effective, provide adequate protection to the existing homes, preserve the maximum extent of the "needles feature" of the bluffs, and be sensitive to the requirements of public access in this area. After an internal review, Authority staff directed the consultants modify Option "C" to fulfil these criteria. Design Option "C-3" reflects a balanced approach to the final design for this segment of shoreline. It provides adequate protection to the remaining houses along Fishleigh Drive and limits acquisition to No. 1 Midland Ave. Based on a detailed geotechnical survey, it is estimated that No.1 Midland will not be endangered for at least a period of sixty years, which provides a respectable time frame for securing this property. The key benefits of Option C-3 include: - it provides the maximum extent possible to preserving the "Needles Bluffs" feature; - is estimated to cost up to $250,000 as compared to $536,000 to complete the works in accordance to the original approved design. The proposed small headland at the end of the existing rubble core provides an appropriate terminus for the shoreline structure. The headland can function as an interpretive viewpoint for the Scarborough Bluffs feature. The headland aesthetically blends into the headland beach feature of Bluffer's Park and could function as a bridge foundation if a fixed link to Bluffer's Park is pursued in the future. At the ISMP Technical Advisory Meeting (#2/95) the various design options were presented to the committee. The ISMP T AC reviewed the process that the Authority used to select the preferred option and developed the following recommendation: 0203 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 SECTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDFRATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough -Final Design Eastern Sector The ISMP Technical Advisory Committee supports the following: "The MTRCA staff recommended design option C-3 be the preferred design for the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project"; and that "acquisition options for No.1 Midland Ave be investigated through the Authority land Acquisition Program; That the ISMP Technical Advisory Committee concurs that the preferred design option, was based on a balanced approach and analysis, consistent with the direction of the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan and current shoreline management principles; And Further that the Option C-3 be carried out in a timely fashion to ensure the necessary works can be carried out in 1995, within the approved budget" The Fishleigh Drive Working Committee met to discuss the various design options. The citizens on the committee supported the continuation of the project in 1995. However, they could not support the preferred design Option C-3 as it does not provide the same level of protection to Nos. 1 and 5 Midland Avenue. A presentation was made to the ISMP Steering Committee at their meeting held on September 14, 1995 and the following recommendation was made: "The Steering Committee concurs that the preferred design Option C-3, was based on a balanced approach and analysis, consistent with the ISMP process and current shoreline management principles; And Further That the Steering Committee recommends that the Authority investigate further extension of the shoreline protection after the ISMP process has been completed. " The preferred final design is based on the recommendations of the Fishleigh Drive Working Committee, the ISMP T AC and the ISMP Steering Committee DETAilS OF WORK TO BE DONE Construction of the eastern sector will commence on approval of the final design and the development of detailed design drawings and pre-construction planning. A 15 metre radius headland will be constructed at the existing easterly end of the revetment. Final shoreline protection will be completed along with the construction of the beach alignment to the base of the bluffs. An underwater shoal will be constructed to enhance fisheries habitat. Staff support the continued monitoring of the effectiveness of Revised Option C-3 and the investigation of further options to ensure the long term safety and protection of Nos. 1 and 5 Midland Avenue. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0204 SECTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT 1992-1996 (CONTD.) -Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario Waterfront, City of Scarborough -Final Design Eastern Sector FINANCIAL DETAILS Difference in costs may be required to implement any recommendations from the investigation of the further options for Nos. 1 and 5 Midland Avenue. Total cost to carry out the work as reported at Meeting #2/95 is $250,000. Funding is available under Account No. 138-03. For information contact: Nigel Cowey (Ext. 244). WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 0205 - -~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION fishleigh map .J/. :;; Q. "' ~ '; iii Q 'i:: .~.... ~ ~ " ..\c " "'I 0 . ~ :! ~ l~= a o 0 p' ! :.:: :j j .! J. \ J &c H; 00. ! ~l '" WIfe 0 1 r~ , " g~ i ! j. ~ <.. J Iii j . . . . ~l i . .... 1 !IE p -,!! 1 i i 1 ~ II i: '\ 1i ~ '\\ o .. ..\ ,'" ~, \, . -' a II !I 'II e .= g ~ i a ~ ~l ." a..... C-: ~ S .ll'ii I ~ ~ ~M ~! }1 h~:~ a: 0 ~ J i-e.: ! ; "'II i: I jllJP ~.-c .., f: . Ii: ~ = S ::!!, ; ~ i'l ij ..~-' C"t~3 1:1 4.8 o a :ta ~ (Jflf -OJ' ~1e. 11- Q"'io:;~ ; t ~ J I ~ III! ;J....,... u::;~ f.: ~~ :;.1; ~ J j t h Jill .:IS:!! ~-'R r~o .rX. ~ . ." 5 ..-~- E ~ v .a ~ -:;,.. .... t!~: _MM.. .!:Ie:! o!-o .r!~Ir:~ ;:;-" - " WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0206 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDFRA TION 2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) -Update on status of ESA 73(McGiII Area) This item was withdrawn from the agenda. 3. CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES (CURB) PROGRAM - Status Report KEY ISSUE To report on the status of the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. Res #W68/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the report, dated September 13, 1995, outlining the status report on the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program be received for information: AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to accelerate the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program by pursuing alternate funding to improve water quality in all rural areas of the Authority's jurisdiction through the creation and implementation of the Metro Rural Clean Water Program. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #4/95, held on August 18, 1995, the Authority adopted RE!~ #1 ~1/~5 which states: "THA T staff be directed to further investigate options to accelerate the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Program. .. Because the CURB Program is focused on certain target watersheds, staff have obtained other funding to implement rural water quality improvement projects throughout its jurisdiction. In 1993 and 1994, the Authority entered into a partnership with Environment Canada to complete water quality demonstration projects within its rural areas. These projects were to demonstrate cost-effective remedial measures as well as increase public awareness of rural water quality issues. Signage was constructed to illustrate the project partners and the sites have been featured on various agricultural tours over the past few years. Table 1 illustrates the types of projects completed over the past five years under the CURB program and as part of the water quality improvement demonstration projects. Also highlighted are associated construction costs and partners. Project costs were shared between private landowners, government agencies (both provincial and federal) and the Authority. In 1995, in partnership with Environment Canada, the Authority created the "Metro Rural Clean Water Program" which provides financial assistance to rural landowners to improve local surface water quality. Eligible items include livestock access restriction from watercourses, manure management, milkhouse washwater disposal systems, septic system repairlreplacement and windbreak and riparian plantings. Six to ten projects are scheduled for completion this year. Projects completed under this program will accelerate the objectives of the CURB Program. 0207 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 - ....-. ~FCTION I - ITEM~ FOR AUTHORITY CON~lnFRATION 3. CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES (CURB) PROGRAM (CONTD.) - Status Report Table 1 Rural Water Quality Remedial Projects and Associated Project Costs Remedial Project Total Construction Partners Cost Septic System Repair/Replacement $25,100 Environment Canada (four systems) Ministry of Environment and Energy (CURB) Private landowners MTRCA Livestock Access Restriction $ 101,100 Environment Canada From Watercourses (2.5 km protected) Agriculture Canada (alternate watering systems, Ministry of Environment fencing, riparian plantings, and Energy (CURB) erosion control) Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association Private landowners MTRCA Manure Management $9,200 Agriculture Canada (one manure storage) Ministry of Environment and Energy (CURB) Private landowners MTRCA Vegetated Filter Strip $7,500 Environment Canada (experimental) Agriculture Canada Ministry of Environment and Energy (CURB) Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Private landowners MTRCA 3-Dimensional Rural Water Quality $7,000 Environment Canada Display Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs MTRCA TOTAL $ 149,900 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 0208 ~ECTION I - ITFM~ FOR AUIHO.RITV CON~lnFRAIlON 3. CLEAN UP RURAL BEACHES (CURB) PROGRAM (CONTD.) - Status Report To further accelerate participation in the CURB, staff have contacted Councillor lIa Bossons to obtain information about a program in Europe which encourages landowners to practice rural water quality management to protect groundwater resources. In discussions with Councillor Bossons, it was found that Authority staff have followed methods similar to those in Europe. Staff conduct personal site visits and issue news releases to encourage residents to participate in the programs. Staff also conduct tours, attend meetings and local fairs and work with local farm organizations and health departments to promote participation. The "farmer-to-farmer" information exchange is encouraged as it has proven to be a very effective way to solicit involvement. Various agencies, interest groups, the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and the Humber River Watershed Task Force has identified rural water quality improvement and public awareness as key issues to be addressed. The CURB and Metro Rural Clean Water Programs address these issues. FINANCIAL DETAILS The administration budget for the CURB Program is currently funded at a ratio of 75% Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) and 25% MTRCA and is available in accounts 117-09 and 117-08, respectively. This funding pays for staff salaries and expenses. The MOEE has also committed up to $80,000 which would be made available to landowners as project grants. Funds for this are available in account 117-10. An additional $50,000 has been committed by Environment Canada for the Metro Rural Clean Water Program to implement remedial measures and promote community awareness of rural water quality issues. Monies for this are available in account 117-59. For Information Contact: Ann Marie Weselan (Ext. 323) 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE -Progress Report: February to September, 1995 KEY ISSUE The Humber Watershed Task Force Progress Report is provided for information. Re~..JtWfi919-5 Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Humber Watershed Task Force Progress Report - February to September, 1995, dated October 6, 1995, (pages 0210-0212, of these minutes) be received. CARRIED 0209 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 SFCTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CON~IDERATION 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.) -Progress Report: February to September, 1995 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE The Mp.mhp.r!':hip !=;p.lp.r:tion, Rp.porting Prnr:p.r1urp.!,: lmrl Tp.rm!': of Rp.fp.rp.nr:p. for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94, held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mlmrllltp. of thp. HlImhp.r Wlltp.r!':hp.r1 Tll!':k Fnrr:p. "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a Quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. n To ensure that the Authority is kept informed on an ongoing basis, in addition to the progress report, all minutes of the formal monthly Task Force meetings are also reported through the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (Ext. 331) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0210 ~ECTION 1- ITFM~ FOR AUTHORITY CON~lnfRATION 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.) -Progress Report: February to September, 1995 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT February to September, 1995 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/95 October 6, 1995 0211 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 - SECTION 1- ITFMS FOR AUTHORITV CONSIDERATION 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.) -Progress Report: February to September, 1995 HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT February to September, 1995 The Humber Watershed Task Force was launched on October 15, 1994, the same day as the Metro Region Conservation Authority celebrated the 40th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. The Humber Watershed drains a total area of 907 square kilometres and is the largest watershed within the jurisdiction of the Metro Region Conservation Authority. Its main tributaries are the West Humber River, East Humber River and Centreville and Black Creeks. The Humber has an unusually large number of kettle lakes in the area of its headwaters. Examples are Lake Wilcox and lake St. George. The Humber Watershed Task Force consists of elected representatives from each of twelve local and three regional municipalities; fifteen citizens residing within the Humber River Watershed; five senior federal and provincial representatives; the Chair of the Authority or designated member; and one representative each from the Metropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Action to Restore a Clean Humber, Black Creek Project, Humber Heritage Committee, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine, Urban Development Institute' and the Soil and Crop Improvement Association. A Humber River Watershed Atlas, Phase I, was released in March, 1995 and contains maps, text and photos detailing the characteristics of the Humber Watershed. The first meeting of the Humber Watershed Task Force was held in February, 1995 and regular meetings have taken place in each month following. The work of the Task Force is divided into five sub-committees and the following briefly summarizes their progress to date: Vi!':inm: F. Prinr.iplp.!,:' A draft of the Humber Watershed Task Force Vision and Principles has been produced based on input from the task force as a whole. These visions and principles will be finalized following public consultation which is expected to begin within the next month. Cu1.t.ural Hp.ritagp.' To date, the Cultural Heritage Sub-Committee has completed a comprehensive inventory of all the recorded heritage resources within the Humber River watershed. These 1,068 heritage properties include below ground archaeological sites and visible historic properties. Each of these resources has been properly recorded, data entered into a data base and a GIS map is being prepared. A report describing these resources has been prepared. Information with respect to cultural features has been collected and is being processed. Programs describing the ethnic diversity of the watershed and recording of the oral traditions of the Humber River are being initiated. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0212 SFCTION 1- ITEM~ FOR AUTHORITY CON~IDFRATlON 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.) -Progress Report: February to September, 1995 Fr.nnnmic.:. The Economic Sub-Committee has drafted the following Vision Statement: "Begin to imagine a watershed in which economic development is marked by the highest regard for the natural and cultural heritage, in the knowledge and belief that conservation, preservation and restoration are the best investments in a sustainable economic future. " The goal of the sub-committee is to determine if by creating a healthy environment, the health of the economy will be enhanced. To this end, the research that has been undertaken includes an assessment of the 'Theories of Watershed Economics; Municipal Economic Development Strategies; The Economics of Water-Taking; and reviews of the Urban Development, Tourism and Recreation, and Resource Use (Aggregates, Forestry and Agriculture) Markets. The first draft of the report, except the recommendation chapter, has been completed and revisions based on committee comments are underway. Natur~1 HFHit~gp.' The Natural Heritage Sub-Committee has outlined four chapters in their report to the Humber Watershed Task Force. The sub-committee is in the process of completing chapters 2 and 3, dealing with Natural Heritage and Watershed Condition, respectively, and have initiated work on the final chapter entitled, 'Toward a Sustainable Watershed'. Several studies have been initiated including the Humber Hydrology; Fisheries Management Plan; Water Ouality/Ouantity and the Framework for Natural Heritage Protection and Regeneration. These studies will provide information for the Committee to complete their report and tools for management of the watershed once the overall strategy is completed. Community I nvn I VI'! ment...and...Eublic....Use.:. This sub-committee is charged with identifying the outdoor recreation and education uses which currently exist in the Humber watershed. This includes municipal, provincial, private as well as Conservation Authority facilities and parks. To date, information has been collected from recreation user groups, municipalities and provincial agencies. Education information is due by the end of September. Charts have been prepared to allow for comparison of municipally-based facilities. Recreation trends data has been collected and will form a significant portion of the chapter dealing with public demand and preferences. Strategy alternatives have been drafted and will be explored more fully for their implications to the Conservation Authority and their municipal partners. Work to be completed over the next few months include the preparation of a community consultation program; research needs and a draft strategy for management of Conservation Authority and other public lands in the Humber river valley. The sub-committees will table their reports to the Task Force at the end of November, 1995. The next six months will see the preparation of the Humber Watershed Strategy which is targeted for publication in the summer of 1996. In addition to developing the Strategy, the Task Force is also aiming toward having the Humber River designated as a Canadian Heritage River. Report Prepared by: Madclyn Webb, extension 331 0213 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 - - SFCTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSInFRATION 5. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Appointment of Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (M.T.R.C.A.) Alternates KEY ISSUE The formal appointment of Ms. lois Hancey and Mr. Craig Mather as the M.T.R.C.A. alternates to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. RA~ #W70/95 Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Ms. Lois Hancey and Mr. Craig Mather be formally appointed as alternates to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Don Watershed Regeneration Council. CARRIED BACKGROUND In January of 1995, recommendations were made with respect to the appointments of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council. Subsequently, Mr. Bill Granger, Chair of the Authority, was appointed by the Authority as its representative. It is recommended at this time, that Ms. Lois Hancey, Vice-Chair, and Mr. Craig Mather, Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority be appointed as Mr. Granger's alternates. Mr. Mather currently attends these meetings whenever possible. The meeting schedule for the full Don Council has also been reduced to a bi-monthly schedule to enable greater attention to matters at the committee level, so there will be little or no increase in his work load. For information contact: Adele Freeman (Ext. 238) 6. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Semi-Annual Report Key Issue The Don Watershed Regeneration Council Semi-Annual Report is provided for information. RA~ #W71/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Semi-Annual report of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, dated September, 1995, (pages 0215-0216 of these minutes) be received; AND FURTHER THAT copies of the report be forwarded to the Don Watershed regional and local municipalities and those agencies and interest groups who have appointed members to the Don Council for their information. CARRIED . WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0214 ~ECTION 1- ITEM~ FOR AUIHQRITY CON~IDFRATION 6. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL (CONTD.) -Semi-Annual Report Background The Don Watershed Regeneration Council was formed in 1995 to protect and regenerate the Don watershed and, more specifically, to assist: i) the Authority, other agencies, and the public with the implementation of the Don Watershed Task Force's report, "Forty Steps to a New Don"; and ii) in the implementation of the Recommendations of the Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan contained in "Clean Waters, Clear Choices: Recommendations for Action" as they pertain to the Don watershed. The Don Watershed Council is considered a subcommittee of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. The Chair of the Watershed Council is required to report on a semi-annual basis on projects and progress. Annual work plans are required prior to the end of the first quarter of each year. In June of 1995, the first work plan of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council was submitted. The report is the first annual report of the watershed council. It is recommended that it be received and circulated to the Authority's member municipalities and to all agencies and groups who have appointed members to the watershed council. The Report will be tabled at Meeting #8/95 scheduled for September 28, 1995 and will be available at the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board meeting October 6, 1995. For information contact: Adele Freeman (Ext. 238) -- 0215 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 SECTION 1- ITFMS FOFtAlJTIfORITY CONSIDERATION 6. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL CCONTD.) -Semi-Annual Report Don Watershed Regeneration Council Semi-Annual Report #1, September, 1995 Prepared by Mark Wilson Chair and submitted to the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board The Don Council has initiated a number of projects to raise the awareness of residents and others, regarding the needs and opportunities within the watershed and to promote its regeneration. Don Council members drafted and produced the Don Accord which states: "Many People who live in the Don Watershed share a dream: to bring the Don River back to its natural beauty and health. The way we choose to treat the Don Watershed is crucial. Individuals, businesses and governments must remedy past environmental problems and forge new strategies to protect and regenerate the watershed for future generations. We recognize that the Don Watershed with its valleys, streams corridors and headwaters, is a valuable and fragile resource. In order to achieve this dream, we agree to honour, respect and commit to the three Regeneration Principles for the Don River watershed as identified in Forty Steps to a New Don: . Protect what is healthy . Regenerate what is degraded . Take responsibility for the Don We will uphold these principles through our everyday actions to assist us in achieving our goal of revitalizing the Don Watershed." The ten local and regional municipalities joined The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in signing the Accord during Watersheds Week. Other groups signing the Accord have included; ratepayers groups, businesses, and "friends" of the Don. Plans are being finalized to approach 65 businesses, industries, and public and private institutions within the watershed to become signatories to the Accord prior to year end. The task of building awareness, partners, and friends throughout the watershed is one Don Council members welcome, and will actively pursue throughout their three principle mandate. We anticipate the Don Watershed Report Card will have far reaching implications. This report scheduled for release in the spring of 1996 will be developed in part through seven community workshops held throughout the watershed during November of this year. In addition, one workshop will involve experts to assist the consultants in developing the most relevant indicators for an urban watershed. These indicators are anticipated to include an indication of community participation in restoration activities. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0216 SECTION I - ITFMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDFRA TION 6. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL (CONTD.) -Semi-Annual Report Other initiatives currently underway include: . a manual for schools, at the grade seven level, currently being tested; . community consultation in the naming of small unnamed creeks through stories in community newspapers; . a workshop scheduled for November 2, allowing municipal representatives to acquaint themselves with the Don Council, Forty Steps to a New Don and the development of the Watershed Report card; . a study to determine opportunities and assistance for community groups, Don municipalities, as well as a roster of volunteer projects that has been undertaken; . initial meetings with municipal staff to pursue further work on concept sites, and to initiate new concept site works and projects in Vaughan and Markham; . a slide show is being developed for use in the signing of the Accord; . a prototype community trail map; . terms of reference for a number of studies have been prepared, including a redesign of the Pottery Road weirs to allow fish passage, the Rupert's pond concept site and a study into the affects of converting ditches to curb and gutter configurations. The four committees; Community Outreach and Education, Heritage Names and Trails, Projects and Concept Sites, and Watershed Reporting; continue addressing items listed in the work plan submitted to the Authority in June of this year. An additional ad hoc committee to address policy initiatives will begin to meet shortly to address the other steps that need to be taken over the next 2-3 years to promote the protection and regeneration of the watershed. 0217 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 - -....- SECTION 1- ITFMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDFRATION 7. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #7/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #7/95, August 31, 1995 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Re!=: #W72/9.5 Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Joan King THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #7/95 be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the tormal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman (Ext. 238) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 0218 SfCTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIQN 8. RESTRUCTURING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO IMPLEMENTING - BLUEPRINT KEY ISSUE The endorsation of the RA~tnlctllring Re~nurce M;'!n;lgement in Ont;lrinJmplementing - Blueprint proposal recently submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier of Ontario and advising the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) that we wish to be considered as one of the pilot programs as recommended in the ACAO proposal. Bes..JlW23L95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority endorse the concept of Community Based Watershed Conservation as proposed in the Association of Conservation Authorities' RAstrllcturinQ-BesnurcA Management iILQnt;lrin ImpIAmentin9-=-B1ueprint document and; THAT the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAOI be advised that The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority wishes to be considered as one of the four pilot projects, as recommended in their proposal to the Province of Ontario; AND FURTHER THAT at the appropriate time, staff prepare a more detailed submission to the ACAO for approval by the Authority, on its request to be considered as a pilot project. CARRIED BACKGROUND On August 24, 1995, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) presented to the Minister of Natural Resources a proposal for the restructuring of natural resource management in Ontario. A copy of this proposal has been sent to all Authority members with a covering letter which gives some of the background to this current document. Copies have also been sent to each municipality and to each M.P.P. This proposal was built on Re~tnlctllring Resnllrce Man;lgement in Ont;lrin - A Blueprint for ~llccess which the ACAO prepared in 1993. As noted in the covering letter, this Authority dealt with the Blueprint proposal as follows: "Re~ #A87 f!13 THA T the staff report on the impact of the Provincial Budget Cuts and the ACAO submission to the Minister of Natural Resources "Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario - A Blueprint for Success" be received; THA T the Authority continue to support ACAO in its submissions to the Province requesting the reinstatement of the Conservation Land Tax Rebate Program as an important component in the protection and management of greenspace resources; THA T staff continue to provide reports on the impacts of provincial and municipal actions on Authority programs and projects; 0219 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 SFCTION 1- ITFMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDFRATION 8. RESTRUCTURING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO IMPLEMENTING - BLUEPRINT (CONTD.) THA T the ,Authority endorse the concept proposals in -Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario - A Blueprint for Success-; THA T The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Regional Municipalities of Peel, York and Durham and their local municipalities, be requested to support the concept outlined in -A Blueprint for Success - and to advise the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources accordingly; AND FURTHER THA T the staff continue to participate in the development of a proposal to implement -Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario - A Blueprint for Success- AMEN.DMENT RR!: #A88/Q'1 THA T the Authority forward a letter to the Minister of Natural Resources indicating the Authority's support for the ACAO 's -Restructuring Resource Management in Ontario - A Blueprint for Success -; THA T the letter clarify the focus on water based resource management, and the need to develop strong links between those agencies that develop policies and those implementing them; AND FURTHER THA T it is anticipated that cost savings will occur with no cost down-loading to municipalities. THE AMENDMENT WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CARRIED" Since the release of the Blueprint document in 1993, there have been several examples across the province, where individual agreements have been negotiated with various ministries for the delivery of their programs by the local Conservation Authority. These mini "one-window" models have shown that the concept does provide for a better and more cost effective delivery system. The agreement that we have worked out with Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for a "one-window" pilot on the Don River watershed has worked very well and in fact was just renewed this August. Discussions were also underway for similar arrangements on our remaining watersheds, but these have been put on hold by MNR, presumably while they are contemplating the ACAO proposal. The essence of the ACAO proP9sal is to develop a "one-window" or " one stop shopping" approach to the delivery of resource management programs currently delivered by such provincial ministries as Natural Resources, Environment and Energy and Agriculture and Food. This concept has been defined as "Community Based Watershed Conservation" with the local Conservation Authority acting as the "one window". Currently the Authority and these ministries deliver similar programs and activities in areas such as, permitting, municipal plan input and review, landowner services, conservation land management and information and education. This duplication is costly and confusing to the public. The ACAO proposal sets out how these services can be delivered at the local level through the Conservation Authority. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 0220 SFCTION 1- ITFM~ FOR AUTHORITY CON~IDERATION 8. RESTRUCTURING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO IMPLEMENTING - BLUEPRINT (CONTD.) The funding of this proposal would be determined on the basis of who benefits. The three beneficiaries are specific users, the local community and society as a whole. Resource users would pay through user fees, while the municipality would fund those activities that benefited the local community, and the province would pay for the greater society benefits. More detailed funding arrangements would have to be negotiated at the appropriate time. The new system must function at a lower overall level of public funding and must not result in a transfer of funding responsibility from the province to the municipality. In other words, there can be no downloading to the municipal level. The ACAO proposal suggests an implementation plan which is based on four pilot projects from across the province. These pilots will be critical, for they will demonstrate how the Community Based Resource Management concept will work and be the model for the other conservation authorities. The process that the ACAO will use if the province agrees to our proposal, will be to ask for submissions from those authorities that are interested in being one of the pilots. These pilots must be successful and therefore the ACAO must select them carefully. Based on our successful experience on the Don and the many other resource management programs that we already deliver, staff believe that The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority should be one of the pilot projects for the delivery of Community Based Resource Management. It is recommended therefore that staff be directed to advise the ACAO that we wish to be considered as one of the pilot projects and that a detailed submission will be made at the appropriate time. It is not known when such a submission would have to be made, for it depends on when and if the province is willing to discuss our proposal. The details and content of our submission to the ACAO will also have to be developed, and should be reviewed and approved by the Authority. Therefore, it is also recommended that such a submission be brought to the appropriate board for recommendation to the full authority. For information contact: Craig Mather (Ext. 240) 0221 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6,1995 - ~FCTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 9. ADDENDUM TO THE PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, DIXIE/DUNDAS SPECIAL POLICY AREA - LITTLE ETOBICOKE CREEK -Regional Municipality of Peel KEY ISSUE Approval of updated design for flood protection along the Little Etobicoke Creek at Dixie Road and Dundas Street, City of Mississauga. Res #W74/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: lIa Bossons THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the updated design for the Flood Protection Works, along the Little Etobicoke Creek, be approved; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to initiate the project upon completion of the review period necessary under the Environmental Assessment Act. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Authority has adopted a project to provide flood protection to the Dixie/Dundas area in the City of Mississauga, along the Little Etobicoke Creek. The remedial works are to take the form of an enlargement of the channel and the Dixie Road bridge opening, to improve the level of flood protection within the area. The project has been delayed by property issues and is only partially completed. A total of 500 metres of flood control channel, East of Dixie Road, has been completed with the bridge works and approximately 500 metres of channel, West of Dixie Road, remaining. At meeting #7/94 the Water and Related Advisory Board adopted Bes..~: 7HA T the Addendum to the Project for Flood Protection, Dixie/Dundas Major Flood Centre - Little Etobicoke Creek, The Regional Municipality of Peel (pages D290-D296) be approved; AND FURTHER THA T the following action be taken: (a) The Regional Municipality of Peel be designated as the benefitting Municipality on the basis set forth within the Project. (b) The Government of the Province of Ontario be requested to approve the Project Addendum and a grant of 50% of the cost thereof. (c) the appropriate Authority officials be authorized to take whatever action is required in connection with rhe Project, including the execution of any documents. AMFNDMFNT BesJtJ.1I!l5L!M That staff be directed to bring the final design back to the Water and Related Advisory Board for approval. .. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #5/95, OCTOBER 6, 1995 0222 - - SFCTION 1- ITFMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDFRATION 9. ADDENDUM TO THE PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION, DIXIE/DUNDAS SPECIAL POLICY AREA - LITTLE ETOBICOKE CREEK (CONTD.) -Regional Municipality of Peel Following this meeting, staff has finalized the review and updated the design for the project and are now in a position to file the Environmental Study Report addendum with the Ministry of Environment and Energy. The revisions to the design have centred around softening the previously approved armourstone channel to include some habitat and channel geomorphology. The design has now been altered to include a slope which includes pools and riffles within the low flow channel as well as some additional material to provide some diversity and structure as fisheries mitigation. The upstream drop structure has been re-designed to allow for movement of fish by changing the single drop, into a series of drops. The flat concrete bed under the Dixie Road bridge has been altered to include a defined low flow channel. In addition, riparian plantings have been increased over the original design to enhance the channel feature. These changes have been accomplished, while still providing for the principle flood protection goal. Following a review period of fifteen days, the Authority will be in position to initiate the works. For information contact: Don Haley (ext. 226) NEW BUSINESS TFRMINA TION The meeting terminated at 12:10 p.m., October 6, 1995. Lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary-Treasurer pI. ~ VVorking Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace 'the metropolitan toronto and'region conservation authority minutes D223 NOVEMBER 3, 1995 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95 The Water and Related land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, November 3, 1995. The Vice-Chair of the Board, lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 10: 1 0 a.m. PRESENT Vice-Chair Lorna Bissell Members lIa Bossons Victoria Carley Alan Christie lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Joan King Enrico Pistritto Paul Raina ABSENT Chair lois Griffin Maja Prentice Bev Salmon MINUTES Res. #W75/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Lois Hancey THA T the minutes of Meeting #5/95, held October 6, 1995, be approved. CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Lois Hancey's name was incorrectly recorded as moving the motion to accept the minutes from Meeting #5/95, held October 6, 1995. The minutes will be corrected and Joan King will be recorded as moving the motion. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3,1995 0224 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL -City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed -Resolution of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals KEY ISSUE At Authority Meeting #8/95, held on September 22, 1995, a request was made for staff to prepare an addendum report detailing the vegetation removal and environmental impact analysis on holes 2 and 16, to be brought forward to the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board. Res. #W76/95 Moved by: Paul Raina Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to finalize the terms and conditions as set out in the staff report to the Authority at Meeting #8/95, September 22, 1995, for the development of lands comprising Lots 28 and 29, Concession 8, City of Vaughan, as an 18-hole golf course within and adjacent to the valley corridor of the East Humber River; THAT staff, in consultation with the firm of Gardiner, Roberts, be authorized to sign a written Consent to an Order being made by the Ontario Municipal Board to give affect to an implementing zoning by-law (with a holding provision) that is consistent with the Authority's approval; AND FURTHER THAT the applicant, Marbloom Investments Limited and Wilderton Investments Limited, the City of Vaughan, the Region of York and the Ministry of Natural Resources be advised accordingly. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #8/95, held on September 22, 1995, the Authority considered a staff report recommending approval of a revised golf course development concept plan, which could then be recommended for approval by the Ontario Municipal Board thereby resolving Authority issues at the Board. Questions were raised with respect to public consultation and ESA impacts such that the following amended resolution was adopted: " AMENDMENT Res. #A 304/94 THA T the concept plan and the terms and conditions as outlined in staff report dated 1995.09. 18 be approved in principle; AND THA T staff prepare a detailed report on the vegetation removal and environmental impact analysis on holes 2 and 16, to be brought forward for approval to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board; 0225 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed -Resolution of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals AND THA T the City of Vaughan be requested to hold a public meeting; AND FURTHER THA T the applicant, the City of Vaughan, the Region of York and the Ministry of Natural Resources be advised according/yo .. Staff's report to Authority Meeting #8/95, held on September 22, 1995 provides a comprehensive review of this matter. The following responds to the additional information that was requested. STATUS UPDATE The applicant, the City of Vaughan, the Region of York and the Ministry of Natural Resources were advised of the Authority's resolution. Staff has since had on-going discussions with the applicant and City staff. Staff at the City of Vaughan finalized a report for Council consideration recommending approval of the revised golf course development scheme and implementing by-law (with holding provisions). The Vaughan report referenced the Authority's resolution and outlined the public process that has been followed with respect to the Crooked Creek Golf Course development applications to date. Briefly, statutory requirements have been met and no residents or members of the public expressed to the Ontario Municipal Board an interest in either participant or party status. Further, the revised proposal and implementing zoning by-law is more restrictive than that previously endorsed by Council. The Vaughan report was scheduled on a public agenda for the October 23, 1995 Vaughan Committee of the Whole meeting. Only the applicant requested to speak to this item. Authority staff attended. No members of the public requested to speak. The Committee of the Whole endorsed Vaughan staff's recommendation and this item is now scheduled on the October 30/95 Council Meeting agenda. Authority staff will provide a verbal update on the status of Council's consideration at the Advisory Board Meeting. VEGETATION REMOVAL & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Overview: Approximately 40 ha of the subject property lies within the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). Three of the proposed 18 holes encroach within the ESA (Holes #2, 16 and 17) affecting, in total, approximately 2.0 ha or 5% of the ESA on this property. When reviewing the concept plan for the golf course holes, staff direction to the proponent with respect to the ESA was that the proposed golf course must retain the ESA features and functions at current levels and minimize any localized stress on the system. To this end, the location and type of vegetation removal was as important as the quantity removed when assessing the potential impacts. It is not the objective of ESA management to only protect the smallest ESA possible; therefore, any directlpermanent loss was considered to be unacceptable and regeneration activities to mitigate localized stress or to enhance existing ESA functions were looked upon positively. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 0226 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL (CONTD.l -City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed -Resolution of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals Development within the ESA has been restricted on the basis of the following general criteria: Location: To locations that do not intrude into the main forest block, represent existing openings in the forest cover, are not the location of rare, vulnerable, threatened or endangered species andlor do not provide critical habitat for any of these species. Veoetation Tvoe: Within vegetation communities that are made up of species that are non- native, or are of an age or composition that can be replaced with another woody vegetation community that is compatible with lines-of-sight while still contributing to the functioning of the ESA in terms of habitat, biodiversity and linkages. ReQeneration: To areas that maximize the ability to maintain natural habitats (eg. across features with significant topographic relief that enables vegetation to remain while not in conflict with proposed lines of sight) and to enhance natural habitats with compatible native plantings. In addition, the regeneration proposed at several areas within the flood plain and riparian zone on the west side of the river that are outside of the golf course will enhance the amount of flood plain canopy forest, increase the number of native species within the flood plain forest, and enhance the function of these lands in terms of terrestrial and aquatic habitat including forest interior. Descriotion of Disturbance Within the areas of disturbance, only those individual trees that block views will need to be removed. When possible, pruning will be utilized to maintain canopy trees. An active planting program will be implemented to augment the vegetation that is to be retained. This planting will consist of native woody material that will also be compatible with the golf course operations. Portions of the holes will be designated "out of play" such that there will not be any active fairways within the ESA. This significantly reduces impact within the areas of disturbance. The following summarizes the extent of disturbance at each of the three holes: Hole 2 will result in disturbance of approximately 1.0 ha of the ESA. The hole runs east to west along the northern edge of the large terrace meadow. The line of sight crosses a portion of the flood plain up a short slope to the meadow, where the fairway then runs up the main valley slope to the green. The tee is located on the terrace and utilizes an existing opening adjacent to a spruce plantation. The flood plain is dominated by large crack willow trees, a non-native species, most of which consist of several large stems. It is anticipated that about half of the stems (about 35) can be pruned to provide a line of sight and will not have to be totally removed. Willows are able to regenerate easily from the pruned branches and roots. It is intended through the additional planting activities to establish more native flood plain species in this location. 0227 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed -Resolution of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals The short slope from the flood plain to the large meadow is predominantly large eastern white cedar, again most of which are multi-stemmed with three-four stems per tree. This growth form means that there is opportunity for pruning or removing only some stems of a tree rather than removing the entire tree. It is expected that about 130 stems will have to be removed. Approximately 55 stems can be partially pruned to provide a line of sight. This area is currently devoid of understorey vegetation. An aggressive revegetation plan will be necessary to establish new woody habitat and protect the slope. The forest cover on the terrace is open and consists of young regenerating hardwoods including sugar maple, white elm and white ash that will have to be removed. The green area was located to take advantage of an existing break in the vegetation. Hole 16 will result in disturbance to about 0.6 ha of the ESA. This hole shoots south to north from the high tableland field across a narrow, incised tributary ravine to a green that is lower and was located to coincide with an existing opening in the forest. The line of sight will not require the large scale removal of a forest stand, but rather carefully selected individual trees or branches. The height of the tee means the line of sight is high enough that the forest cover on most of the south side of the slope can be retained except near the top directly in front of the tee. This vegetation is composed of scattered white spruce and white pine along with a fair amount of regenerating deciduous species. Of the 40 or so trees that infringe on the sight line, about 50% will only require pruning of some branches to give the needed view. Adjacent to the green, the vegetation is mainly deciduous with only the occasional coniferous tree. Approximately 10 of the trees which would be removed are black locust, a non-native species, which appear to have been planted throughout the ridge between this hole and hole 17. Another 10 or so trees made up of birch, sugar maple and beech will also be removed and six will require some pruning. Since there is no fairway associated with this hole, the openings created by the tree removal can be restored with woody species that are compatible with the sight lines. Hole 17 will result in disturbance to about 0.4 ha of the ESA. This hole again has the tee placed high on a ridge top and utilizes an existing opening. The line of sight is down the slope to the large meadow. The forest vegetation on the slope is almost entirely black locust, a non-native, which appears to have been planted. The sight line will require the removal of about 50 black locusts. At the toe of slope along the terrace meadow there is a narrow regenerating edge community of aspen and hawthorn that will also be removed. The remainder of the hole and green are in the meadow and have no forest cover. Imoact Analvsis Pursuant to the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, the Authority's policy for New Resource-based Uses as related to ESA's is: WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 0228 SECTION 1- ITFMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL (CaNTO.) -City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed -Resolution of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals Section 4.1.2 (5) Such uses shall protect and retain Significant Areas as defined herein without intrusion which would result in the loss of their features and/or functions. Staff has completed an environmental impact analysis associated with the three holes proposed within the ESA and has summarized this analysis on the basis of the four ESA criteria which are applicable to this site as follows: Criterion 3 The area provides a linkage or corridor function between sites that are of terrestrial or aquatic biological importance, and which depend upon the linkage/corridor for their continuation. This ESA acts as a terrestrial habitat corridor connecting a series of ESAs from ESA 21 to the south to ESA 56 to the north along the East Humber. As well, the river itself acts as a corridor for the movement of at least one significant fish species (Redside Dace). Imp::lr.t A~~p.~~mp.nt The proposed concept, including the three holes (#2, #16, and #17) that extend into the ESA, will not sever or reduce the terrestrial habitat linkage to the significant areas to the north and south of this ESA. The intrusions are peripheral to this system and the adjacent proposed use of a type that should maintain virtually all opportunities for plants and animals, large and small, to move between and within these ESAs. The river and riparian corridors will not be disturbed by the proposed holes therefore habitat and corridors for fish will not be affected. Critp.rion 5 The area provides habitat for indigenous terrestrial or aquatic species that are considered to be rare, endangered, threatened or vulnerable within the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada. One nationally rare fish, one provincially rare bird, six regionally rare birds and six regionally rare plants were noted within the ESA. Imp::lr.t A~~p.~~mp.nt The areas that will be disturbed as a result of the three holes do not include critical habitat for the rare bird species nor do they contain any of the rare plants. As well, the function of these areas in providing adequate buffering to critical habitats and rare plant populations and movement corridors will be maintained. As noted earlier, habitat for the rare aquatic species will not be affected. Criterion 6 The area contains aquatic or terrestrial habitats and/or biological communities, which are exceptional and/or of high quality, and/or diversity, within the MTRCA region, Ontario, or Canada. 0229 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3,1995 SfCTION 1- ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDfRATION 1. CROOKED CREEK GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed -Resolution of Ontario Municipal Board Referrals Ten mammal, 55 bird, eight reptile and amphibian, and 254 vascular plant species have been recorded in this area. This diversity is a reflection of the diverse nature of this ESA in terms of slopes, aspect, soil characteristics, and microclimatic conditions. Imp:lC:t A~~p.~~mp.nt None of the biological communities represented will be lost from the site. Since the vegetation communities within the holes in question will, for the most part, be retained or renaturalized, the overall diversity of the ESA will not be diminished. In addition, high quality habitats such as forest interiors and older growth stands will be retained and continue to be adequately buffered. Critp.rinn 8 The area is of sufficient size to provide habitat or potential habitat for species intolerant of disturbance and encroachment, and those requiring extensive blocks of habitat. The valley and associated tableland forests provide habitat for several bird species that require large tracts of interior habitat or cannot tolerate disturbance. Imp:lr.t A~~p.~~mp.nt The vegetation communities that exist within the three proposed holes are likely used by these species, but they do not constitute critical habitat for these species in terms of shelter, food, or breeding. It is anticipated that the regenerated and retained vegetation communities along the holes will continue to be used by these species provided these areas remain out of playas was agreed to by the proponent. As noted earlier, these regenerated areas will continue to provide adequate buffers between the active play areas and the critical habitats for these sensitive species. CONCLUSION Staff is satisfied that the revised golf course development proposal is in compliance with Authority valleyland policies including those related to the protection and enhancement of ESA's. The proposed implementing by-law incorporates conditions of approval through holding provisions consistent with the terms and conditions recommended in the September 22, 1995 staff report to the Authority. Staff is recommending that the Authority approve the revised golf course development proposal and authorize staff to take the actions necessary to obtain Ontario Municipal Board approval of the proposal. Report prepared by: Rene~ Jarrett (ext. 3151. luch Ognibene (ext. 284) and Dena Lewis (ext. 225) For information contact: Rene~ Jarrett (ext. 315) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 0230 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CITY OF MISSISSAUGA STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY KEY ISSUE Authority support for the City of Mississauga Storm Water Quality Control Study and staff involvement in implementation of the study's recommendations. Res. #W77/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the Authority support the City of Mississauga's proactive Storm Water Quality Control Study; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City to facilitate implementation of the recommendations and ensure that the Authority's objectives for the management of flooding, erosion, water quality, and habitat concerns are met. CARRIED BACKGROUND The City of Mississauga is in the final stages of preparing the Mississauga Storm Water Quality Control Study, which aims to develop an appropriate storm water quality management strategy for the City of Mississauga. The three main objectives of this study are: 1 . To maintain and or enhance the existing storm water quality through the implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices on developing sites; 2. To develop a plan for storm water quality controls that insures no net loss of habitat and addresses the social, physical, environmental and economic constraints and opportunities; 3. To ensure the storm water quality management plan is in compliance with all applicable legislation and all agency mandates, requirements and policies, including the Development Charges Act and the City of Mississauga Development Charges By- law 532-91. The study, which commenced in 1992, represents a progressive approach to managing storm water quality within an urban and urbanizing municipality. While the study recognizes the value in carrying out comprehensive subwatershed plans in large newly developing areas, it also recognizes that water quality issues currently exist in older or less-developed areas. The City has approximately 100 subdivision plans in circulation, and another 300 site plans being processed annually which must all meet the .current provincial/federal requirements for stormwater quality treatment. The overall, comprehensive plan arising from this study will reduce the proliferation of storm water quality management facilities that would have otherwise resulted from a site by site approach throughout the City. Other advantages of the overall plan include an anticipated increase in the effectiveness of storm water management facilities and a reduction in future annual maintenance costs associated with so many facilities. 0231 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3,1995 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CITY OF MISSISSAUGA STORM WATER QUALITY CONTROL STUDY (CONTD.) The City established a Steering Comminee to provide study direction. Comminee members represented: the Credit Valley Conservation Authority; Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; Ministries of Natural Resources, Environment and Energy, and Transportation; Region of Peel; Urban Development Institute; and City departments. The consulting team of Winter Associates and Gore & Storrie were retained to carry out the planning and technical aspects of the study. The Study resulted in the compilation of extensive background environmental and engineering informationlmapping and the preparation of a water quality management strategy with recommendations for: . source controls and management practices; . a facility management plan, including recommendations for the retrofit of existing storm water management facilities and the construction of new facilities; . staging of facility implementation, based on considerations for the timing and pattern of anticipated development, environmental benefits, social considerations, and cost; . further study requirements - timing and responsibility; . a funding mechanism for the implementation of the strategy, based on proposed amendments to the City's Development Charges By-law; . formation of an implementation comminee, including representation from the Authority; and . a long term monitoring program. A copy of the Storm Water Quality Management Strategy (chapter 10.0, Draft Final Report) is attached. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The City of Mississauga has requested that Authority staff participate as members of a Study Implementation Committee, which would regularly review, discuss and resolve policy level issues arising during the implementation of the study's recommendations. For information contact: Sonya Meek (ext. 253) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 0232 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE -Minutes of Meetings #6/95, #7/95 and #8/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #6/95, #7/95 and #8/95 are provided for information. Res. #W78/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #6/95, #7/95 and #8/95, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Membershio Selection, ReoortinQ Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94, held October 28, 1994, by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6. 1 (c) Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a Quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related Land Management A dvisory Board. " Copies of the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #6/95, #7/95 and #8/95 are provided. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (ext. 331) 4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #8/95, September 28, 1995 KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #8/95, September 28, 1995 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Res. #W79/95 Moved by: Victoria Carley Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #8/95, of September 28, 1995, be received. CARRIED 0233 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #6/95, NOVEMBER 3, 1995 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #8/95, September 28, 1995 BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext. 238) NEW BUSINESS TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 10:40 a.m., November 3, 1995. Lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary-Treasurer pI. ~ Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace 'the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes D234 JANUARY 19, 1996 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95 The Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board met in the Theatre of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, January 19, 1996. The Chair, lois Griffin, called the meeting to order at 10: 10 a.m. PRESENT Chair lois Griffin Vice-Chair lorna Bissell Members lIa Bossons Victoria Carley Alan Christie lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Joan King Enrico Pistritto Paul Raina ABSENT Maja Prentice Bev Salmon MINUTES Res. #W80/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Alan Christie THAT the minutes of Meeting #6/95, held November 3, 1995, be approved. CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Joanna Kidd declared a conflict of interest with respect to minutes of the Humber Watershed Task Force Meetings #9, #10 and #11, shown as Item #4 (pages D260-D261) of these minutes and did not participate in discussion or vote on this matter. Her company, the lura Group has been engaged for facilitation services for the Humber Watershed Task Force. 0235 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 DELEGATIONS (a) Mr. Glenn Lucas of Rizmi Holdings spoke in opposition of the recommendation for Item #1, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA's). (b) Ms. Carrie Newman, a resident of Claremont, Ontario, opposed the recommendation for Item #2, Cherry Downs Golf Course Expansion and Residential Development Proposal, and spoke regarding this matter. (c) Mr. Jack Winberg, the applicant proposing the Golf Course expansion as outlined in Item #2, Cherry Downs Golf Course Expansion and Residential Development Proposal, supported MTRCA staff recommendation regarding this item. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) -Update on status of ESA 73 (McGill Area) KEY ISSUE The adoption of changes to ESA 73 (McGill Area) for inclusion in the Authority's inventory of ESAs as a result of field investigations/evaluations. Res. #W81/95 Moved by: lIa Bossons Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT ESA 73, described in the attached summary, be adopted as part of the Authority's inventory of ESAs; THAT staff be directed to use this updated information to advocate the protection of this area through plan input and review activities; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to circulate this new information to the affected municipalities to seek their support in recognizing this ESA in an appropriate land use designation within their planning documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND At meeting #2/95, on March 31, 1995, the Authority passed the following resolution; Res.#A59/95 "THA T the designation of ESA 73 be deferred and that staff conduct an on site investigation and report back to the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. II WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BQ.ARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0236 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) (CONTD.) -Update on status of ESA 73 (McGill Area) Pursuant to this direction, staff met on site with Mr. Glenn lucas (representing the landowner) and his consultants on June 8, 1995 and again on July 4, 1995, in order to undertake further investigations of the bird and plant communities on the property. Representatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources were also in attendance, relating to the site's status as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). The results of this field investigation has confirmed the significance of this natural area within the Authority's jurisdiction. The ESA description, including the boundary map, is attached to this report. In brief, the area fulfils four of the nine ESA designation criteria including: Criterion 2: relating to the groundwater recharge/discharge function Criterion 5: relating to habitat for species considered rare within the region Criterion 6: relating to high quality andlor diversity of habitats Criterion 9: relating to the identification of this area as both a Life Science and Earth Science ANSI. The property in question contains a large portion of the central part of the ESA and contributes substantially to the significance of this natural area. The McGill ESA (including the subject property) is within the Oak Ridges Moraine and exhibits typical rolling morainal topography and coarse textured soils. The rolling hills provide a diversity of micro-habitats (based on exposure and drainage) which has translated into a diversity of plant communities. The upland forest communities are dominated by Sugar Maple, American Beech and Red Oak with Hemlock occurring in the moist shady exposures. The depressions between the upland communities are typified by wetland species including sedges, cattails, willows and dogwoods. The maple, beech, oak and hemlock forests are high quality with superior specimens and extensive regeneration with numerous ferns and other herbaceous species in the lower strata. Fifty bird species were observed in the ESA during the breeding season. Thirty-seven were represented on the property in question. The forest exhibits the size and configuration to provide "interior" habitat which is reflected in the presence and probable breeding of a number of forest interior songbirds including; scarlet tanager, wood thrush, and ovenbird. These species are generally sensitive to intrusion and require forest cover well removed from the disturbances associated with forest edges. Interior forest habitat is limited in representation within the Authority's jurisdiction. The detailed field investigations brought to light ten plant species, six of which have been confirmed on the property in question, that are considered rare within our jurisdiction. These ten species are noted in the summary description attached to this report. Due to the highly permeable soils, the site contributes to the local recharge for headwaters of the Don River. This is supported by the investigations, undertaken by experts from MNR in conjunction with Qur work, that have confirmed the status of this area as an Earth Science ANSI. 0237 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEM~T ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIOERA TION 1. ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESAs) (CONTO.) -Update on status of ESA 73 (McGill Area) In addition to confirming and delineating the boundary of the Earth Science ANSI, Ministry staff participated in the field investigations with respect to the biological significance and confirmed and updated the status of this area as a Life Science ANSI. The ESA boundary has been delineated to contain the significant featureslfunctions of this natural area inCluding both the Life Science and Earth Science ANSls. In light of this information, staff is of the opinion that these lands, including the subject property, meet the criteria for designation as an ESA and should be included in the Authority's inventory of ESAs. For information contact: Dena lewis (ext.225) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0238 - . L~ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION McGill AREA STATUS: Updated ESA (73) CRITERIA FULFillED: 2, 5, 6, 9 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The McGill Area lies on both the east and west sides of Dufferin Street, south of the King-Vaughan Town Line, in the City of Vaughan, approximately 7 kilometres northeast of the Town of Maple. This ESA has been amalgamated with the former ESA 72, known as Cook's Area. I The forest communities, which are dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern hemlock (Tsuqa canadensis) and American beech (Faqus qrandifolia), are found on the dry to mesic, sandy, rolling hills. Early successional communities throughout the site are dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloidesl, staghorn sumac (Rhus tvphina), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) and white birch (Betula paovrifera). Wetter pockets are found in the depressions of the rolling topography and are predominantly shrub swamp, containing willow, dogwood and spirea species on dark, rich soils. One area is a small bog, dominated by sphagnum moss and other species such as tufted loosestrife. The adjacent lands south of the site include a golf course and a residential area. The lands to the north, east and west are primarily agricultural. West of Dufferin Street there is active farmland between, and adjacent to, the forested stands. Aggregate extraction has occurred in the past in some locations adjacent to the ESA. STATUS REPORT The area has been recognized as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), known as the "Maple Uplands and Kettle Wetlands". In 1982, only part of the ANSI was included within the ESA boundary and, ESA 72, which is also part of the same ANSI, was treated separately from ESA 73. The updated boundary has been revised to include ESA 72 and more closely follow the ANSI 0239 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 - - -- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION boundary. The ESA boundary west of Dufferin Street incorporates old field communities which have begun to renaturalize and offer habitat for species such as bobolink, vesper sparrow, and white-tailed deer. Also included in the ESA is a pine plantation in the centre of the old fields, where a pair of scarlet tanagers was sighted in June 1995. Criterion 2 The area serves a water storage function and/or a groundwater recharge/discharge function. The McGill Area functions as a high quality hydrologic source area for the Don River. This site, which is partially located in an area of high permeable soil, is characterized by sandy, rolling hills and small kettle wetlands. Criterion 5 The area provides habitat for indigenous terrestrial or aquatic species that are considered to be rare, endangered, threatened or vulnerable within the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada. Ten plants found on the site are considered rare in the MTRCA Region: ground-pine (Licooodium obscurum var. obscurum) narrow-leaved panic grass (Panicum linearifolium) back's sedge (Carex backii) finger sedge (Carex dioitalis) slender sedge (Carex qracilescens) wrinkle-seeded sedge (Carex ruoosoerma) gmseng (Panax auinauefolius) spring clearweed (Pilea fontana) sqawroot (Conooholis americana) wild licorice (Galium lanceolatum) Ginseng is nationally and provincially threatened; slender sedge is nationally and provincially rare. Spring c1earweed is rare in OMNR Central Region. Northeastern lady fern (Athvrium filix-femina) was found on the site. This species has been considered rare in the MTRCA Region but this status may change if some additional locations, suggested by the Toronto Field Naturalists, can be verified. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0240 - ,=--- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION Historically, this site has provided habitat for two other regionally rare plant species, tower mustard (Arabis olabra) and coarse fescue (Festuca lonoifolia). Though these species were not found in this survey, the habitat has not been altered and they may still be present. Criterion 6 The area contains aquatic or terrestrial habitats and/or biological communities, which are exceptional and/or of high quality, and/or diversity, within the MTRCA region, Ontario, or Canada. The rolling topography provides a diversity of microhabitats which translates into a diverse floral species composition in all strata. This structural diversity also enhances the overall quality of faunal habitat. The sugar maple, red oak, eastern hemlock and beech forest communities are considered high quality due to the presence of superior specimens and the extensive regeneration of the species. A number of wetland types are found on the site including a small swamp with large, standing dead trees in the creek to the south, a sphagnum bog to the north, and scattered shrub swamp with cattails or graminoid herbaceous cover. In moist woodlands the ground is covered with ferns and moss covered logs. Fifty avian species were observed on the site during the 1995 breeding season. To date the site is known to support 392 vascular plant species (Varga 1995). The woodland exhibits the size and configuration attributes to provide interior habitat which is reflected in the presence and probable breeding of a number of forest interior songbirds including: scarlet tanager (5 territories), wood thrush (5), and ovenbird (4). Criterion 9 The area has been identified or classified by the Province of Ontario as a Significant Natural Area (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest - Life and Earth Science ANSls) OR as a Provincially Significant Wetland (Class 1, 2 and 3). The area is considered by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), Life Science and Earth Science (OMNR 1995). Comments 0241 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 --... - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION A red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) was heard calling west of Dufferin Street, at the south end of the site. This species was heard on the east side in the 1982 ESA Study. Breeding was not confirmed in either year but seasonal timing, suitable habitat and frequency of sightings make this species a probable nester on the site. The black-billed cuckoo is a possible nester of the successional forest west of Dufferin, to the south. The following plants found on site are considered rare in York-Metro region: ground-pine (Licooodium obscurum var. obscurum) nodding fescue (Festuca obtusa) rattlesnake manna grass (Glvceria canadensis) eastern manna grass (Glvceria seotentrionalis) narrow-leaved panic grass (Panicum linearifolium) back's sedge (Carex backii) oval-leaf sedge (Carex ceohaloohora) finger sedge (Carex dioitalis) slender sedge (Carex qracilescens) smooth-sheathed sedge (Carex laevivaoinata) troublesome sedge (Carex molesta) wrinkle-seeded sedge (Carex ruoosoerma) ginseng (Panax ouinouefolius) spring clearweed (Pilea fontana) poke milkweed (Ascleoias exaltata) sqawroot (Conooholis americana) wild licorice (Galium lanceolatum) This site holds a healthy population of Carex backii. This is the first recorded sighting in York-Metro. Some impacts were observed during the 1982, 1993 and 1995 field investigations. They include trails made by cattle and grazing through a portion of the forest in the northern forest of the ESA, east of Dufferin. Some bike and cross-country ski trails are found east of Dufferin Street. Most of the forested, scrubby and wet areas are relatively undisturbed. Further hydrogeological investigation of the cultivated lands on the west side of Dufferin Street is likely warranted to ascertain the significance of these lands in terms of groundwater recharge and their contribution to the baseflow in the headwaters of the East Don River which lies to the south. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0242 _ . L:-"o- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION ENVIRONMENTALL Y SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY l'-. V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authonty ESA No. 73 ;~~~, :~:-.~.>. - ":~~:~~_'.~~I ~}~: ~. 1_ ... ..,.. '. ~ - . - Klng-Vaugnan Town LIne ...'" ... ~ ~ ... '" " .:: ~. " \.' ~~ - - :. ~ ~ -- I - _ ...... ,- -..........-..-_._.:~ ii' _-. -- \ ~ '-"- - j -- ~- -'", - - - - ... - --. - .:: - -.'" .' :~ ...--..--..-.... :--------:----,:..;r (. " . - I ,-~~-:-::- ~~~~-.' - . ,~.., . ~~-... ._..~r.u. \ -' .............. \ '" r S?:':~.~. - , .:....: .u._.=u...:--_=-~~:. -,~ .' - ~ - --. l ~-_.-=-------- . .1 '~.," . -- ----.----..---.-: ~L I,.' - ,~ ................ . ~j?'~\,~....... -' - , ...:. ~'.:. ...:--=-.~ .........~....1..~-.. ~- . -' ,...' ~- ,-::-=--.~ : ':.::ij)::":' . '::c r :: " .~~ ,:", :.... . . . ... t ._1 - ~~ ,-'" . -. -;;;-": I ' ::,.C-=- -~ ~'r , . . :-,~~(<. ~/~ I . ~~-=:;:{~ ..:.:~ \... '-.. - .-~ . -,... ,.... \ . . '::;,: --::..::......- ~ .-....",...-.... .- Il ' -- -. _ .--........ <~.~.; :~" . . . ---'--'-.,,' - . . ~ '.'.~:s.:'. .~.. .:..~:::'::.._- -'.~ :""'\""... , . .- ~,_r--:~~":- -:- C'-.~__ \...~ \""';"' -.:;--. " -' '-::::::.,::::"':'--..., ~ \.:,.=" ......: -_..........:,- -- . ~--~~.. I : --, . _ -' ',.,: ~~: I\.- . .~ J ....-.~~,,- ., ~~~'~,'~.~. . ;'{' - . -. ,-' '')i ---' \ 'i '> " -t- 1'1- ~ '- '. -..J -'.; \11;'--... ~\ .. _ ~ ~ - : '- '':' .~-'--- '.' '''. r. '......1. .:,~~:",:. ~ :'-~-..::-: ,./ r " \_~... ~'- \ ~'., \ ',' t".._"" ~ '-I', . \~, "'t. /;-..:,. :: '-r'< ---=s: \.. \/(-. ,.~' IB E.S.A. SITE 0243 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 - -- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed KEY ISSUE Recommendation for approval-in-principle of the "Master Plan for Golf Course Expansion Development Proposal" dated June 1995 and received October 30, 1995 by Clublink Corporation for lands located within the Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed, as it relates to Authority programs and policies for Watershed and Valleyland Management and the Claremont Field Centre. Res. #W82/95 Moved by: Lorna Bissell Seconded by: Lois Hancey THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT based on MTRCA programs and policies for watershed and valleyland management and the Claremont Field Centre, the "Master Plan for Golf Course Expansion Development Proposal" dated June 1995 and received October 30, 1995 by Clublink Corporation for lands located within the Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed, be approved-in -principle; AND THAT Authority staff continue to work with the proponent, municipal staff and others through the municipal planning process to ensure compliance with the Master Plan in accordance with the framework set out in the January 19, 1996 staff report. AMENDMENT #1 Moved by: Enrico Pistritto Res. #W83/95 Seconded by: lIa Bossons THAT the first paragraph of the main motion be referred back to staff. AMENDMENT #2 Moved by: lIa Bossons Res. #W84/95 Seconded by: Joanna Kidd THAT staff review a long term plan regarding effluent sewage disposal and land application. AMENDMENT #1 WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED AMENDMENT #2 WAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0244 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed BACKGROUND In October 1993, Clublink Corporation submitted a development proposal for a 207 hectare parcel of land located within the Duffins Creek watershed in the Town of Pickering. A portion of this property is the site of the 18 hole Cherry Downs Golf Course. The development proposal included an 1 8 hole golf course expansion; redesign of the existing 1 8 hole course; construction of a new clubhouse and commercial facilities; multi-unit residential development on four tableland nodes; and various infrastructure to service the proposed development. Various development applications were submitted in support of the proposal: . Regional Official Plan Amendment Application 93-011/D(Revision No.1) . local Official Plan Amendment Application 93-004/P . Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-93009 . Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/93 . Ministers Zoning Order Amendment Application (related to Federal Airport lands) The nature and extent of the development proposed affected various provincial and municipal policies, MTRCA programs and community interests. Discussions over the last two years have led to various redesigns in an effort to achieve the objectives of the public agencies and community. MTRCA staff efforts have been directed towards the preparation of a concept development plan that complies with Authority watershed and valleyland management policies and is compatible with our public use programming at the neighbouring Claremont Field Centre. The original proposal was Quite intrusive and conflicted with Authority policies for the management of natural heritage features and natural hazards and the proposed residential development resulted in potential impacts on the operation and programs of the Claremont Field Centre. In principle, the revised "Master Plan for Golf Course Expansion Development Proposal", dated October 30th, 1995 achieves Authority program and policy objectives; however, there are several details to be worked out before comments and recommendations on the implementing development applications can be finalized. Recognizing the watershed, valleyland and public use interests of the Authority, staff is recommending that the Authority approve-in-principle the Concept Master Plan which would then form the basis of staff comments on the specific development applications. 0245 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed Prooertv Descriotion There are several natural landforms, features and functions of importance within the 207 hectare Clublink Corporation property which are summarized as follows: . The Western Tributary and Michell Creek drain in excess of 125 hectares. Spring Creek drains less than 1 25 hectares and originates from the adjacent tablelands through active springs. . Michell Creek flows through a well defined valley that has moderately steep slopes and a gently sloping, wide valley floor. . Spring Creek has a well defined valley. The valley floor is wide at the upper end and as it approaches the Michell Creek Valley. . Both Michell Creek and Spring Creek are permanently flowing. Through the proposed golf course expansion area, Michell Creek is very dynamic with evidence of old meander scars and several locations of stream bank erosion. . Water quality in Michell Creek and the upper reaches of Spring Creek appears to be fairly good with substantial groundwater inputs, creating cold water fish habitat. There is documented evidence of brook trout spawning at several locations in Michell Creek. . Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 1 58, the Authority regulates alterations to waterways and construction within the flood plain within all of these tributaries; however, only the valley corridor of Michell Creek is fill regulated. . There is an 18 hole golf course located within and adjacent to the valleylands of Michell Creek and Spring Creek on the southern part of the property. There is very little forest cover through the existing course. . There is no woody vegetation adjacent to Spring Creek within the existing golf course and there are two on-line ponds. . North of the existing golf course, the valleyland of Michell Creek is well treed with a mosaic of lowland coniferous cover, successional forest and upland hardwoods. Through the southern section and up the east side of the valley floor is an opening in the forest cover where there was a previously opened road allowance. At the very north end of the property lies an extensive mature upland forest that extends beyond the valley. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0246 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed . Spring Creek emerges from a large, mature, hardwood forest block that lies just off the property to the south west. The valley floor is a marsh wetland, dominated by reeds and cattails, and is part of a wetland complex (MNR Class 7). The valley walls are forested with a mixture of coniferous and deciduous species. As one moves downstream, this forest cover continues and the valley floor narrows. The valley floor again widens into another wetland area that is dominated by tall shrubs (willows and dry woods) to a point upstream of 14th Side Road. The Spring Creek then enters the existing golf course within the Michell Creek valley. Throughout the existing Golf Course, there is no woody riparian cover as fairways and greens extend to the watercourse. . There is a young coniferous forest block on the tableland on the southeast side of the Spring Creek valley that extends down the valley slope to the edge of the wetland. . On the northern side of the Spring Creek valley the tableland forest cover is predominantly hardwood with some extensive areas of sugar maple regeneration. . On the west side of Michell Creek and North of Spring Creek there are several large coniferous plantations. (Some of which are under management agreement with MNR). . Most of the tablelands have been cleared for agriculture. On the property there is one remnant upland woodlot on the east side of the Michell Creek valley. It is not contiguous with the valley vegetation. . The forested lands on the Cherry Downs property and the surrounding natural features beyond are a candidate ESA. The boundary of the ESA will be finalized pending the completion of additional field investigations by staff. Informationldata collected thus far indicates that this candidate ESA meets at least 6 criteria including: several habitat areas such as the large wetland area west of the property, the large forest block immediately south of the property and the remainder of the forest block on Michell Creek and north of the property. Two existing ESA's (#103 and #104) may be connected to this candidate site and it is possible that future investigations will find that they are functioning as one ESA. . Claremont Field Centre is located adjacent to the east boundary of the Clublink site. The 12th Sideline divides the two properties. 0247 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed Develooment Prooosal An extensive consultation process has resulted in the preparation of a revised proposal referred to as the "Master Plan for Golf Course Expansion Development Proposal" dated October 30, 1995. Clublink Corporation representatives and their consultants undertook extensive field work and analysis as summarized in various technical reports. Authority staff, in consultation with staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Town, made several site investigations. The revised development proposal includes an 18 hole golf course expansion, limited redesign of the existing 1 8 hole course, a new clubhouse, multi-unit residential development on two tableland nodes and various infrastructure to service the proposed development. The revised plan focuses the golf course expansion on the tableland. The residential development has been reduced by 50% and is located on two tableland sites furthest away from the Claremont Field Centre. Further design studies, details, and approvals will be needed but from a resource management point of view can reasonably be implemented through the rezoning, official plan amendment and subdivision applications as terms and conditions to be satisfied prior to final development approvals. Key design features of this current proposal are as follows: Golf Course Expansion/Redevelopment . The golf course holes proposed within the valley have been reduced from 1 2 to a total of four (2 holes each, crossing Spring Creek and Michell Creek). The new clubhouse, parking and access will be located on tableland. . Portions of both of the holes proposed to cross the Michell Creek valley will be located along the 14th Sideline right of way which will be closed permanently. This right of way was open until the collapse of a bridge crossing over Michell Creek during Hurricane Hazel. The bridge was never rebuilt and the Right-of-Way is now being used as a local trail. The woody vegetation growth along this right of way is sparse, substantially reducing the negative impacts of the fairways on forest cover and habitats. . The valley fairways crossing Michell Creek and Spring Creek will be setback from the erosion impact zone of the watercourse andlor valley slopes and will not require modification of grades in the flood plain. Engineered works to protect the holes are not required. . The two holes that cross Spring Creek take advantage of the deeply incised valley by playing from top of bank to top of bank. This allows for the valley to be kept "out of play". Tree removal will be minimised. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0248 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed . All fairway crossings have been designed to avoid populations of rare plants and their habitats within the valleys. . The riparian zone is being protected through the selective maintenance of existing vegetation adjacent to the watercourses and enhancement plantings. . Restoration of riparian vegetation will occur along sections of the stream corridors through the existing golf course lands. Opportunities to include the existing on-line ponds will also be investigated. . The balance of the valleylands, tableland forests and restoration areas not forming part of the proposed golf course development, are proposed to be zoned open space for flood, erosion and conservation purposes only and will expressly prohibit golf course uses. . Cart path requirements have been minimised. There is now a proposal for one crossing on Michell Creek and two on Spring Creek which have been carefully routed to address slope stability, slope steepness, forest cover, rare species and stream bank erosion. . Areas have been identified for regeneration, including the lands between the fairways on the tableland and a block on the east side of the property adjacent to the Claremont Field Centre which was previously shown as residential. Residential Development . The residential development proposed on the two tableland nodes on the east side of the Michell Creek have been eliminated. Instead the applicant has committed to regenerate one of these sites through planting and the other will be used to relocate holes previously proposed in the valley. . The residential development proposed will meet the setback requirements of the MTRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. One small tributary which traverses the northern residential block will be protected through review and comment on the residential development proposal. . A public trail will be developed which connects the property south and north of the Clublink site. 0249 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 - -- SECTION I-ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed POLICY ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE Section 4.0 of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program sets out policies for land Use Planning and Development. Various subsections relating to new development, new and existing resource-based uses and infrastructure and servicing apply to this development proposal. Section 4.1.2 New Resource Based Uses identifies opportunities for uses within valley and stream corridors that are compatible with their landform, features and functions such that: - existing topography is retained; - existing features and functions are protected or improved; - unacceptable risk to loss of life andlor property damage as a result of flooding, erosion andlor slope instability do not result; and, - the need for mitigative and/or remedial measures and management strategies is avoided or minimized. The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program also provides that new golf courses may be permitted if they do not affect the control of flooding; maintain the natural configuration of watercourses and valley and stream corridor landforms; do not cause adverse effects associated with erosion andlor slope instability; protect and enhance the existing self sustaining diverse vegetation communities and wildlife; incorporate proper stormwater management practices; ensure that structures (including footbridges and pathways) are designed to protect significant natural features and to avoid impacts from flood and erosion damage; and, achieve MTRCA public use objectives to the extent possible ego trails. In addition, the Authority's policy for New Resource Based Uses as related to ESA's is that "such uses shall protect and retain Significant Areas as defined herein without intrusion which would result in the loss of their features andlor functions". The following summarizes how the four proposed crossings meet these policies: . Within the areas of disturbance, only those individual trees that block the sight line will need to be removed. When possible, pruning will be utilized to maintain canopy trees. An active planting program will be implemented to augment the vegetation that is to be retained. This planting will consist of native woody material that will also be compatible with the golf course operations. Portions of the holes will be designated "out of play". This significantly reduces impact within the areas of disturbance. In total, the disturbed areas of vegetation proposed by the four hole crossings of the valleys of Spring and Michell Creeks is less than 4% of the valleyland vegetation on site. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0250 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed . HOLE 1 N This hole is located within the valley of Michell Creek and has a perpendicular crossing of the watercourse. It will result in the disturbance of approximately 1.2 ha of woody vegetation. The tee is located outside the floodplain and utilizes an existing opening associated with the old road right of way. The floodplain is very narrow through this reach and will not be graded for a fairway; however, taller woody vegetation will have to be removed and replaced with native plant material compatible with the sight lines. A minimum 30 metre riparian buffer will be maintained on each side of the fairway crossing of watercourse as "out of play". A minimum 15 metre buffer will be provided on area of hole 1 N which runs parallel to the watercourse. The fairway for this hole uses a regenerating area on the valley floor and the green is situated on the valley wall, again within a clearing. There may be the need to prune or remove several young pines that are part of a plantation on the valley slope. . HOLE 9N This hole runs parallel to hole 1 N. The tee is located on a high point on the tableland. Since the valley wall is steep in this area, the slope area will be out of play with only the taller trees being removed or pruned to allow for a sight line. The fairway is on the valley floor and is centred on the existing clearing and the old road allowance. Trees along the fringe of the right of way will have to be removed. As with hole 1 N, a minimum riparian buffer of 30 metres will be maintained along the fairway crossing on each side of the watercourse. The existing riparian vegetation on the north side of the watercourse is open with scattered shrubs that for the most part can be maintained. On the south side, some larger cedars will have to be removed to accommodate the line of sight. The remainder of the fairway and the green are located in an old field community. This hole will result in the disturbance of 1.4 ha of valley land forest. Only one cart path will be required for this hole and hole 1 N and it will utilize the old bridge crossing of Michell Creek. . HOLE 10N The tee for this hole is located on the tableland and shoots across the very incised valley of Spring Creek. The proponent has committed to designing the tee so that a line of sight can be achieved through pruning and selective removal of trees. The entire valleyland will be out of play although a cart path will have to cross the valley. The fairway and green are on the tableland in agricultural fields. 0251 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed . HOLE 11N This hole also plays across the incised valley of Spring Creek. The tee is located through the edge of a cedar and pine plantation that is relatively mature. Several large cedars will have to be removed. The existing valley forest does not appear to impede the line of sight required for this hole. There is no fairway associated with this hole, and the green is located in an existing clearing. The cart path will utilize an existing lane for part of the crossing. . Appendix A, attached, further details the analysis of the golf course expansion proposal on the candidate ESA. Section 4.1 New Development and Section 4.3 Infrastructure and Servicing set out requirements for development limits adjacent to valley and stream corridors and requirements for the siting and design of such facilities as stormwater management ponds, pipe crossings, bridges, etc. . the proposed residential development is on tableland and is setback 10m from all natural features. . finalization of a pre-servicing stormwater report is still required but opportunities exist to locate and design facilities in accordance with Authority policy guidelines. . a proposed watermain crossing of Michell Creek still needs review. . Appendix A, attached, further details the analysis of the residential development on the candidate ESA. Public Use opportunities have been achieved through: . the proposed location of a trail connecting the valley system north and south of the Cherry Downs property; . The elimination of the residential development adjacent to the Claremont property. The Claremont Field Centre required the protection of the "wilderness experience" offered to students and other groups who attend programs at the site. Objectives included the avoidance of increased lighting, noise, unauthorized use and vandalism. SUMMARY AND DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff is satisfied that the revised Master Plan dated June 1995 and received October 1995 meets the objectives of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program and that, subject to Authority approval-in-principle, this plan can form the basis for staff input and review of the various development applications. These applications have been circulated and comments are required. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19. 1996 0252 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed Staff comments that would be forwarded to the Town of Pickering and Region of Durham include: 1 ) That the revised "Master Plan for Golf Course Expansion Development Proposal", dated June 1995 and received October 30, 1995, form the basis of the development applications. This Plan: i) identifies the general layout of the golf course and the residential development; ii) identifies all proposed access routes through the site such as golf cartlpedestrian pathways, service and maintenance roads, etc. and; iii) identifies the tablelands (including a meadow area) to be regenerated. 2) That prior to recommending approval of the Regional and Local Official Plan Amendment Authority staff review and comment on the text and associated schedules to ensure consistency with the Master Plan. 3) That prior to recommending approval of the Rezoning application, Authority staff review and comment on the text and associated schedules to ensure consistency with the Master Plan and ensure that prior to the golf course proceeding, adequate control mechanisms are in place such as: . a permit be obtained from the Authority pursuant to Ontario Regulation 1 58, for the sanitary sewer crossing of Michell Creek; . MTRCA permits, pursuant to its Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 158) be obtained for both the golf course expansion and the residential development; . preparation and approval of a satisfactory environmental management plan for the golf course that describes integrated pest management practices, vegetation management and an ongoing environmental reporting arrangement. Further that the management plan show opportunities for regeneration within the existing golf course to the satisfaction of the MTRCA; . preparation and approval of a stream bank erosion study which identifies the limit of the meanderbelt as it relates to the fairway locations; . preparation and approval of a hydraulic analysis which identifies that there will be no impact on the control of flooding caused by the golf course or residential development; . preparation and approval of satisfactory restoration plans for all holes suffering impact from vegetation loss (including removal/pruning strategies); 0253 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 2. CHERRY DOWNS GOLF COURSE EXPANSION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (CONTD.) -Town of Pickering, Duffins Creek Watershed . preparation and approval of a satisfactory erosion and sediment control strategy addressing both the construction and final design stages of the project; 4) That prior to the approval of the draft plan of subdivision and prior to finalizing conditions of draft plan approval, the applicant must: i) finalize a preliminary storm water management report for review and approval; and ji) confirm and survey development limits for approval (ie: setbacks from the top of bank, flood plain, stream corridors and the candidate ESA); Staff is satisfied that development approvals can be appropriately staged as set out above such that the Authority's objectives can be satisfied and the development proposal can proceed to the next design stage. For information contact: Renee Jarrett (ext. 315) WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0254 . . -- . - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION TOWN OF UXBRIDGE 131'2 11 10 9 8 7 6 ~ '4 3 " 1 LOTS . :1 ~i I . :1 o. Ul .>- CO ~ 0 I a: ~ ::E ..... l.L.. UJ ~IO ...J oct U.Z (Jl ~ 7th C NCESSION .0 ~ 0 a: r <0 ILl Z ....J 0 oct U en z HAM ;: \ . ~ Klnsale" . .... '~ ! c:i a: .. ll'l a: ~ ~ . >- " A ~ ~ z i 0 ILl ena 1 ... U UJ wCI: .... a: 3: <; ~ TO N OFI PIC EHING TOWN OF AJAX '-- Wttt{j Sub j e c t Lan d 5 .......... Figure 1 0 2000 6000 0 4000 r==~ ~ LCCA TICN PLAN 0255 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 - -- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION APPENDIX A ~ CRITERIA FOR THE CANDIDATE ESA ON THE CHERRY DOWNS PROPERTY Criterion 2 The area serves a water storage function and/or a groundwater recharge/discharge function. Seepage and springs were noted throughout the valleys of Michell Creek and Spring Creek. Fisheries work undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1994-95 found many Brook Trout redds which are usually associated with ground water discharge. Despite the lack of riparian cover within the existing golf course, upstream agricultural areas, and water taking for irrigation of the golf course, Michell Creek has maintained its high quality cold water fishery. This would lead us to believe that the ground water inputs are significant. Imoact Assessment , Studies were provided by Gartner lee which describe that groundwater requirements for the residential portion of the development will be attained by tapping into a deep aquifer which does not contribute to baseflow for Michell and Spring Creek. The groundwater contributions to the watercourses originate from a shallow aquifer. It is unclear if these two aquifer are connected, and potential impacts on base flow will be monitored, and a contingency plan in place to provide an alternate water source. ~. ( . Golf course development will not encroach into any of the discharge zones or springs. there are no , ..........-. instream or valley land works that will disrupt flow of groundwater. Water taking for irrigation will not exceed what is currently being taken. Criterion 4 The area is essential as habitat for the continuation of a significant terrestrial or aquatic species, population, or concentration of species, including migratory stopover or staging areas, breeding or spawning areas, and wintering yards. The wooded portions of Michell Creek boast a diversity of instream habitats, and is an important spawning area for brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). A red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) was heard calling and a nest was found in forest adjacent to Spring Creek off the Cherry Downs property (Gartner Lee 1993, Hilditch pers. comm. 1994). The shy hawk requires forest interior habitat for nesting, and utilizes adjacent wetland and riparian areas for feeding. ImDact Assessment None of the golf course holes intrude into the critical habitat for the hawk. In addition, the layout and proposed restoration blocks have been designed to try and ensure there is adequate buffering of these critical habitat areas. Riparian buffers will be maintained to protect the aquatic habitat. Crossings for the cart paths will be located and designed so as not to interfere with the trout spawning. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19. 1996 0256 - . -.- SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION Criterion 5 ,-..." The area provides habitat for indigenous terrestrial or aquatic species that are considered to be rare, endangered, threatened or vulnerable within the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada. The area supports three plants which are considered rare within the MTRCA region. Two plant species found are considered geographically rare in the Central Region of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Eight plant species were found on the site by the Gartner lee staff and are considered rare in Peterborough-Durham-Victoria. The association of dense maplelbeech forest and flood plain reed grass wetland along Spring Creek is good breeding and feeding habitat for red-shouldered hawks. This species is considered rare due to loss of habitat and disturbance. Imoact Assessment The areas that will be disturbed do not contain any of the rare plant populations nor are they critical habitat for the Red shouldered Hawk. The function of these areas in providing adequate buffering to critical habitats and rare plant populations and movement corridors will be maintained. , Criterion 6 The area contains aquatic or terrestrial habitats and/or biological communities, . which are exceptional and/or of high quality, and/or diversity, within the MTRCA region, Ontario, or Canada. The site contains high Quality upland and lowland forest, and a wide diversity of species. Three hundred and forty-five plant species, 59 bird species, and 14 mammal, reptile, and amphibian species have been recorded for the site to date. Thirty-five vegetation communities have been identified. 'moact Assessment None of the biological communities represented will be lost from the site. Since the vegetation communities within the holes in question will, for the most part, be retained or renaturalized, the overall diversity of the ESA will not be diminished. In addition, high Quality habitat such as forest interiors and older growth stands will be retained and continue to be adequately buffered. Criterion 7 The area contains an aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem which has limited representation in the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada and/or is a small remnant of a particular habitat which has virtually disappeared within the MTRCA region. The South of Claremont Wetland, a complex classified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources as a Class 7 wetland, is found on a tributary of Michell Creek and, on Spring Creek. Over 80% of wetlands in southern Ontario have been degraded or destroyed. Wetlands are considered under-represented within the MTRCA region. 0257 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 -- - SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION Imoact Assessment -. The wetland complex lies largely off-site. The proposed development will not encroach within the complex. In addition, the linkage between this wetland and the important habitats within Michell Creek and Spring Creek will be maintained. Criterion 8 - The area is of sufficient size to provide habitat or potential habitat for species intolerant of disturbance and encroachment, and those requiring extensive blocks of habitat. The woodland associated with Spring Creek provides nesting habitat for red-shouldered hawk, a species which requires interior upland forest. Associated with this forest is a the reed grass marsh, which provides feeding opportunities. Imoact Assessment The vegetation communities that exist within the four proposed holes are likely used by these species, but they do not constitute critical habitat in terms of food, shelter, or breeding. It is anticipated that the regenerated and retained vegetation communities along the holes will continue to be used by these species provided these remain out of play areas as was agreed to by the proponent. ~. \. . . --. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19. 1996 0258 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE 1996 WORK PLAN KEY ISSUE Approval of the 1996 Work Plan for the Humber Watershed Task Force dated November, 1995. Res. #W85/95 Moved by: Alan Christie Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the 1996 Work Plan for the Humber Watershed Task Force dated November 1995 be approved. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #11195 of the Humber Watershed Task Force, the following was approved (Res. #59/95): "THA T the revised work plan for the Humber Watershed Task Force dated November, 1995 be approved. AND FURTHER THA T the work plan for completion of the Humber Watershed Strategy be forwarded to the Authority for approval. " BACKGROUND The Terms of Reference for establishing the Humber Watershed Task Force approved by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 (Res.# A225/94), require that the draft strategy document be prepared by June 25, 1996. It is recommended that this deadline be extended to October 16, 1996 to allow sufficient time for completion of the strategy and incorporation of comments received through the municipal staff and public consultation processes. Although the work plan, dated November, 1995, details specific tasks and approximate completion dates, it is possible that staff will need to alter these dates as work progresses. The extension to the duration of the Task Force is necessary for a number of reasons. When the initial date for completion of the strategy document was set in 1994, the June 1996 date was based on the timing used to complete the Don Strategy, 'Forty Steps to a New Don.' Over the past ten months, there has been a considerable amount of effort made by each of the five sub- committees in completing background reports and strategy recommendations. Sub-committee Background Reports were not completed by Don working groups, rather, strategy recommendations were made based on water flora and fauna strategies from other agencies. The sub-committees of the Humber Watershed Task Force are also more diverse than those formed from the Don Task Force; the Humber has three additional sub-committees: Economic, Culture and Heritage, and Community Involvement and Public Use. The complexity of the sub-committee background reports was unanticipated in when the Terms of Reference for the Task Force were approved by the Authority in 1994. 0259 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 3. HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE 1996 WORK PLAN Also detailed on the work plan is the time frame for completing a number of other items that directly relate to the work of the Humber Watershed Task Force. These are: Other Reports, the Canadian Heritage Rivers Nomination, the Humber Watershed Atlas (Final Editionl. required reports to the Authority and publication of the Humber Advocate. RATIONALE The work plan outlines plans for the completion of the draft Humber Strategy by July, 1996 and the final strategy document by October, 1996. The successful completion of the document is integrally linked to the timely and comprehensive implementation of a number of different topics that are detailed in the work plan. During the course of the next nine months, the work of the Task Force will be based on the milestone achievements outlined in this work plan. As the date for executing milestone achievements approaches, staff will report to the Task Force. Staff will also report to the Task Force regarding the outcome of initiatives such as the municipal staff and public review processes. As outlined in the revised work plan, the first complete draft of the strategy document will be available in July, 1996 for Task Force approval in October, 1996. The strategy document must be approved by the Authority prior to publication. FINANCIAL DETAILS No financial implications are anticipated as a result or the three month delay in the finalization of the Humber Strategy document. The financial costs associated with this delay is primarily staff time, and this is accounted for in the preliminary 1996 budget estimates for account 118-55. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (Ext. 331) 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE -Minutes of Meetings #9/95, #10/95 and #11/95 KEY ISSUE The minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #9/95, #10/95 and #11/95 are provided for information. Res. #W86/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #9/95, #10/95 and #11/95, be received. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0260 SECTION I . ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 4. THE HUMBER WATERSHED TASK FORCE (CONTD.) -Minutes of Meetings #9/95, #10/95 and #11/95 BACKGROUND The Membershio Selection. Reoortina Procedures and Terms of Reference for the Humber Watershed Task Force, dated October, 1994 and adopted by the Authority at Meeting #9/94 held October 28, 1994 by Resolution #A225/94, includes the following provision: Section 6.1 (c) Mandate of the Humber Watershed Task Force "The Task Force membership shall report progress, on a quarterly basis, to the MTRCA through the Authority's Water and Related land Management Advisory Board." Copies of the minutes of The Humber Watershed Task Force meetings #9/95, #10/95 and #11/95 are provided. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of The Humber Watershed Task Force and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to develop the Humber Watershed Strategy and involve the community in watershed management activities. For information contact: Madelyn Webb (ext. 331) 5. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #9/95, November 23, 1995 KEY ISSUE The minutes of Meeting #9/95, November 23, 1995 of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are provided for information. Res. #W87/95 Moved by: Lois Hancey Seconded by: Lorna Bissell THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #9/95, be received. CARRIED 0261 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEME~T ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 5. DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL -Minutes of Meeting #9/95, November 23, 1995 BACKGROUND Copies of the minutes of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council are forwarded to the Authority through the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board. These minutes constitute the formal record of the work of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, and serve to keep the Authority members informed of the steps being undertaken to implement the Don Watershed Task Force's report Forty Steps to a New Don and to regenerate the watershed. For information contact: Adele Freeman (ext 238) 6. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE ROUGE RIVER KEY ISSUE Implementation of an integrated Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program for the Rouge Park by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Res. #W88/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to develop and implement a three year Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program in partnership with the Rouge Park Alliance, watershed municipalities, local interest groups, provincial and federal agencies and watershed residents subject to available funding: THAT staff report back to the Authority with details of the Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program prior to implementation: AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate Authority staff be authorized to enter into agreement with the Rouge Park Alliance and execute all necessary documentation and obtain any additional approvals that may be required. CARRIED WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0262 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE ROUGE RIVER (CaNTO.) BACKGROUND At Meeting #10/95, held on December 18, 1995, the Rouge Park Alliance adopted resolution #109/95 that states: THA T The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to develop a three year, integrated Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program (1996-98) for the Rouge River Park and report back with the details of the Program to the Rouge Alliance in January/February, 1996; THA T the Program be developed in partnership with the Rouge Alliance, watershed municipalities, local interest groups, provincial and federal agencies and watershed residents; THA T subject to approval of the Rouge Alliance, and the availability of funds, funding be provided to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for individual projects developed under the Program; AND FURTHER THA T on an annual basis, the Authority report to the Alliance, providing detailed summaries of the projects initiated and/or completed in the preceding year. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority was requested to develop a program based on their watershed planning and management experiences. In the Rouge River watershed, the MTRCA has been an active partner in watershed planning and management. Recent partnership initiatives by the MTRCA within the Rouge River watershed include the development of a watershed strategy (Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed, 1990), the Rouge River Fish Management Plan (1992) and the Forested Watershed Coordination and Monitoring Program (1995). The MTRCA has also been an active partner in a number of implementation initiatives over the past 40 years, including many watershed regeneration and restoration projects and aquatic habitat improvement projects with the Town of Markham, Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville; community groups and private landowners. In developing a natural and cultural heritage management program, the Rouge Park Management Plan, May 1 994 and the Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding Report by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, March 27, 1995, were reviewed. 0263 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19, 1996 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE ROUGE RIVER (CONTO.) The Rouge Park Management Plan stated a number of natural and cultural heritage objectives including: . Natural Heritage Objectives To protect, restore and enhance the natural ecosystem of the park by ensuring the health and diversity of its native species, habitats, landscapes and ecological processes. . Cultural Heritage Objectives To identify, protect and conserve the cultural heritage features of the park for their inherent value and depiction of the long term human use and occupancy of the area. . Interpretation Objective To promote knowledge and understanding of the natural and cultural values of the park, their protection and management requirements, and their significance, sensitivities and interrelationships. The following is a recommended natural and cultural management program framework for the Rouge Park. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 1. The Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program will include the following components of the "Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding Report" by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, dated March 27, 1995: . Start revegetation in primary restoration areas; . Installation of six hydrometric stations; . Collection of water and soil baseline data; . Improvements to fish spawning areas; . Removal of barriers to fish migration; . Start the planning process for the development of the Park interpretive centre (objectives, targets, themes, messages; architectural media design); and . Consolidation of MTRCAIROM archaeological collections. 2. The Natural and Cultural Heritage Management and Implementation Program will be developed and implemented through partnerships, with the MTRCA as the lead agency. The MTRCA has established a number of partners in its role as watershed managers, including municipalities, provincial and federal agencies, the Royal Ontario Museum, native groups, interest groups and residents. It is these partners and the relationship between these partners and the MTRCA that are integral to the development of this Program. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19.1996 0264 SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE ROUGE RIVER (CONTD.) 3. The Program will be developed on the basis of integrating the natural and cultural heritage components of the watershed. Consideration will be given to a number of factors, including: (a) Human uses within the Park system must be environmentally sustainable; (b) Implementation plans will consider preservation, conservation andlor restoration of the relative natural andlor cultural heritage features; (c) Net environmental gain will be achieved through implementation planning; (d) Human safety will be of primary consideration; and (e) Links between transportation and recreation facilities will be maximized in all planning. 4. There will be opportunities for public review and input. 5. Implementation of the Program will focus on community involvement, with the outreach efforts coordination by or through the MTRCA. Preferences will be given to having the program implemented through the use of volunteers. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding allocation(s) will be required for the MTRCA to plan, design, coordinate, and implement site specific projects within the framework of the Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program, described herein. The Rouge Park Management Structure and Funding Report recommended Capital Activities (Year One) to assist in meeting the goals and objectives of the Rouge Park Management Plan. These would include activities such as: . Collection of water and soil baseline data; . Consolidation of MTRCA and ROM archaeological collections; . Improvements to fish spawning areas; . Removal of barriers to fish migration; . Prepare detailed vegetation management plans; and . Start re-vegetation in primary restoration areas. The Authority will be requesting capital funding for these activities from the allocations which are held by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Other funding sources will be sought to contribute to the planning and implementation of the site specific projects. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE 1. The MTRCA will develop the integrated Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Rouge River Park, in partnership with the Rouge Alliance, watershed municipalities, local interest groups, provincial and federal agencies and watershed residents. 0265 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 6. NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE ROUGE RIVER (CONTD.) 2. The MTRCA will coordinate the development and implementation of detailed site plans, upon approval by the Rouge Alliance and subject to available funding. 3. The MTRCA will seek other funding sources to contribute to the Natural and Cultural Heritage Management Program. For information contact: Gary Wilkins (ext. 211) 7. CELEBRATE YOUR WATERSHED! WEEK 1996 KEY ISSUE Request for member municipalities to designate May 5-11, 1996 as "Celebrate Your Watershed'" Week. Res. #W89/95 Moved by: Joan King Seconded by: Victoria Carley THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the municipalities within the Authority's area of jurisdiction be requested to support the initiative to raise public awareness regarding the importance of watershed management and regeneration by designating May 5 - 11, 1996 "Celebrate Your Watershed!" Week. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 1994, a number of events related to watersheds and water management took place in mid-May, including "Celebrate the Don" and "Humber Heritage Days." On May 16, 1994, Metro RAP released "Clean Waters, Clear Choices", its plan for remediating water quality in the region. Many local municipal councils proclaimed May 15 as "Celebrate the Don" day while Metro Council proclaimed "Watersheds Week". In 1995, the Metro RAP and MTRCA agreed to cosponsor Celebrate Your Watershed! Week with a week long program of activities developed primarily in local communities. The week was launched with the second annual "Paddle the Don." 1996 is the 50th anniversary of the Conservation Authorities Act. Given the current provincial priorities, it is important to keep the Authority's environmental work on the public agenda. It is also important to provide an opportunity for the community to take part in and gain awareness of the importance of watershed management and regeneration projects. "Celebrate Your Watershed!" Week provides this opportunity. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19. 1996 0266 - SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 7. CELEBRATE YOUR WATERSHED! WEEK 1996 (CONTD.) The planning and coordination for 1996 will be carried out through a steering committee. As in 1995, Authority staff will act as "watershed" coordinators to ensure communications and contacts within each watershed and to build the community network. Municipal staff representatives have been asked to include local community groups in their organization of events. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A Steering Committee has been set up with agency and municipal staff representatives. A meeting was held late in 1995 with representatives from throughout the Authority's jurisdiction and a second one is scheduled during January. Information will be mailed to organizations throughout the watershed seeking their support and involvement. Corporate sponsorships are being sought. A communications strategy is being developed. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Authority's Communications budget has committed a modest level of funding. Corporate sponsorships and in kind donations are being sought before formalizing a budget. Report prepared by: Alyson Deans (ext. 269) For information contact: Joanne Jeffery (ext.325) 8. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT #400 -City of Vaughan This item will be discussed at a special meeting of the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board #8/95, to be held January 26, 1996, immediately prior to Authority Meeting #12/95. KEY ISSUE land use planning policies for development adjacent to valley and stream corridors, Official Plan Amendment #400, City of Vaughan. 0267 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #7/95, JANUARY 19,1996 NEW BUSINESS TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 1 :20 p.m., January 19, 1996. lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary- Treasurer pI. .- - - -' ~ V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority 0268 JANUARY 26, 1996 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #8/95 The Water and Related land Management Advisory Board met in the Board Room of the Visitors Centre at Black Creek Pioneer Village on Friday, January 26, 1996 for a Special meeting. The Vice-Chair, Lorna Bissell, called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. PRESENT Vice-Chair Lorna Bissell Members Victoria Carley Alan Christie Lois Hancey Joanna Kidd Enrico Pistritto ABSENT Chair Lois Griffin Members lIa Bossons Joan King Maja Prentice Paul Raina Bev Salmon SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT #400 -City of Vaughan This item will be brought forward directly to Authority Meeting #12/95, January 26, 1996. KEY ISSUE land use planning policies for development adjacent to valley and stream corridors, Official Plan Amendment #400, City of Vaughan. Res. #W90/95 Moved by: Seconded by: THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the staff report dated January 19, 1996 regarding Official Plan Amendment #400, City of Vaughan be received for information. CARRIED 0269 WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #8/9S,JANUARY 26, 1996 -- = - -. SECTION I -ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT #400 (CONTO.) -City of Vaughan - BACKGROUND Amendment #400 to the City of Vaughan Official Plan is a major initiative. The plan identifies and plans the residential urban expansion area and updates Rural Area policies in the City of Vaughan. Its central themes are environmental protection and compact and efficient urban form. Background studies in suppon of this planning effon were initiated in the late 1980's. Authority staff has shared a close and cooperative working relationship with the City through all its planning stages. OPA #400 was approved in pan by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with modifications, in June 1995. There remain several deferrals, one of which relates directly to valley and stream corridor management. Discussions with affected parties have progressed to the point where agreement is likely to be reached without the need for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The purpose of this report is to advise Authority members of the issues raised and to identify what future work may arise. RATIONALE Two key issues associated with valleyland management were raised by landowners in Vaughan: . Ownership of the 10-metre "buffer" adjacent to the physical valley and stream corridor landform; and, . Permitted uses within the 10-metre "buffer. II 1 . landowners within the OPA #400 urban areas do not support the conveyance to public ownership of the 10m "buffer" adjacent to the crest of slope (valley corridor) or flood plain limit/meander belt (stream corridor) or environmentally significant areas (either corridor type) as advocated in the MTRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. The Authority's Program recognized the need for flexibility and sets our alternatives to public ownership. To resolve this issue, the valleyland policies within OPA #400 are proposed to be modified to not require public ownership of this 10m "buffer"; however, the following lands must be conveyed to either the Authority or the City of Vaughan: . below the stable or pred~cted stable crest of slope; . within the Regional Storm flood plain; and/or, . within environmentally significant areas. WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD #8/95, JANUARY 26. 1996 0270 .- = - -- .- SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATION 1. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT #400 (CONTD.) -City of Vaughan - 2. landowners within the OPA #400 urban areas expressed concerns regarding permitted and prohibited uses (including buildings and structures) within the 10-metre "buffer." To achieve the Authority's edge management objectives, it was agreed that all principal buildings and structures would be prohibited through zoning or other appropriate control mechanisms; however, recognizing that the 10-metre "buffer" would remain in private ownership, provisions to locate ancillary structures on these lands were requested. To resolve this issue, the valleyland policies within OPA #400 are proposed to be modified such that accessory structures, e.g. swimming pools, cabanas, etc. shall be zoned or subject to other appropriate control mechanisms as determined by the City in consultation with the MTRCA. Technical reports prepared by the landowner will, therefore, need to identify specific edge management requirements. The Authority's policies do not permit new urban development within valley and stream corridors (which includes the 10-metre "buffer"). New urban development is generally define'd as including such things as buildings, structures and servicing, e.g. septics. There is no distinction made between principal versus ancillary structures within this policy section; however, policies for new resource-based uses (that apply to both privately and publicly owned valleylands). Allow ancillary structures to be located within the 10-metre "buffer". Because the 1 O-metre "buffer" will remain in private ownership within the OPA 400 urban area, staff do not object to policy provisions that provide opportunities for ancillary structures to be located within these "buffer" lands. WORK TO BE DONE Staff do not believe that amendments to the MTRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program are required as a result of the resolution to policy issues arising from OPA 400. The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program was approved by the Authority in October 1994 and has since served as the basis for staff municipal plan input and review activities. Flexibility was incorporated into the Program so that valleyland management decisions could respond to local situations such as in OPA #400. The Urban Development Institute has initiated discussions with MTRCA staff to address their concerns with the Program policies and the general restructuring of land use planning and development in the Province. These activities mayor may not result in the need to revisit the Program and will be the subject of a future report to the Authority. Report prepared by: Rene~ Jarren TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 1 :20 p.m.. January 19, 1996. lois Griffin Craig Mather Chair Secretary-Treasurer pI.