Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board Appendices 1994W R. 1 /?-1 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #15/94 January 13, 1994 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #1/94 March 4, 1994 wr2.a /9V Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace er the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #15/94 January 13, 1994 The Don Watershed Task Force Sub - Committee met in Committee Room #3 at the North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge Street, North York, on January 13, 1994. The Chair, Mark Wilson, called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. PRESENT MINUTES Res. #66/93 Chair Mark Wilson Members Vicki Barron Lorna Krawchuk Veronica Bergs Deborah Martin -Downs Margaret Casey Denis McKee Don Cross Peter Meffe Bill Granger Doreen Quirk Gord Hutchinson David Shiner Bill King Don Taylor Joan King Walter Watt Carl Knipfel Michael White MTRCA Staff Visitors Bonnie Brown Brian Denney Dave Dyce Adele Freeman Don Haley Craig Mather Bernard McIntyre Sonya Meek Joanne Paterson Catherine Dowling, Gartner Lee Limited Rick Hubbard, Project Manager, Gartner Lee Limited Steve Klose, MOEE Tija Luste, Lower Don Task Force Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat, Writer, Journalist Paul Robertson, City of Vaughan George Dark, Principal, Berridge, Lewinberg and Greenberg Frank Greenberg, Berridge, Lewinberg and Greenberg Ksenija Klinger, EKO Consultants Moved by: Seconded by: Gord Hutchinson Lorna Krawchuk THAT the Minutes of Meeting #14/93 be approved with the following correction to the background section of the Task Force Challenge on page two: • December 1, 1993, Lorna Krawchuk television phone -in show with guest Craig Mather. CARRIED 2. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #15/94, JANUARY 13, 1994 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Interim Waste Authority (IWA) Joan King and Peter Meffe will meet with Authority staff and prepare a response to the IWA proposal for approval of the Task Force. Don Valley Golf Course The Don Valley Golf Course plans were available for information as requested at Meeting #14/93. CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from Katherine Ramsden- Hayden dated January 3, 1993, re: Jolly Miller site. 1. DON WATERSHED EVENT -May 1994 Joan King met with officials of Harbourfront and Metro Parks and Property to discuss a celebration of the Don River. Initially, a simple revival of the paddle down the Don was proposed however a much broader approach could be taken to include the entire watershed and raise public awareness of their role in stewardship. Res. #67/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Joan King Deborah Martin -Downs THAT the Don Valley Task Force support the organization of Celebration of the Don River to be held on May 15, 1994; THAT Steve Klose, Veronica Bergs, Walter Watts and Vicki Barron work with Councillor Joan King and Dr. William King in organizing this event; THAT the Authority provide support staff. CARRIED Ideas suggested: contact life guard associations; _ fliers sent to Canoe Symposium; involve clean -ups; focus on six concept sites then conclude at harbourfront; Council representative be contacted to co- ordinate events within their municipalities; the issue of liability be explored. JANUARY 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #15/93 3. 2. PART I SECONDARY PLAN STUDY: URBAN PLAN AND EVALUATION -City of Vaughan George Dark, Principal, Berridge, Lewinberg, and Greenberg, spoke to the Task Force on this issue. KEY ISSUE The Part I Secondary Plan: Urban Plan and Evaluation, City of Vaughan which has been developed by a team of consultants addresses future land use in currently rural areas in the headwaters of the Don Watershed. Res. #68/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Vicki Barron Margaret Casey IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the presentation of the City of Vaughan /consultants be received with thanks; AND FURTHER THAT consideration be given to the potential for including in the final Don Strategy Regeneration Plan, references to the Part 1 Secondary Plan: Urban Plan and Evaluation, City of Vaughan, which support the enhancement and /or protection of the natural features of the Don Watershed. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Meeting #12/93, the Task Force was advised by Walter Watt that the Part I Secondary Plan was undergoing public consultation. The Task Force Chair has requested that a presentation be made on the draft secondary plan by the consulting team and planning staff of Vaughan focusing on the specific provisions affecting the headwaters of the Don Watershed. Excerpts from the Secondary Plan were circulated with the agenda. It is anticipated that following the presentation and careful review by a few members of the Task Force, Authority staff, and the Task Force's regeneration plan consultants, the Task Force may wish to support portions of the plan by incorporating elements of it into the subwatershed report for the Upper East Don. WORK TO BE DONE Identify a number of Task Force members available to review the Part I document and assist staff and Gartner Lee in identifying specific components to be addressed in the Subwatershed Plan for the Upper East Don. WR 5 by- 4. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #15/94, JANUARY 13, 1994 3. DESIGNING FOR YEAR ROUND USE OF NATURAL AREAS Ksenija Klinger, Principal, EKO Consultants, spoke to the Task Force and presented slides on her work which specializes in bringing the social research and micro climate studies together in order to evaluate and develop guidelines to extend the use of natural areas year round. These tools and techniques can be uses to bring people into the Don year round. Res. #69/93 Moved by: Seconded by: Vicki Barron Don Cross THAT the Task Force incorporate the year round use principle in the design of the six concept sites. CARRIED 4. REGENERATION MANAGEMENT PLANS - Consultant's Progress Report Rick Hubbard, Project Manager, Gartner Lee Limited, updated the Task Force on the activities that have taken place in the last month and the approach used for preparing tributary watershed reports. He also asked the Task Force to focus on the graphics used for the tributary mapping produced by Paul Cosburn and give some feedback before the end of the meeting. Katherine Dowling outlined the agenda for the next set of workshops which begin January 17, 1994 and the process and goals that she hopes to accomplish. 5. PRIORITIZATION OF WATER STRATEGIES FOR THE DON RIVER WATERSHED Sonya Meek invited comments on the Prioritization of Water Strategies for the Don River Watershed by Friday, January 21, 1994. She introduced Dong Andrews, P. Eng., Marshall Macklin Monaghan who gave and overview of the Strategy and answered questions. KEY ISSUE A prioritization of the water management strategies has been completed on an overall watershed and subwatershed basis, with a final set of priorities recommended for each municipality and agency. Res. #70/94 Moved by: Seconded by: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the report entitled, Prioritization of Water Strategies for the Don River Watershed (January 1994), be received for information; THAT the prioritization be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Metropolitan Toronto Department of Works; AND FURTHER THAT addition or proposed revision, if necessary be provided at the next Task Force meeting, February 24, 1994. CARRIED CO/Z 6/9y JANUARY 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #15/93 5. 5. PRIORITIZATION OF WATER STRATEGIES FOR THE DON RIVER WATERSHED (CONTD.) BACKGROUND At its meeting #14/93, the Don Watershed Task Force adopted Resolution #61/93 THAT the proposed criteria for the prioritization of water management strategies, as attached to the report dated 1993. 11.25., be used in the development of the draft regeneration management plans. In response to this resolution, Mr. Doug Andrews has completed a prioritization of the water management strategies on an overall watershed and subwatershed basis and has recommended a final set of priorities for each municipality and agency. The results of this evaluation were documented and available at the meeting. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Authority staff will request comments on this evaluation from the Regeneration Management Plan Steering Committee and Task Force members. Any comments will be addressed in a revised report, which will be provided to Gartner Lee Limited for incorporation into the development of the final Don Watershed Regeneration Plan. 6. THE JOLLY MILLER SITE Due to lack of quorum, this item could only be discussed. NEW BUSINESS (a) The 1994 Don Watershed Task Force Work and Meeting Schedule was distributed. (b) Adele Freeman requested comments on the Don Watershed Regeneration Plan Part I, dated November 1993 be forwarded as soon as possible. (c) The Draft Fisheries Plan was available at the meeting. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:10 p.m. David G. Dyce J. Craia Mather Manager, Resource Management Section Secretary- Treasurer /bb. W R7 /Ix( DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #15/94 THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1994 - 1994 DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE WORK & MEETING SCHEDULE JANUARY 17; 1:994 •• EAST P M i*.Ncertfi-Yark...Civrc:Centre.::RbOth.#31:•. JANUARY 18, 1994 AGENCY MEETING - 1:30 P.M. Gartner Lee Limited . : ... . WEST RKS "biirtari FEBRUARY 3;11994 Receive Draft Strategies from Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat including revisions and reorganization of the format. Circulate to Editorial Committee. FEBRUARY 7, 1994 Circulate Draft Don Watershed Report Card to Report Card Committee for review. FEBRUARY 8, 1994 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE MEETING Review and confirm final revisions to the Vision, Principles, and Background Section. ,Forward to MTRCA staff for final report layout and graphics. LJPPER EAST DON WORKSHOP ''''''''''' M i=iithoi4. Valley Park Concept FEBRUARY 11, 1994 REPORT CARD COMMITTEE MEETING - 4:00 P.M. MTRCA Head Office Receive comments from Report Card Committee members regarding the draft report card. Make appropriate revisions for submission to full Task Force. W /?q WER',D.ON• EAST :WORKSHQp: -: 7:00 P M: inch /Cumrrier Cor ceps.:$ te''r: • :FEBRUARY:::1 FEBRUARY 17, 1994 R /MAS lew.: Sctiao RKS:H Concept'' Site Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat will finalize Vision, Principle and Background section for final report layout. Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat will submit draft Strategies document for staff to circulate to the Task Force members for review. FEBRUARY::: ':1., 1994 RMAN :,TWE LS-WORKS.. ar fing Pa k: Concep FEBRUARY 24, 1994, 6:30 P.M. TASK FORCE MEETING NORTH YORK CIVIC CENTRE, COMMITTEE ROOM #3 AGENDA: Strategies Chapter Report Card Draft Concept Site Plans (maps) Final Report Format for Approval MARCH 3, 19194 Receive draft Regeneration Management Plans from Gartner Lee Limited. Revisions to strategies are received from Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat. MARCH 10, 1994 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE MEETING Review draft Regeneration Management Plans with Committee Members. MARCH 11, 1994 CONSULTANT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Review and finalize Regeneration Management Plans including Concept Site Plans. MARCH 17, 1994 Gartner Lee Ltd. submit the Regeneration Management Plans for circulation to Task Force members. _ MARCH 24, 1994 MUNICIPAL AGENCY MEETING Implementation Strategies IuR4. /ay MARCH 24, 1994, 6:30 P.M. TASK FORCE MEETING BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE VISITORS CENTRE - SOUTH THEATRE AGENDA: Regeneration Management Plans • Implementation Strategies Plans for Release of Documents Formation of Watershed Council Securing Funding for 1995 APRIL 7, 1994 Final Document including Executive Summary circulated to Task Force members. APRIL 14, 1994, 6:30 P.M. TASK FORCE MEETING NORTH YORK CIVIC CENTRE, COMMITTEE ROOM #3 AGENDA: Complete Final Draft No Further Revisions APRIL 28, 1994 FINAL LAYOUT COMPLETE MAY 6, 1994 Circulation to MTRCA Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Members. MAY 13, 1994 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting. MAY 27, 199,4 i Full Authority Meeting Adoption in principle for circulation. JUNE 1994 Circulation to public, agencies, councils, etc. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS WITH COUNCIL MEETINGS, ETC., PLEASE ADVISE JOANNE PATERSON AT 661 -6600, EXT. 325, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. G12 Ia by THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT October 1, 1993 to February 28, 1994 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #1 /94 March 4, 1994 W R 'it, ' DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE PROGRESS REPORT BY MARK WILSON CHAIR, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE In November 1993, the Task Force provided the Authority with its draft Don Watershed Regeneration Management Plan: Part 1. The draft document contains the vision, principles, background and 70 strategies addressing water management, natural heritage, and community commitment to the Don Watershed. Over 800 copies of the draft document have been circulated to agency and municipal staff and the public. The comments have been generally supportive and Authority staff are now assisting the Task Force in reviewing the comments for potential incorporation in the final document. The strategies and actions component is also being reworked to make it more comprehensible for a broad non - specialist audience. The firm of Gartner Lee Limited, in association with Paul Cosburn and Associates, was retained to develop the subwatershed regeneration plans as required in the Task Force's terms of reference. This has provided an excellent opportunity to begin the necessary and important process of involving municipal staff and the public more actively in the process. The consultants have utilized the extensive data base and background technical reports to identify areas where water quality, water quantity and terrestrial habitat improvements can be made in conjunction with other management practices. Valley and stream corridors access and areas where interpretation and watershed education opportunities exist have also been addressed. The consultants' reports which form Part 2 of the Regeneration Management Plan, will be graphically illustrated depicting the seven subwatersheds and the actions that are needed throughout all sections of the valley and stream corridors. The Task Force ihas also initiated the development of plans that will lead to specific regeneration initiatives at six specific sites throughout the watershed. To ensure this plan moves forward quickly into an implementation phase, these sites will serve to illustrate in the final document what kinds of actions can and must be taken to regenerate the Don. The response to this approach has been well received by the public and has resulted in many excellent recommendations which are also being incorporated into the final designs. Over twenty public meetings will have been held throughout the watershed. A variety of media tools have been used to alert the communities throughout the Don to the plans underway and the part we can all play in improving the health of this watershed. Task Force member - Councillor Joan King - is chairing a Celebrate the Don day planned for May 15, 1994. This day will involve groups from the entire watershed interested in caring for and enjoying the Don. The day will culminate in a celebration of the Don at Harbourfront with the arrival of canoeists paddling down the Don. The date will also coincide with the completion of the Task Force's report and its receipt by the Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board, on May 13, 1994. WR.Ia h q. THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #16/94 February 24, 1994 DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #17/94 March 24, 1994 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/94 April 15, 1994 ‘,. WR.i My Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace Pr the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #16/94 February 24, 1994 The Don Watershed Task Force Sub - Committee met in the Councillor's Lounge at the North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge Street, North York, on February 24, 1994. The Chair, Mark Wilson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1 PRESENT MINUTES Res. #71/94 Chair Mark Wilson Members Don Cross Lorna Krawchuk Natasha Feder Denis McKee Bill Granger Doreen Quirk Bill King Dan Taylor Joan King Thomas Ward Karl Knipfel Michael White MTRCA Staff Brian Denney Bernard McIntyre Dave Dyce Sonya Meek Adele Freeman Angie Parisi Craig Mather Joanne Paterson Consultants Brian Adeney, Gartner Lee Limited Paul Cosburn, Paul Cosburn and Associates Catherine Dowling, Gartner Lee Limited Rick Hubbard, Project Manager, Gartner Lee Limited Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat, Writer, Journalist Visitor David McClusky, City of Toronto Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Lorna Krawchuk THAT the Minutes of Meeting #15/94 be approved with the addition to Resolution #70/94 being Lorna Krawchuk as mover and Don Cross as seconder. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat thanked the Task Force for planting a tree by the Don in honour of her late father. (kJ R w /qy 2. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #16/94, FEBRUARY 24, 1994 1. REGENERATION MANAGEMENT PLANS Rick Hubbard, Brian Adeney, Catherine Dowling, and Paul Cosburn, gave an update on the final stages of the Regeneration Management Plans, focusing on the concept plans and the public meetings that have taken place over the last month. KEY ISSUE The firm of Gartner Lee Limited, in association with Paul Cosburn and Associates, will report on the further development of the Watershed Regeneration Plans and input received through the concept site public consultation process. Res. #72/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Doreen Quirk Don Cross IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the consultants' verbal report on the progress in the development of the Regeneration Management Plans be received; AND FURTHER THAT they proceed to finalize all materials by March 17, 1994. CARRIED BACKGROUND The watershed regeneration management plans and concept site plans being developed by the firms of Gartner Lee Limited and Paul Cosburn and Associates have been presented in public forums throughout the watershed. At a meeting held on Monday, February 7, 1994, members of the Regeneration Management Plans Steering Committee provided direction to the consultants on the following: • content and form of the final report; • requirements to complete study as per the terms of reference; • graphic presentation; • development of a sample subwatershed report for review by the technical steering committee. The consulting team will present and discuss with the Task Force substantive issues related to: • feedback from public consultation on the Regeneration Plan; • changes in graphic presentation; • regeneration priorities and techniques proposed for each concept plan; • work remaining to fulfil the Terms of Reference; • development of the final report. WR.is k FEBRUARY 24, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #16/94 3. 2. REVISIONS TO THE WATERSHED REGENERATION STRATEGIES Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat, Writer and Journalist, spoke to the Task Force outlining the process in the revisions to the Watershed Regeneration Strategies and asked for comments from the Task Force. KEY ISSUE Revisions to the Watershed Regeneration Strategies made by Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat. Res. #73/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Doreen Quirk Thomas Ward IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat be directed to work with staff of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and others to make the revisions as discussed and to incorporate changes resulting from the comments received on the November 1993 edition of the draft Don Watershed Regeneration Plan - Part 1. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Draft Regeneration Management Plan - Part 1 was released for comment in November, 1993. The strategies developed by the working group were organized by staff in consultation with a number of Task Force members for the November edition. Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat has taken that draft and consolidated a number of the strategies. The editing committee reviewed her first draft on Wednesday, February 9, 1994. Ms. Ohlendorf-Moffat was directed to make further revisions and has provided the attached for consideration of the Task Force. Staff of the Authority will provide at the February 24th meeting, a summary of the comments received to date, and where possible, recommendations on how to deal with the comments. Staff have met with a number of agency staff and anticipate further discussions with staff of other agencies prior to the February 24th meeting. WORK TO BE DONE Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat will work with staff of the MTRCA and others to make the revisions as discussed at Task Force Meeting #16/94, and to incorporate changes resulting from the comments received on the November 1993 edition of the draft Don Watershed Regeneration Plan - Part 1. 3. DON WATERSHED REPORT CARD Joanne Paterson gave an update on the development of a Report Card and also mentioned the possibility of doing a phone poll to measure and report on the level of awareness and the perceptions of the general public on the Don. cogs. 16/9q 4. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #16/94, FEBRUARY 24, 1994 4. FLYER - DON'T LET OUR WATER QUALITY GO DOWN THE DRAIN KEY ISSUE The distribution of the flyer "Don't Let Our Water Quality Go Down the Drain" with the water bills by all municipalities within the Don watershed. Res. #74/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Michael White Thomas Ward IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Task Force members consider working with the MTRCA to revise the sample "Don't Let Our Water Quality Go Down the Drain" for inclusion with the water bills throughout the watershed. CARRIED BACKGROUND Councillor David Shiner suggested the development of an insert for the City of North York water bill to assist in promoting watershed management and awareness. The Authority and the City of North York collaborated on the development of the attached flyer. It has been suggested that other municipalities could include a similar custom flyer in their water bill. 5. IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP PROPOSAL Adele Freeman updated the Task Force on a proposed implementation workshop. KEY ISSUE Desirability and potential attendees for a proposed implementation meeting. Res. #75/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Karl Knipfel Bill Granger THAT an implementation meeting be held on April 7, 1994, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., involving Task Force municipal council representatives, their senior staff and other watershed partners to initiate the implementation of the watershed strategy. CARRIED GVR. 17 /q1 FEBRUARY 24, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #16/94 5. NEW BUSINESS CHARLES SAURIOL'S 90TH BIRTHDAY DINNER Bill Granger reminded the Task Force of Charles Sauriol's 90th Birthday Dinner to be held May 10, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. at the Prince Hotel to launch the Charles Sauriol Environmental Trust Fund. CELEBRATE THE DON Joan King gave an update on the "Celebrate the Don" activities to be held May 15, 1994. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:00 p.m. David G. Dvce J. Craig Mather Manager, Resource Management Section Secretary- Treasurer /bb. Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #17/94 March 24, 1994 wR.1B /qy The Don Watershed Task Force Sub - Committee met in the Theatre at Black Creek Pioneer Village, 1000 Murray Ross Parkway, Downsview, on March 24, 1994. The Chair, Mark Wilson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT MINUTES Res. #76/94 Chair Mark Wilson Members Vicki Barron Lorna Krawchuck Veronica Bergs Deborah Martin -Downs Margaret Casey Denis McKee Don Cross Peter Meffe Natasha Feder Doreen Quirk Gord Hutchinson Thomas Ward Karl Knipfel Michael White MTRCA Staff Bonnie Brown Brian Denney Dave Dyce Adele Freeman Don Haley Craig Mather Bernard McIntyre Sonya Meek Joanne Paterson Consultants Brian Adeney, Gartner Lee Limited Catherine Dowling, Gartner Lee Limited Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat, Writer, Journalist Visitors Peter Hare, RAP Kathy Kaye Moved by:" Seconded by: Peter Meffe Carl Knipfel THAT the Minutes of Meeting #16/94 be approved with the notation that Peter Hare, RAP representative, was present for the meeting. CARRIED 2. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #17/94, MARCH 24, 1994 CORRESPONDENCE (a) Letter from Novina Wong, Deputy Metropolitan Clerk, dated February 14, 1994 re: Reappointment as representative of Metropolitan Council on the Don Watershed Task Force (b) Don Watershed Task Force Progress Report (c) Letters from R. M. Christie, Chair, Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Working Committee re: Natural Heritage System for the Oak Ridges Moraine Area: GTA Portion re: Landform Conservation in the Oak Ridges Moraine re: Options for Tomorrow Alternative Planning and Design Approaches for the Oak Ridges Moraine (d) Letter from Councillor Barbara Hall, Ward 7, City of Toronto, dated March 14, 1994 re: Task Force to Bring Back the Don (e) Committee of the Whole Agenda 28 February 1994, Don Watershed Regeneration Plan - Part I, City of Vaughan 1. REVISIONS TO THE WATERSHED VISION, PRINCIPLES AND THE 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat went over the Vision and Principles and the 40 Steps with the Task Force making note of changes requested. All further comments on the 40 Steps should be forwarded to Adele Freeman by Monday, March 28, 1994. KEY ISSUE Revisions to the Vision and Principles and to the 40 Steps to a New Don by Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat. Res. #77/94 Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Vision and Principles, as amended, be adopted. Res. #78/94 Moved by:_ Seconded by: Peter Meffe Margaret Casey CARRIED Don Cross Deborah Martin -Downs THAT Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat be directed to finalize the final 40 Steps to a New Don for the April 14, 1994 Don Watershed Task Force meeting. CARRIED t,J220 iql MARCH 24, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #17/94 3. 1. REVISIONS TO THE WATERSHED VISION, PRINCIPLES AND THE 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON (CONTD.) BACKGROUND Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat has worked with MTRCA staff to incorporate the comments from the Task Force at meeting #16/94, February 24, 1994, and other comments received on the draft Regeneration Management Plan Part 1 strategies and has prepared this submission. Ms. Ohlendorf- Moffat is submitting this draft for its last review by Task Force members prior to incorporating it into a final draft of the full report. The Vision has been reduced to eliminate repetition and one Principle has been edited to improve the style. Substantial revisions have been made to the 40 Steps to a New Don and warrant careful review. 2. DON RIVER WATERSHED REGENERATION PLANS - DRAFT REPORT Deborah Martin -Downs updated the Task Force on the Don River Watershed Regeneration Plans and requested comments by Monday, March 28, 1994. KEY ISSUE The written report by the firm of Gartner Lee Ltd. on the Don River Watershed Regeneration Plans. Res. #79/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Vicki Barron Don Cross THAT the Don River Watershed Regeneration Plans - Draft Report by Gartner Lee Ltd. be received; AND FURTHER THAT they proceed to finalize the Overview and Subwatershed chapters for inclusion in the final draft by March 31, 1994. CARRIED BACKGROUND The firm of Gartner Lee Limited will provide a full "consultants" report on their work. The sections distributed with the agenda are the essence of the Gartner Lee Ltd. report (excluding map) that will be included in the final Regeneration Management Plan. Task Force members are asked to review carefully the subwatershed sections they are most familiar with and be prepared to provided "marked up" copies for consultant and staff review following the Task Force meeting. 4. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #17/94, MARCH 24, 1994 3. DON REGENERATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION KEY ISSUE Don Watershed Regeneration Plan Implementation meeting on April 14th, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Res. #80/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Veronica Bergs Tom Ward THAT the report regarding the Don Regeneration Plan Implementation meeting scheduled for April 14, 1994, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Don Watershed Task Force will present its report to The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) in May, 1994. At Meeting #16/94, held on February 24, 1994, the Task Force resolved: "THAT an implementation meeting be held on April 7, 1994 from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. involving Don Watershed Task Force municipal council representatives, their senior staff and other watershed partners to initiate the implementation of the watershed strategy." Mark Wilson and Carl Knipfel met and agreed that the meeting should include a federal and a provincial representative. Staff have been attempting to finalize arrangements and have found that April 14, 1994, from 3:00 to 5:30 p.m. is a preferable date. A draft agenda was available at the meeting. 4. CELEBRATE THE DON - MAY 15, 1994 Vicki Barron reported on the Harbourfront Event that will be part of Celebrate the Don on May 15, 1994. Some of the events that the Steering Committee are in the process of planning for the Ship Deck tent at Harbourfront are a colouring book /poster contest, Kaleidoscope for Kids, tour boat of the harbour, the yellow fish program, lost and found display of Don eclectic junk, and a parade with piper and town crier. The stage events will be chaired by Joan King, with' Mark Wilson, Bill Granger, the Minister of Natural Resources (if available), the municipal mayors and the regional chairs being on stage as guests. It was agreed to go to the municipal councils with the Accord (constituting support of the Vision and Principles) that mayors and regional chairs will be requested to sign and also forward the Vaughan Council resolution of February 26, 1994 with the Accord. oJR, 2.2./qv MARCH 24, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #17/94 5. 4. CELEBRATE THE DON - MAY 15, 1994 (CONTD.) KEY ISSUE A report on the progress of Celebrate the Don on May 15, 1994. Res. #81/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Peter Meffe Vicki Barron IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the progress report for Celebrate the Don on May 15, 1994, be received; AND FURTHER THAT a final agenda for the events planned for May 15, 1994, be provided at the April 14, 1994 Task Force meeting. CARRIED BACKGROUND At its meeting #15/94, held on January 13, 1994, the Don Watershed Task Force adopted Res. #67/94: "THAT the Don Watershed Task Force support the organization of Celebration of the Don River to be held on May 15, 1994; THAT Vicki Barron, Veronica Bergs, Steve Klose, Dr. Bill King, Councillor Joan King, and Walter Watt, work together in organizing this event; THAT the Authority provide support staff." The purpose of the May 15th event is to raise the awareness of the public throughout the watershed by arranging events that everyone can participate in and enjoy. In addition to the day's events, the Task Force will be using this event to announce the completion of its Regeneration Management Plan for the Don River Watershed and to kindle the political support that will be necessary to ensure its implementation. At their first meeting the Steering Committee decided that the following three committees should be set up to divide the arrangements necessary to organize the day's events: 1) Harbourfront Event Committee Harbourfront Event is from 2:00 -3:00 p.m. at Harbourfront (exact location to be confirmed); it is a watershed event with display booths for all municipalities; environmental displays (depending on space); International Town Crier from Markham; flags from all municipalities will be on the stage; arrangements for a press conference /lunch for Mayors; give away gifts for children (colouring books /seeds in newspaper pots); u1K 2-3 k4 6. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #17/94, MARCH 24, 1994 4. CELEBRATE THE DON - MAY 15, 1994 (CONTD.) Mayors will carry down a piece of the puzzle in the shape of their municipality and join it together at the ceremony; Mayors will sign their piece of the puzzle in support of the principles of regeneration suggestion for a donations box for Don River enhancement work. 2) Paddle the Don Committee organize a canoe ride from Serena Gundy Park to Harbourfront; canoes will depart between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon from Serena Gundy Park; press event at 10:00 a.m. at Serena Gundy Park; coordination of participants and logistical arrangements; safety and liability issues and responsibilities. 3) Public Relations /Municipal Events /Media Contact participation of municipal Special Events Coordinators; coordinate local events for advertising and inf' rmation exchange; Special Events Coordinators will be the contact person for municipal events and logistics; MTRCA staff will distribute information to local press through PSA's etc.; Special Events Coordinators will coordinate the involvement of council and mayors; Allan Foster of the Kortright Centre for Conservation will promote the day through radio & TV contacts. Councillor Joan King has written to all Mayors and members of Council in the watershed to inform them of the event and encourage them to participate. Following a meeting with the Special Events Coordinators from each watershed municipality, a second letter was drafted to the mayors and members of council requesting that they proclaim May 15, 1994, as a day to "Celebrate the Don ". In addition, each Mayor was encouraged to participate in the canoe paddle from Serena Gundy Park and the Celebrate the Don ceremony being held at 2:00 p.m. All municipal events will occur in the morning so anyone interested can attend the Harbourfront event at 2:00 p.m. All Special Events Coordinators agreed to use the information provided to them in a draft news release and add their names as a contact person for more information. It was recognized that a number of events will be carried out at different times during the day that may overlap. Participants will have to choose which events they will attend. The list of events planned for each municipality has not been confirmed, however, the following is a list of potential municipal events: • East York: Toronto Field Naturalists - Todmorden Wildflower Walk; Todmorden Mills Agenda. • Scarborough: Yellow Fish Road storm drain marking program with the Boy Scouts in the area of the Don Watershed Task Force's Terraview Willowfield Concept Site (Carl Knipfel & Paul Albanese). c,iR.z4 M4 MARCH 24, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #17/94 7. 4. CELEBRATE THE DON - MAY 15, 1994 (CONTD.) • Markham: nature walk; possible involvement of Markham Museum. • Metropolitan Toronto: planting with Metro Parks, Evergreen Foundation, Friends of the Don East York; tour of the Brickworks site at 11:00 a.m. hosted by Councillor Peter Oyler, Councillor Ila Bossons, Gary Malkowski, MPP, York East, Metro Parks & Property; canoe Event (Councillor Joan King). • North York: - heritage walk with Frank Wilsmith (North York Historical Society); Henry Farms Community Association; clean -up Brookbanks Park, W.H. Winter, Don Valley East Ratepayers and Community Association. • Norm Defrae (Landscape Architect) - nature walk. • Town of Richmond Hill: to be confirmed. • City of Toronto: community planting and /or clean up organized by Deborah Butterfield, Sherwood Park. • City of Vaughan: clean -up Fieldgate Site (Councillor Peter Meffe); providing buses to transport people from Vaughan, Richmond Hill, and Markham down to the canoe event at Serena Gundy Park; 9:00 a.m. nature walk from Fieldgate to a sugar bush and back to the Civic Centre. • City of York: City of York has a very small section of the Don within their municipal boundary, however, they may pursue an event at Cedarvale Ravine. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m. David G. Dvice J. Craig Mather Manager, Resource Management Section Secretary- Treasurer /bb. THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB Correspondence dated February 24, 1994 re: Paddling Facility on Frenchman's Bay Authority Meeting #3/94 April 22, 1994 u1R. AID hv WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB P.O. BOX 307 WEST HILL, ONTARIO O M1 E 4R3 February 18, 1994 Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Attention: Mr. Larry Field Subject: West Rouge Canoe Club Frenchman's Bay Site Dear Larry, E D c3 F" 23 199, PLAN REV1EW SECTION We were pleased to meet with you on Thursday, February 17, 1994, and wish to confirm the West Rouge Canoe Club wish to establish a paddling facility on Frenchman's Bay. The ability to paddle on Frenchman's Bay will allow the club to expand the services it offers to the Local communities and provide the proper training facilities for a number of national level club athletes. The W.R.C.C. require a interim site to park a storage trailer and have water access to launch the canoes and kayaks. As discussed, we feel the trailer can be Iocated on Zone G, Greenbelt Zone, south of Sunrise Avenue and east of Breezy Drive behind the grove of trees. The boats can be launched from a floating dock located on the south side of the inlet area at the foot of Sunrise Avenue opposite to the F.B.Y.C. visitors dock. We have shown this proposed layout on the attached area map. The boat storage facility will be sponsored by the Pickering Kinsmen Club who will be providing a 40 foot transport trailer, properly installed, painted, etc. The trailer will house approximately 20 canoes and kayaks. The boats would be launched via a 30 foot floating dock. We would expect that parking for 3 to 5 cars would be required which could be accommodated in the parking area south of the proposed site off Promenade Rd. The club will be training approximately 20 to 25 high performance paddlers in the early morning, 7:00 to 9:00 AM, and late afternoon, 4:00 to 7:00 PM. We would also be able to offer developmental programs for the local community residents during the daytime. The club will propose to host a one day regatta each summer' with participation from up WEST ROUGE CANOE CLUB P.O. BOX 307 • WEST HILL, ONTARIO • M1 E 4R8 to seven other clubs of the Western Ontario Division, Canadian Canoe Association. We will make a request for a special events permit from M.T.R.C.A. under separate cover. The long term plan would be for the club to obtain a permanent site on Frenchman's Bay where we could build a facility to provide year round training with water access during the summer period. We would suggest we investigate the requirements of the W.R.C.C. and the future plans for development by the M.T.R.C.A. for potential areas of joint interest in providing a permanent facility on Frenchman's Bay. Welook forward to our future dealings with you. Yours truly, Bill Blair, Commodore (416) 281 -5872, (416) 724 -8304 m IMAM'S BAY I.!, 1r/ li /lib I"a j J , •x417/ 40 t1 IJI't ti /‘1►1 ! j1. /►fl• ' 1 -1 p.„. 1 -N IIII �111a u11 oil ,11 1,I1 ! - �� O 41;11 r / l �r\ .i 1 . s VP f111 I 1 \ .111 1 ' v 1•i i i/ RI: —;L 1, - „ ; /�1_ , /,..,III, _ \ l� -Li, Le. / ►y 7:71 V !//_,,j--:// !if/ � 1_ ) ,\ X1 11 • tail/ LAKE ONTARIO W.Zc /9v THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MINUTES DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #18/94 April 14, 1994 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/94 May 13, 1994 c. Gc/R3olqLf Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace erthe metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority minutes DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE SUB - COMMITTEE #18/94 April 14, 1994 The Don Watershed Task Force Sub - Committee met in the Theatre at Black Creek Pioneer Village, 1000 Murray Ross Parkway, Downsview, on April 14, 1994. The Chair, Mark Wilson, called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. PRESENT Chair Mark Wilson Members Veronica Bergs Carl Knipfel Margaret Casey Deborah Martin -Downs David Cohen Denis McKee Don Cross Peter Meffe Natasha Feder Doreen Quirk Bill Granger David Shiner Gord Hutchinson Thomas Ward Bill King Walter Watt Joan King Michael White MTRCA Staff Visitors Bonnie Brown Brian Denney Dave Dyce Adele Freeman Craig Mather Bernard McIntyre Sonya Meek Joanne Paterson Peter Hare, RAP Rick Hubbard, Gartner Lee Limited Luchiano Martin, ARCH Tija Luste, Waterfront Regeneration Trust Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat, Writer, Journalist Mary Taylor Member Lorna Krawchuk sent regrets due to a prior commitment. MINUTES Res. #82/94 Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Minutes of Meeting #17/94 be approved. Doreen Quirk Bill King CARRIED 2. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94, APRIL 14, 1994 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Res. #83/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Joan King Gord Hutchinson THAT the municipal mayors and regional chairs be requested to sign a Don Declaration rather that a Don Accord (constituting support of the Vision and Principles) as stated on page four of the minutes of meeting #17/94. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE Notice of Public Hearing from J.H. Stevens, Commissioner of Planning, City of Vaughan, re: Official Plan Amendments #400 and #287. Peter Meffe updated the Task Force on the process of the Public Hearing. 1. UPCOMING MEETING DATES AND EVENTS KEY ISSUE To provide an update on the future dates and events of the Don Watershed Task Force. Res. #84/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Joan King Deborah Martin -Downs THAT the following list of upcoming meeting dates and events be received for information. CARRIED BACKGROUND Staff have prepared the following list of meeting dates and events for the information of the Don Watershed Task Force: April 14 April 14 Regeneration Plan Implementation Meeting Black Creek Pioneer Village - Canada West Room 3:00 - 5:30 p.m. Don Watershed Task Force Final Meeting Black Creek Pioneer Village - South Theatre 6:30 p.m. All members please attend for adoption and resolution to forward the final report to the Authority and finalize any additional recommendations it may wish to make to the Authority (eg. timing, implementation, follow up etc.). 1 t J23,2. ht APRIL 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94 3. 1. UPCOMING MEETING DATES AND EVENTS (CONTD.) May 13 Brief presentation of Watershed Regeneration Management Plan to the Water and Related Land Management Board. May 15 Celebrate the Don Full agenda forthcoming. May 27 Full Presentation of the Task Force Regeneration Management Plan to the Full Authority. All members of the Task Force are invited to attend. The following sequence will be used to finalize the Task Force's report: March 24 formal adoption of revised Vision and Principles; March 28 all Task Force and staff comments on the Gartner Lee report submitted to Gartner Lee Limited; April 7 receipt of "Final Draft" of Gartner Lee report. Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat carries out initial edit of subwatershed chapter for inclusion in the final draft; April 14 Paul Cosburn provides final draft maps for final review at the Task Force meeting; April 14 formal adoption of "40 Steps to a New Don "; May 2 editorial meeting with Mark Wilson, Deborah Martin -Downs and staff to address the integration of the final document; May 7 executive summary of the Task Force report and communication to the Water and Related Land Management Board; May 13 copies of written text available for Water and Related Land Management Board including black and white maps; to be forward to the Authority. Please note: A final Task Force report will be produced with colour maps, black and white photos and diagrams immediately following receipt to the Authority. This will take approximately six weeks due to layout and printing time. Task Force members are invited to submit ideas for photos, etc., to Adele Freeman. 2. UPDATE ON "CELEBRATE THE DON" EVENT - MAY 15, 1994 Joan King commented on the excellent public relations representatives from the City of Vaughan and the other municipalities who are assisting in coordinating this event. She also thanked Joanne Paterson for her work on the event. She informed the members that the Don Valley Parkway would be closed May 15th for repair. There will be ten municipal canoes available for mayors and councillors on the event day and a sign -up list was circulated to identify which Task Force members would be canoeing. W 2 33 /9.f 4. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94, APRIL 14, 1994 3. DON RIVER WATERSHED REGENERATION MANAGEMENT PLANS KEY ISSUE Final Review of the Don River Watershed Regeneration Management Plans prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd. and Paul Cosburn and Associates and the completion of the final Task Force report to the Authority. Res. #85/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Joan King Bill Granger THAT the final revisions be made to the text and graphics of the Don Watershed Regeneration Management Plans by consultants Gartner Lee Ltd. and Paul Cosbum and Associates; THAT the writer, Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat, proceed to incorporate these materials into the final report of the Task Force; THAT Gartner Lee Ltd. finish the preparation of the "reach notes" data base; THAT Mark Wilson, in consultation with Councillor Lorna Krawchuk, Deborah Martin- Downs, and Margaret Casey, be authorized to approve the final text of the report; THAT staff, in consultation with Task Force members, proceed to finalize the production of the final report including inclusion of photos and graphic illustrations to be printed following presentation to the May 27, 1994, Authority meeting; AND FURTHER THAT consideration be given to the production of a special May -June issue of "On the Don" devoted to presenting highlights of the Task Force's report. CARRIED BACKGROUND Gartner Lee Ltd. and Paul Cosburn and Associates have completed their final draft of the Don Watershed Regeneration Management Plans. Task Force members are strongly encouraged to review the chapters of the plans relating to the subwatershed(s) they are most familiar with and provide final comments to the consultants at the Task Force meeting. At this time we anticipate the comments will focus on minor adjustments rather than major structural changes. Paul Cosburn has completed revisions to all the graphic materials. It has been determined that one view of each concept site will be included in the final document with an aerial photograph. These plans are available in black and white for review at the meeting. Mr. Cosburn has made all the revisions to the subwatershed maps incorporating the many style, format and content changes recommended by Task Force members and the public. One colour copy of the Upper East Don is available for review as well as black and white copies of each of the other subwatersheds. Task Force members are also requested to carefully review these maps so that we can move to final production. APRIL 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94 5. 3. DON RIVER WATERSHED REGENERATION MANAGEMENT PLANS (CONTD.) The report prepared by Gartner Lee Ltd. must now be incorporated into the final Task Force report. The subwatershed reports are significantly longer than the original allocation of 50 pages including graphics. Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat will edit this work for inclusion in the final report to ensure the report, to the extent feasible, reads as one document. An executive summary is also being prepared for the entire document and will included a very short overview of each subwatershed. A small sub group of the original editorial committee is recommended to work with the writer to finalize the report. A number of titles for the final Task Force report have been suggested including "Renewing the Don ", "Achieving a New Don ", "Creating a New Don ", and " A Renewed Don ". Please convey any specific suggestions you may have to the Ms. Ohlendorf- Moffat. 4. PAST AND PRESENT, NATIVE SIDEBAR AND THE 40 STEPS TO A NEW DON KEY ISSUE Approval of the final version of the Past and Present Don, Native Side Bar, 40 Steps to a New Don. Res. #86/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Don Cross Margaret Casey THAT the final version of the "Past and Present Don ", 40 Steps to a New Don, and the new native "side bar" be received and approved for inclusion in the final Task Force report. CARRIED BACKGROUND Pat Ohlendorf-Moffat has finalized the items noted in the recommendation incorporating the comments of public and Task Force members. Very few substantive changes were suggested to the former background chapter now titled the "Past and Present Don." Their have been a number of changes to the 40 Steps based on comments received from the Task Force and staff. It is not anticipated that there will be any further substantive changes to these final reports and they are provided for information. The final report will include the following chapters and items: • • • • • • Executive Summary The Don - Past and Present Vision Principles 40 Steps to a New Don Subwatershed Reports including concept sites. CA) 2 3519y 6. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94, APRIL 14, 1994 5. OUTSTANDING ITEMS - Forwarded from previous minutes of Task Force Meetings Adele Freeman reported to the Task Force on this item. She informed the members that the Report Card had not been completed but would be continued by the Watershed Council. KEY ISSUE Items brought forward from the minutes of the Don Watershed Task Force Meetings. Res. #87/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Bill King Carl Knipfel IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT this report be received and staff proceed to carry out the actions as noted. AMENDMENT Moved by: Joan King Res. #88/94 Seconded by: Carl Knipfel THAT action is not required for Res. #62/93, Meeting #14/93 THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS BACKGROUND CARRIED CARRIED There have been a number of recommendations that have not been acted upon for a number of reasons. As this is the last scheduled meeting of the Don Watershed Task Force, staff has reviewed the minutes to identify outstanding issues which Task Force members may wish to act on individually. Meetina #1/92, Res. #3/92 "THAT the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee and /or choice of technical advisors be deferred until a framework/work p /an has been developed to guide the preparation of the Don Watershed Management Strategy ". No formal committee was established. Prior to the development of the work plan, it was anticipated that staff would do most of the work. With the retention of a number of consultants, a formal committee was established. Technical staff from a number of agencies have commented on their desire to have a technical unit established and this has been included in the 40 Steps to a New Don. No action required. k/R 3`/ely APRIL 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94 7. 5. OUTSTANDING ITEMS (CONTD.) - Forwarded from previous minutes of Task Force Meetings Meeting #7, Res. #29 -Report from Working Grout) #2 Water Flora & Fauna At an early meeting there was a decision to keep the Strategy document to a short 100 pages including graphics. In large measure that has been achieved. There has been concern, however, over having two sets of documents; one merely a summary of a more detailed document. This issue has been resolved by the Chair in consultation with staff and editing committees. The Task Force report will contain the full Background, Vision, Principles, Steps (formally strategies) and "lightly" edited Gartner Lee Ltd. and Paul Cosburn and Associates Report. The text will run over the 100 pages but will serve as the document for public and agency distribution. The Authority is in the process of preparing a number of reports including Don stormwater management criteria, fisheries management plans, and technical reach notes in a computer based format. This information will be made available, and will be adopted through the Authority as necessary. It is anticipated that the stormwater criteria will be on the May 13 agenda of the Water and Related Land Management Board. Task Force members will be advised of the finalization of these reports. They will be also be reported through the "On the Don ". Meeting #11/93, August 19, 1993 - Don Watershed Strategy Public Awareness and Consultation Program The Public Involvement Working Committee made only one report. A number of suggestions of the committee were incorporated and implemented in the regeneration management plan subsequently awarded to Gartner Lee Ltd. and Paul Cosburn and Associates. Councillor Joan King, Dr. Bill King, Vicki Barron, Veronica Bergs and others have organized the "Celebrate the Don" day. Many Task Force members organized special events, wrote newspaper articles and have given talks to groups. Public education and awareness is a predominant theme in the draft chapters of the final report, and it is anticipated that the Watershed Council will continue to involve and inform the public in the implementation and further planning efforts. No further Action at this time. Meeting #11/93, August 19, 1993 - Sheppard Subway Proposal Following a presentation on the location of the Sheppard Subway and the crossing of the Don at Leslie Street it was noted that a detailed design phase will follow. It was agreed that the Task Force work with the TTC on necessary site rehabilitation. Action: That a copy of the final report of the Task Force be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission as soon as it is available, and that the anticipated Watershed Regeneration Council be contacted once established. Meeting #12/93, Res. #45/93 - Implementing the -Don Watershed Strategy "IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Don Watershed Task Force support the concept that the Watershed Strategy included recommendations on mechanisms to reduce agency overlap and duplication between the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Transportation, local and regional municipalities, and the Conservation Authority with respect to the review and approvals of works within the watershed; 8. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94, APRIL 14, 1994 5. OUTSTANDING ITEMS (CONTD.) - Forwarded from previous minutes of Task Force Meetings THAT senior staff of the Authority pursue such mechanisms to establish the Don Watershed as a provincial model in this regard, in consultation with senior municipal and provincial officia /s; AND FURTHER THAT staff report on potential mechanisms for inclusion in the final strategy document and potentially the Don Accord." The staff of the Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources have been meeting to develop an agreement to reduce duplication in the plan input and review aspect of the approvals process. Significant progress has been made and it is anticipated that a draft agreement will be submitted to the Authority for approval effective July 1, 1994. This initiative will be tested for an initial period of one year. Interest has also been expressed by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Specific recommendations for reducing agency overlap have not been included in the refined 40 Steps to a New Don. The concepts of co- operation, and partnerships are encouraged throughout the document. No further revisions to the Steps are proposed at this time. Meetinu #12/93, Res. #46/93 - Don Watershed Heritage Study Draft Report "IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Don Watershed Heritage Study be received; THAT a final report, which includes a listing of the 418, be forwarded to reference libraries throughout the watershed; THAT the report be made available on a cost recovery basis; THAT the recommendations contained within the study be incorporated into the final strategies document; AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force Chair forward a copy of the final summary report and its recommendations directly to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. Action: Forward a copy of the summary report to the Minister immediately. Staff has reviewed the full document and is making some minor editorial changes. Copies of all final reports will be provided to watershed libraries. It is anticipated this will happen in July as a complete set of reports. Meeting #14/93, Res. #62/93 - Resources Not Garbage THAT Authority staff be required to prepare a report for information; THAT interested members of the Task Force meet with Authority staff and prepare a recommendation for the Task Force consideration; THAT the Task Force receive and thank the Resources Not Garbage coalition for their request of indorsement of their position; however, the Task Force will be preparing a response to the Interim Waste Authority, part of which will be waste diversion. APRIL 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94 9. 5. OUTSTANDING ITEMS (CONTD.) - Forwarded from previous minutes of Task Force Meetings THAT the Task Force will keep the Resources Not Garbage coalition informed of action taken; AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force needs to take a position on: (a) the ecosystem approach to garbage disposal; (b) waste reduction and diversion verses new land fill sites; (c) requirement for base flow stormwater management protection; (d) leachate treatment; (e) the Oak Ridges Moraine is not an appropriate site for land fill. " This issue has not been dealt with formally. Currently the Authority has retained the firm of Gartner Lee Ltd. to address a number of groundwater hydrology concerns. Until this information is available, Authority staff is not able to respond to this request. There are a number of references to the management of landfill sites in the draft Task Force report. No further action is recommended at this time. The Watershed Council may wish to pursue siting, operations and abandoned land fill issues. No further action recommended at this time. Meetinq #15/94, Res. #70/94 - Prioritization of Water Strategies for the Don River Watershed ..THAT the prioritization be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Metropolitan Toronto Department of Works;... " The staff has requested revisions to the prioritization which do not address priorities for all subwatersheds within a regional municipality. The revised document will be circulated to Metro Works for further discussion as required. The Marshall Macklin Monaghan study has been used by Gartner Lee Ltd. in their development of challenges for each subwatershed, and will continue to serve as a background resource as we proceed to implementation. WQ 39Ay 10. DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94, APRIL 14, 1994 6. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AUTHORITY KEY ISSUE Final Task Force recommendations to the MTRCA. Res. #89/94 Moved by: Seconded by: THAT the Don Watershed Task Force adopt the final report; David Shiner Don Cross THAT the Task Force express its thanks to the Authority, the municipalities and the many organizations and individuals who have contributed; THAT the Task Force express its sincere thanks to the consultants who have assisted in the development of the Task Force report; THAT the Task Force forward, with great pleasure, the final report to the Authority for consideration, with a request that the report be reviewed as quickly as possible in order that immediate action plans can be brought forward; THAT the Authority be requested to pursue partnerships for the implementation of the concept sites at the earliest opportunity; THAT the Authority be asked to sign the Don Accord; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority be requested to establish the "Don Watershed Regeneration Council" as soon as possible to carry on this important work. NEW BUSINESS PROPOSED HIGHWAY 407 BRIDGE OVER THE EAST DON RIVER Res. #90/94 Moved by: Seconded by: CARRIED Michael White Doreen Quirk THAT the Don Watershed Task Force, in its Vision, Principles and 40 Steps to a New Don requires maintaining or regenerating the form and function of the rivers and river valleys of the Don; THAT the Task Force communicate these matters to the Minister of Transportation and ask that they be seriously considered in the planning, design and building of the Highway 407 crossing of the East Don tributary of the Don River; CARRIED 1o240 lcii APRIL 14, 1994, DON WATERSHED TASK FORCE MEETING #18/94 11. EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION Res. #91/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Doreen Quirk Margaret Casey THAT the Task Force thank the Chair and the staff of the Authority and congratulate them on their excellent leadership and support of this process. AND FURTHER THAT the Task Force thank Mark Wilson for his efforts and excellent leadership. CARRIED Carl Knipfel thanked Pat Ohlendorf- Moffat on behalf of the Task Force for her hard work and the incredible spirit in which she carried out the writing of the report. Bill Granger announced that the Task Force is to be presented with an Honour Roll Award by the Authority at its Arbor Day celebrations on April 22, 1992, and an invitation was extended to all members. He also updated the members on the Charles Sauriol's 90th Birthday Dinner. He personally thanked all Authority staff and dedicated Task Force members and the many guest who have supported and work on this project. Bill then gave a slide presentation of the success stories along the Don. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m. David G. Dvice J. Craist Mather Manager, Resource Management Section Secretary- Treasurer /bb. THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY "DRAFT" MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES GREATER TORONTO AREA DISTRICT "One Window" Approach Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/94 May 13, 1994 wrt4algy (Page 1 of 2) "DRAFT" MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (hereinafter referred to as the MTRCA) AND THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES GREATER TORONTO AREA DISTRICT 10401 Dufferin Street Maple, Ontario L6A 1S9 (hereinafter referred to as MNR) Further to the desire on the part of the MTRCA and the MNR to effectively achieve and promote common natural resource management program interests; And further to the recognition by both agencies that certain program interests pertaining to the land use planning and development process can be delivered more efficiently by a streamlined commenting process where natural resource objectives can be clearly identified; And further that the MTRCA, in consultation with the MNR and other interested parties, has prepared a strategy for the rehabilitation and management of the Don Watershed: Therefore the MTRCA and the MNR hereto agree that within the Don River watershed; 1. The MNR and the MTRCA will continue to represent their respective program interests by providing input and review to municipal Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Subwatershed Plans, Environmental Assessment Act applications and other like strategic planning documents. 2. The MTRCA will be the lead commenting agency for natural resource management on all land use planning and development applications as outlined in Appendix 1 except on matters relating to: a) pits and quarries, mineral aggregates and petroleum; b) provincially significant wetlands; and c) Crown lands. The MNR will continue to be the lead agency in providing policy input and review for these issues. 3. The MTRCA agrees to have regard for provincial policies and directives. 4. The MTRCA and the MNR agree to share resource information, mapping and other information as deemed necessary. ...Cont'd W2 y 3hy (Page 2 of 2) 5. The MTRCA and the MNR agree to prepare appendices to this agreement setting out the operating procedures for this agreement, including the types of documents it pertains to, notification procedures and administrative procedures to streamline the approvals process. 6. The MTRCA and the MNR agree to review this agreement after a one year period. In addition, this agreement and its appendices may be amended from time to time by the MTRCA and the MNR to reflect changes in the programs of either agency or as a result of changes in provincial policies or directives. Further, this agreement may be amended, or a separate agreement drawn up, as a result of subsequent discussions regarding the streamlining process. This memorandum and the statements therein, have been agreed to this 1st day of July 1994. J.K. Barker District Manager Greater Toronto Area District Ministry of Natural Resources J.C. Mather Chief Administrative Officer The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority kJ2 44/9y Draft 94 -05 -02 APPENDIX I DOCUMENTS AND APPLICATIONS AFFECTED BY THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE ONE WINDOW PILOT PROJECT ON THE DON RIVER WATERSHED Further to the memorandum of agreement dated July 1, 1994-regarding land use planning and development approvals within the Don watershed, the MTRCA will provide comments relating to natural resource interests referenced in the agreement for the following documents and applications and related studies (eg. erosion and sediment control, stormwater management and geotechnical studies): planning Act Plans of Subdivision Land Severances (Consents) Minor Variances Site Plan Control Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By -law Amendments that are associated with the above development applications. 2. Environmental Assessment Act Schedule A, B and C reports pertaining to class Environmental Assessment documents. Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act Applications for exemption from the Parkway Belt Plan. Draft 94-05 -02 APPENDIX 2 Processing and approval of "Minor works" Further to the memorandum of agreement dated July 1, 1994 regarding land use planning and development approvals within the Don watershed, the purpose of this appendix is to set out the types of projects and associated process to be affected by the streamlining procedure relating to "work permits" associated with the Public Lands Act or MTRCA Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways permits. Where it is apparent from the review of any of the noted "minor works" that there appears to be an adverse impact or destruction of "fish or fish habitat" it will be necessary to follow the process outlined in Appendix 3. 1) Review and Approval of "Minor works" (outlined as follows) will be the responsibility of MTRCA who will issue a "joint permit" under the CA Act as well as the Public Lands Act by an officer designated under the said Acts. MNR will be sent copies of all such permits to assist in field compliance inspections. "Minor works" will be considered in accordance with the following four governing principles: the risk is limited to minor damages to natural resources. no riparian interests are affected. minor risk is posed to human health and safety. any potential damages are temporary or easily corrected. Examples of Minor works repair or maintenance of existing structures without enhancement of size or use small board walks and docks on spiles bank/erosion protection works new breakwalls /shoreline protection, (other than impervious vertical walls such as steel) with up to 5 feet (1.52 metres) of rock rip -rap encroachment beyond the existing bank on private property rock or rubble toe protection in front of existing breakwalls pipelines and utility corridors storm water outfalls municipal bridges and culverts 2) The MTRCA will be the primary contact agency for proponents of "minor" works normally subject to MNR "multi- purpose work permits" and will be the issuer of approvals or other comments where applicable. 3) The MTRCA will consult with the MNR regarding all proposed works not deemed "minor" as presented in Appendix 3 to this agreement. ...2 Page 2 4) MNR shall appoint selected MTRCA staff as officers under Section 5 (1) of the Public Lands Act. 5) MTRCA personnel will normally utilize the Conservation Authorities Act; but in some cases when appropriate, may also issue Stop Work Order /Notice of Violation under Public Lands Act. In such cases, MNR enforcement staff will be informed as soon as possible and will take the lead role with any further legal proceedings under the Public Lands Act. W R 47 AN OFFICERS DESIGNATED UNDER THE PUBLIC LANDS ACT Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement respecting the issuing of work permits between the York South Area Team of the Greater Toronto Area District, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and in accordance with subsection 5(1) of the Public Lands Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 413, as amended, the following employees of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are hereby designated as officers for that portion of the York South administrative area within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Signed: Dated: John Doe Jane Doe John Doe J. K. Barker, District Manager, Greater Toronto Area District tuR 4•14y Draft 94 -05 -02 APPENDIX 3 Processing "Major Works or Works with a Fisheries Concern" Further to the memorandum of agreement dated July 1, 1994 regarding land use planning and development approvals within the Don watershed, the purpose of this appendix is to set out the types of projects and associated process to be followed where it would appear that the work is "major" in scope or may have an adverse impact of fisheries or fish habitat. MNR will continue to issue Work Permits for those projects which clearly require approval ( "major works ") under the Lakes & Rivers Improvement Act. 1) Where work is not considered "minor" as outlined in Appendix 2, it will be necessary for MTRCA to assemble information from the applicant, with suggested modifications where applicable, and forward a copy to MNR. MTRCA will advise the applicant accordingly and will coordinate further discussions /negotiations with the applicant and MNR. These works would include, by example the following: enlargements or changes to existing channels in or near areas of fish habitat concerns; wetlands; ANSI's, W.I.A.'s; (see MNR maps) or endangered species habitat areas works in "Navigable Waterways" except minor bottom clean outs structures or works which significantly block or divert flow 2) MNR will advise of their position, along with further suggested modifications where applicable (written response eg. memo to MTRCA, within 2 - 3 weeks). MTRCA will coordinate further discussions with the applicant, revise submissions etc. in an attempt to mitigate, redesign, relocate, etc aspects of the proposal to avoid disturbances to the water course. 3) Where the work is deemed to be "minor" in terms of technical issues, but involves a minor encroachment on Crown land, less than 5 feet, MNR may issue a clearance to MTRCA within the same 3 weeks. Otherwise, MNR may ...2 JR. (4q /34y Page 2 withhold this clearance until arrangements are finalized (usually about 8' months) between the applicant and MNR. MTRCA will withhold the permit accordingly. In these cases the MNR's final authorization relative to Crown land will be copied to MTRCA to avoid misunderstandings on the status of approvals, clearly advising the applicant that a permit is still required. 4) Where Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) involvement is required, MNR will coordinate further discussion /negotiations with DFO. Where the "major works" involve a DFO Authorization, the approved DFO Compensation Agreement, and MNR Work Permit (issued under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act), will be sent to MTRCA for their inclusion in their permit/approved package which MTRCA will forward to the applicants. 5) It shall be the responsibility of MTRCA, in consultation with the MNR, to ensure that proponents of all proposals provide for the prevention of any harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. At the request of MTRCA staff, the MNR will review and provide advice and training as to mitigation measures related to fish habitat. 6) All final approvals and communications to the applicants and their agents will generally be issued by or through MTRCA to avoid confusion or misunderstanding on the part of proponents. 7) If designated personnel of either MTRCA or MNR come across an infraction they may issue a Stop Work Order /Notice of Violation as appropriate, and will inform the other agency as soon as possible along with an exchange of relevant documentation. WRSo /9q VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OCTOBER 1994 WR 5 194 PREFACE VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The MTRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program was approved by the Authority at Meeting #9/94, held on October 28, 1994, as follows: "Key Issue Approval of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program subsequent to the completion of the review of the draft Program document (April, 1992). Res. #A223/94 Moved by: Seconded by: Joyce Trimmer Brian Harrison THAT the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, dated October 28, 1994 (WR. 50/94), be approved; THAT the program be forwarded for information to the Authority's member and local municipalities; the Ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs, Environment and Energy, and Transportation; and other interested agencies, organizations and individuals; THAT the Authority's watershed management partners, both within the private and public sector, be requested to support the implementation of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program through their activities; AND FURTHER THAT the Authority's member and local municipalities be requested to update their Official Plan and Comprehensive Zoning By -law documents as soon as possible to define and identify valley and stream corridors within appropriate designations with consistent supporting policies and criteria and, in particular, that the recommended development setbacks from valley and stream corridors be adhered to and appropriate studies be requested, such as geotechnical investigations, prior to any development approvals, especially for sites threatened by natural hazards." The 1994 Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program advances The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's policies for the protection and rehabilitation of the valley and stream corridors within its jurisdiction. This Program has: • consolidated policies and procedures found previously within separate documents and reports; • updated policies and procedures reflecting the current understanding of watershed ecosystems; and MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 Preface (,) R . ...1/ chi • established new policy directions responding to current watershed issues. To this end, several former Program and Policy documents have been superseded, in whole or in part, through the adoption of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. These documents are: • 1980 Watershed Plan and 1986 Update: Flood Control Program; Erosion Control Program (Valleylands component only); Conservation Land Management Program; - Stormwater Management Program; • 1982 Environmentally Significant Areas Study; • 1985 Parking Lot Policy • 1987 Flood Susceptible Sites Policy; • 1990 Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed; and • 1991 Special Policy Area Policies. The above documents will continue to provide background material and detailed information not specifically addressed by the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. This Program gives affect to the strategic direction of the 1989 MTRCA Greenspace Strategy. Future revisions will be made to reflect technical information gained from the development and implementation of Watershed Strategies, Subwatershed Plans and Corridor Plans, and from results of monitoring activities and other studies in this and other jurisdictions. Revisions may also be required to reflect unique situations and proposals as they are identified. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 Preface W g53/ 9v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES iii APPENDICES iii 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 PURPOSE 6 1.3 VISION 7 2.0 PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 9 2.1 PRINCIPLES 9 2.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 10 2.2.1 Planning and Operations 10 2.2.2 Environmental Protection and Prevention of New Hazards 10 2.2.3 Protective Measures and Corridor Regeneration 11 2.2.4 Community Information and Emergency Response 11 2.2.5 Public Access 12 3.0 DEFINING VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES AND ALTERATIONS 13 3.1 VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR DEFINITIONS 13 3.1.1 Valley Corridor Boundary 13 3.1.2 Stream Corridor Boundary 16 3.2 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES AND ALTERATIONS 16 3.2.1 Valley Corridors 16 3.2.2 Stream Corridors 19 3.3 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING WATERCOURSES AND ALTERATIONS 22 4.0 POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 25 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT _ 25 4.1.1 New Urban Development 25 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses 27 MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 i w2 54 /ay 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 31 4.2.1 Development and Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas 32 A) Special Policy Area and Two Zone Area Boundaries and Designations 32 B) Development Guidelines for Development /Redevelopment within Designated Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas 35 C) Existing Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas 37 4.2.2 Development and Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas 37 A) New Multi -lot and /or Large Lot Development 37 B) Major Additions 38 C) Minor Additions 38 D) Replacement Structures 40 E) Property Improvements and Ancillary Structures 43 F) Opportunities for Regeneration 44 G) Infilling 44 H) Existing Resource -based Uses 45 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICING 46 5.0 POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 50 5.1 FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS 50 5.2 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILITY REMEDIAL WORKS 52 5.3 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF AUTHORITY OWNED FLOOD AND EROSION /SLOPE STABILITY CONTROL STRUCTURES 54 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS 55 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 60 6.1 WATERSHED STRATEGIES 60 6.2 SUBWATERSHED PLANNING 61 6.3 CORRIDOR REACH PLANNING 62 6.3.1 Corridor Management Plans 63 6.3.2 Corridor Site Plans 63 6.3.3 Implementation 63 6.4 REGULATIONS 64 6.5 LAND ACQUISITION 66 6.6 PLANNING ACT 67 6.7 OTHER LEGISLATION 67 GLOSSARY 69 MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 ii LIST OF FIGURES Page No. Figure 1 Municipal Boundaries 2 Figure 2 Watershed Boundaries 3 Figure 3 Typical Valleyland Components and Issues 4 Figure 4 Valley and Stream Corridors Within MTRCA Jurisdiction 14 Figure 5 Valley Corridor Boundaries, Including Adjacent Significant Areas 15 Figure 6 Valley Corridor Boundaries, Unstable Slope 15 Figure 7 Stream Corridor Boundaries 17 Figure 8 Stream Corridor Boundaries, Including Adjacent Significant Area 17 Figure 9 Stream Corridor Boundaries, Draining Less Than 125 Hectares 18 Figure 10 Legislation Routinely Affecting Valley and Stream Corridors 68 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Parking Lot Floodproofing Measures Flood Depth and Velocity Criteria Al MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 iii W R.Sb1gy GENERAL 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 INTRODUCTION In 1954 Hurricane Hazel struck the Metropolitan Toronto Region and resulted in a devastating Toss of life and property. Public attention focused quickly on the need to manage hazards associated with flood plains. A program of risk reduction based on prevention (regulation), acquisition and protection (remedial works) was developed and implemented through a provincial - municipal partnership - The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA). The MTRCA was established in 1957 under the Conservation Authorities Act. Pursuant to this Act: "The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals." RSO 1990, Chapter 27, Sec. 20 The MTRCA furthers the conservation, restoration, development and management of the natural resources within the nine watersheds affecting the Metropolitan Toronto Region which includes Metropolitan Toronto; parts of the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham; and parts of two local municipalities, Adjala - Tosorontio and Mono (Figure 1). The Authority has consistently recognized the valleylands within its watersheds as being important natural resources. The valleylands, valley and stream corridors, are the natural water collection systems for the Etobicoke, Mimico, Humber, Don, Highland, Rouge, Petticoat, Duffin, and Carruthers watersheds. There are also numerous smaller systems that drain directly to Lake Ontario eg. Frenchman's Bay (Figure 2). Valley and stream corridors are formed by natural processes which continue to influence their landforms, features and functions today. They are dynamic systems. These corridors convey, and provide storage of, storm and melt waters. They are important areas for groundwater recharge and discharge. They perform several ecological functions which include nutrient and sediment transport; provision of fish and wildlife habitat and migration routes; air quality improvement; noise level attenuation; moderation of microclimates; and the maintenance of a genetic pool for native flora and fauna. They are important biological and physical linkages which both contain and link many of the provincially, regionally and locally designated significant natural areas. Valley and stream corridors are valued landscape units providing diversity and contributing to environmental quality and the provision of open space. These corridors hold rich archaeological resources and natural heritage areas. Figure 3 illustrates typical valleyland components and issues. In natural stream systems, there are many more low order, headwater streams (small streams) than high order streams. Headwater streams make up approximately 50% of the total stream length in a watershed. Headwater streams form a large and ecologically significant part of the watershed drainage system. Headwater streams are the principle water collection vehicles into which swales MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 1 FIGURE 1 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES LAKE ONTARIO MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 FIGURE 2 WATERSHED BOUNDARIES CARRUTHERS CREEK LAKE ONTARIO PETTICOAT CREEK MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 FIGURE 3 TYPICAL VALLEYLAND COMPONENTS & ISSUES LA) 51/91 Seepage Zone `-: =" glacial tills and other well- drained j steep well - drained upland forest i mixed -wood slope Active Channel alluvial soils Abandoned Channel imperfect/poorly drained mixed flood plain communities �--- glacial tills and other steep, well- drained 1 well - drained shrubby slope j agriculture I Watershed I HYDROLOGY /HYDRAULICS Floodway x i I Watershed –x--- Flood plain x Changes I i . Changes I u < x > Low Flows Watershed I Crest of Slope Toe of Slope LANDFORM * Meander Belt Toe of Slope * Slope Crest of Slope * Stability 1 Watershed Changes I * Slope Stability I x —x1 x HighjQuality Community VEGETATION Sensitive Soil i *Rare Species j � Slope --x-- k —Sensitive -- j Riparian xRiparian x x 1 Watershed I FISHERIES Shading k ■Watershed Changes >j -- Habitat & — Erodible Banks & Slope C' h'e t hang es i 1 j 1 WILDLIFE *Rare Bird Nesting Heterogeneous Habitat Continuity j < j Minimum Desirable Corridor Width 1 I I LAND OWNERSHIP Control of Use > 1 Integration Withj Community j LAND USE Type of Use I Influence of i Adjacent Use > Parauel Access I RECREATION ACCESS I I <----- Access to Valley — > <-- Lateral & Cross Valley Access I Vistas & Views I • I VISUAL Landscape Unit I >� Intrusion < MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 4 LJ R bo/alLt GENERAL 1.1 INTRODUCTION (Cont'd) 1.0 and rills flow. Loss of these watercourses can have an impact on the natural storage and conveyance of water. Channelization can also result in large increases in peak flows and the timing of peak flows. For more frequent events, peak flows can increase 90% above predevelopment levels. Increases in the magnitude and frequency of flows impact the control of flooding and erosion. These increases also impact instream habitat by eliminating the more sensitive species and thus disrupting community structure. Headwater streams are important for groundwater recharge and discharge, temperature regulation and other valleyland functions. Each order of stream is important to the system as a whole. The system is sensitive to incremental changes. One such example is the maintenance of the aquatic food web. The lowest order streams start the food web by retaining leaves and woody debris, allowing them to decompose. As this occurs, the materials are collected and shredded by organisms that are typical of first order streams. •The output of nutrients from the many small streams is reprocessed further downstream, maintaining the species that are typical of higher order streams. The removal of the primary levels of food chain collection in a watershed through the elimination of first order stream habitat stops the flow of nutrients that are necessary to maintain downstream fisheries and other aquatic communities. The impact of piping or elimination of one or even a few tributaries may not be detectable at the watershed level; however, in terms of preserving biological communities in the watershed, the cumulative effects of removing all of the headwater streams leads to the elimination of most of the downstream aquatic species. Today, valley and stream corridors are recognized as the foundation or backbone of the greenspace system. Urban dwellers, health officials and planners all recognize the fundamental association between the quality of life in the Metropolitan Toronto Region and the presence and accessibility of greenspace. Within the Authority's jurisdiction, many valley and stream corridors have been substantially altered as a result of both urban and rural uses; particularly, the headwater streams. These changes have included removal of forest vegetation, the filling and loss of valley and stream corridors; and the piping, straightening and channelization of watercourses. Such changes have resulted in the degradation and loss of the natural integrity of these systems. Public concern for valley and stream corridors has been renewed. While the need for risk management related to flooding, erosion and slope instability continues, current public interest recognizes the need to ensure that future environmental degradation is prevented and damaged areas are rehabilitated /regenerated. To accomplish this, future decisions on land use activities must address valley and stream corridor concerns through a planning process which considers natural resource conservation, restoration, protection and management values. The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program provides the direction needed to accomplish this goal, which is: To undertake an integrated valley and stream corridor management program to prevent, eliminate or reduce the risk to life and property from flooding, from erosion of river banks, and from valley slope instability; to protect and regenerate the ecological health and integrity of these systems; and to provide opportunities for compatible public use and enjoyment. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 5 GENERAL 1.2 PURPOSE W R . GI /qq 1.0 1.2 PURPOSE To accomplish its objects, a conservation authority has the following powers: "a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine a program whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed; b) for any purpose necessary to any project under consideration or undertaken by the authority, to enter into and upon any land and survey and take levels of it and make such borings or sink such trial pits as the authority considers necessary; c) to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to expropriate any land that it may require, and, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land so acquired; .. . e) to purchase or acquire any personal property that it may require and sell or otherwise deal therewith; .. . g) to enter into agreements with owners of private lands to facilitate the due carrying out of any project; .. . i) to erect works and structures and create reservoirs by the construction of dams or otherwise; j) to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof; k) to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water pipe, gas pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole; I) to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for purposes, not inconsistent with its objects, as it considers proper; .. . o) to plant and produce trees on Crown lands with the consent of the Minister, and on other lands with the consent of the owner, for any purpose; p) to cause research to be done; q) generally to do all such acts as are-necessary for the due carrying out of any project. RSO 1990, Chapter 27, Sec. 21 MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 6 GENERAL 1.2 PURPOSE (Cont'd) 1.3 VISION 1.0 The Authority has adopted several programs since its inception in 1957 outlining its approach to the conservation, restoration, development and management of the natural resources within its jurisdiction. These programs have evolved and have been amended as the demands on the natural resources increased, as landuses within the watersheds changed, and as the Authority's knowledge and experience in watershed management has been refined. The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program is an important contribution to the on -going work of the Authority. The purpose of the Program is: • to integrate the Authority's public safety responsibilities with its commitment to ecosystem planning and management; • to define and identify the valley and stream corridors within its jurisdiction to which Authority policy and regulations will apply; • to consolidate, update and establish new Authority policies and procedures for valley and stream corridor protection and rehabilitation; and • to foster recognition and commitment by provincial and municipal agencies and the private sector for integrated valley and stream corridor management at the watershed, subwatershed and local level. 1.3 VISION The development of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program has been guided by a new vision and understanding of the ecology of these resources and the need to recognize the relationship between their landform, features and functions. The VISION begins with the retention of watercourses and valley and stream corridors as open, natural Iandforms, from the headwaters to the river mouth marshes and includes: • continuous greenspace corridors which serve as regional linkages to local greenspace resources, larger habitat areas and built communities; • corridors which provide refuge for vegetation, wildlife and humans; • a renewed partnership with provincial and local municipalities and the active involvement and support of the community in the protection and regeneration of valley and stream corridors; • the prevention, elimination, or minimization of the threat to life and property caused by flooding, erosion and slope instability; • a commitment to ecological regeneration within communities or other uses historically located in valley and stream corridors; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 7 GENERAL 1.3 VISION (Cont'd) W (Z 63 i'l 9 1.0 • the establishment of an extensive interregional trail system linked through the valley and stream corridors; • the gradual transfer of valley and stream corridors, where appropriate, into public ownership to reduce and /or eliminate the risk to life and property and to foster local and regional linkages; • a commitment to Watershed, Subwatershed and Corridor Reach planning involving provincial, municipal, private sector and community partners, designed to anticipate and prevent negative impacts within the corridors as well as to identify specific regeneration needs; and • a commitment to monitor, evaluate and, where necessary, amend the management techniques used to maintain, restore and enhance these important regional resources. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 8 WR.by 194 PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 2.0 2.1 PRINCIPLES 2.0 PROGRAM FRAMEWORK The following program framework outlines The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's principles and objectives for valley and stream corridor management. 2.1 PRINCIPLES The following principles provide the basis for valley and stream corridor protection and rehabilitation. Principle 1 Valley and stream corridors are important natural resources that function as an ecological system and must be managed within the context of the watershed as a whole. Principle 2 Ecological health and integrity of valley and stream corridors requires that the system be conserved from the headwater streams to the river's mouth. Principle 3 The conservation of valley and stream corridor systems requires the protection of the corridor landforms and watercourses. Principle 4 Valley and stream corridors are vulnerable to the incremental and cumulative effects of land uses and land use change. Principle 5 The successful management of valley and stream corridors is dependent on good tableland management. Principle 6 Proposals affecting valley and stream corridors must contribute to the protection and rehabilitation of ecological health; prevention or reduction in risk from flooding, erosion and slope instability, and should include opportunities for public use and enjoyment. Principle 7 Valley and Stream Corridors should be linked to local greenspace resources and large habitat areas and be integrated within our community fabric and form. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 9 PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 2.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 2.2.1 Planning & Operations 2.2.2 Environmental Protection & Prevention of New Hazards W f� . G5 /qy 2.0 2.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 2.2.1 Planning and Operations The Authority's objectives for valley and stream corridors with respect to planning and operations are: A) To facilitate the development and implementation of strategies for each watershed and, within the context of these strategies, to address valley and stream corridor management objectives. B) To promote, assist, and where appropriate, undertake the development and implementation of Subwatershed Plans and Corridor Plans to integrate valley and stream corridor planning and management into the municipal land use planning and community planning process in consultation with regional and local municipalities, the affected provincial agencies, the private sector and the local community. C) To maintain and provide current hydrologic, hydraulic and mapped information for use by the Authority and others, and to incorporate improved technologies as they become available. D) To extend and update the Authority's Fill Regulation. E) To have valley and stream corridors recognized as a specific land use designation in municipal planning documents as provided for under The Planning Act. F) To encourage the adoption of Provincial policies for the conservation of valley and stream corridors. G) To identify and designate natural areas that exhibit unique, unusual or high quality characteristics in or adjacent to river valleys and watercourses and to have these areas included within the same protective land use designation as valley and stream corridors. H) To implement the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program in a cost effective manner through the use of partnership agreements and shared commitment. I) To use and manage Authority owned lands in a manner consistent with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. 2.2.2 Environmental Protection and Prevention of New Hazards The Authority's objectives for valley and stream corridors with respect to environmental protection and prevention of new hazards are: A) To establish the boundaries of valley and stream corridors as the limit of new urban development. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 10 wR6(0l4y PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 2.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 2.2.2 Environmental Protection & Prevention of New Hazards (Cont'd) 2.2.3 Protective Measures & Corridor Regeneration 2.2.4 Community Information & Emergency Response 2.0 B) To prevent development that negatively impacts on the natural landform, functions and features and /or affects the control of flooding, pollution or conservation of land within valley and stream corridors. C) To bring valley and stream corridors into public ownership or to provide for their protection through other mechanisms, where appropriate, to ensure public safety; protection of the ecological integrity of these systems; and the quality of life for present and future residents of the region. D) To manage valley and stream corridors to include a diverse range of healthy ecosystems, interconnected by a network of functional corridors. 2.2.3 Protective Measures and Corridor Regeneration The Authority's objectives for valley and stream corridors with respect to corridor regeneration and the reduction or elimination of existing hazards to life and property are: A) To implement remedial works, on a priority basis, taking into account an evaluation of potential risk to life and property from flooding, erosion and slope instability. Remedial works will be designed using a Corridor Reach approach which will integrate in design and implementation, the Authority's and other agencies' objectives with respect to remediation, regeneration, and public access and will have regard to the responsibilities and requirements of municipal and provincial agencies. B) To operate and maintain all flood control and erosion control structures to ensure they continue to provide the level of protection for which they were designed. C) To enhance and re- establish self- sustaining terrestrial and aquatic biological communities which will be characterized by a variety of habitats, a diversity of species and a complex community structure. 2.2.4 Community Information and Emergency Response The Authority's objectives for valley and stream corridors with respect to community information and emergency response are: A) To develop awareness and sensitivity within both the private and public sector of the Authority's watershed and valleyland management programs and policies. B) To inform the private and public sector of the Authority's regulations affecting valley and stream corridors. C) To provide emergency response measures for flood control through the forecasting of flood events based on information received through a state of the art system, and to rapidly communicate flood hazard status reports to concerned agencies through a flood warning communications network. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 11 PROGRAM FRAMEWORK 2.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 2.2.4 Community Information & Emergency Response (Cont'd) 2.2.5 Public Access W267irtyi 2.0 D) To assist municipalities and emergency response agencies in developing, maintaining and implementing flood emergency plans. 2.2.5 Public Access The Authority's objectives for valley and stream corridors with respect to public access are: A) To encourage compatible resource -based uses within the valley and stream corridors that foster public enjoyment, understanding and stewardship of these areas, and by so doing, contribute to the quality of life within the Metropolitan Toronto Region. B) To establish public trails, where compatible with the natural resource base, in valley and stream corridors, with connecting links to the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Lake Ontario Waterfront, local greenspace resources, larger habitat areas and the community. C) To encourage the protection and establishment of visual access to valley and stream corridors through local municipal planning and development processes. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 12 DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.1 VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR DEFINITIONS 3.1.1 Valley Corridor Boundary 3.0 3.0 DEFINING VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES AND ALTERATIONS The following definitions, policies and procedures will guide Authority projects, reviews and approvals. 3.1 VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR DEFINITIONS Valley and stream corridors are the natural resources associated with river systems characterized by their landform, features and functions. Valley and stream corridors are distinguished from other physiographic features or resources by their connectivity to the river system as a whole. The physical landform of a valley corridor can visually be identified from its surrounding landscape (it is well - defined). The physical landform of a stream corridor cannot be visually identified from its surrounding landscape (it is ill- defined). Therefore, valley corridors are distinguished from stream, Corridors by the presence of a distinct landform. Valley corridors may or may not have a defined watercourse channel. Stream corridors will typically have a defined watercourse channel, except at the upper limit of the corridor - source area - where the watercourse (headwater stream) is characterized by surface flow and /or high water tables originating from springs and seepage areas. Figure 4 identifies the location of valley and stream corridors within the MTRCA's jurisdiction, generally illustrating the relative location and extent of these areas. Detailed Authority valley and stream corridor mapping at 1:2000 and 1:10000 scales for planning, reference, and regulatory purposes is available. This mapping forms the basis of the Authority's Fill Regulation (approved and proposed). The corridor boundaries were mapped based on criteria generally consistent with the definitions within this section. 3.1.1 Valley Corridor Boundary The boundaries of a valley corridor (Figures 5 and 6) are determined as follows: If the valley slope is stable, a minimum of 10 metres inland from the top of valley bank; or If the valley slope is not stable, a minimum of 10 metres inland from the predicted long term stable slope projected from the existing stable /stabilized toe (base) of the slope, or from the predicted location of the toe of slope as shifted as a result of stream erosion over a 100 year period. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 13 r , • ray ttokfibrip Natik1A6 416,1%. mar Ama_w_t_ .ftamerwvia1,- lira; AreNtps. 4 v-tv lear` ‘,4:j 4 Orthe meroporan scram and raga, consomme aucharry S,a. .n dr a orvo rn3n .4 I4 ) B81 (ki2 64 X94 0 I LEGEND General Location of Va1ey and Stream Corridors General Boundary of Volley and Shearn Corridors As Defined by the M T.R.0 A at 1:2.000 Scale General Boundary of valey and Stream Condors As Defined by the M T R CA at 1 10.000 Scale t 3 ■ ILO NCTON • THIS MAP IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY VALLEY L STREAM CORRIDORS WITHIN N.T.R.C.ti JURISDICTION FIG 4 OCT 94 FIGURE 5 VALLEY CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES INCLUDING ADJACENT SIGNIFICANT AREA (I) R 70 /94 Top of Stable Valley Bank Regulatory Flood Plain Significant Area FIGURE 6 VALLEY CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES UNSTABLE SLOPE 10 m Regulatory Flood Plain Predicted Stable Slope Line Projected from Stable /Stabilized or Predicted Toe of Slope Top of Stable Valley Bank Watercourse MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 15 (AA "7iAy DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.1 VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR DEFINITIONS 3.1.2 Stream Corridor Boundary 3.2 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.2.1 Valley Corridors 3.1.2 Stream Corridor Boundary The boundaries of a stream corridor (Figures 7 - 9) are determined as follows: When the upstream drainage area is greater than 125 hectares, a minimum of 10 metres inland from the Regulatory Flood Plain. or When the upstream drainage area is Tess than 125 hectares, a minimum of 10 metres inland from the predicted meander belt of the watercourse, expanded as required to convey the major system flows and /or to maintain riparian stream functions. Where a Significant Area as defined within this document is within and /or is immediately adjacent to a valley or stream corridor, the corridor boundary is extended to include the Significant Area and a minimum 10 metres inland. 3.2 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES AND ALTERATIONS 3.2.1 Valley Corridors A) The exact limit of valley corridor boundaries shall be determined through site specific field investigation and shall be established /confirmed by MTRCA. (This may result in top of valley bank and /or development surveys being prepared by landowners /proponents, as required.) B) Existing slope stability shall be determined through site specific field investigation and /or geotechnical study (including a river erosion study, where required). A geotechnical study to determine slope stability is required where: i) a slope is 3H:1V or steeper and greater than 2 metres in height; ii) there is visible evidence of slope instability or erosion on the site or adjacent slopes; iii) river erosion is within 15 metres of the toe of slope; and /or iv) there is a history of slope instability on the site or adjacent sites or slopes. The proponent of land use plans or development projects is responsible for carrying out these studies. Technical guidelines for geotechnical studies are available through the Authority. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 16 FIGURE 7 STREAM CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES 10 m Watercourse Regulatory Flood Plain FIGURE 8 STREAM CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES INCLUDING ADJACENT SIGNIFICANT AREA 1 Significant Area • • 10 m • Watercourse Regulatory Flood Plain MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 17 STREAM CORRIDOR PLAN 10 M. 10 M. FIGURE 9 STREAM CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES DRAINING LESS THAN 125 HECTARES Start of Watercourse: 20 metre Stream Corridor Width; No Meander Belt 10 M. Detailed View Width of Meander Belt Increases as Width of Watercourse Increases DETAILED VIEW OF itiou‘siedh. . \, 4 \AIN \ t. , otoo ir titt 3- i \ it */ C-wil* 1_ CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES Mid -line of Meander Belt 125 Hectare Drainage Limit 10 M. \ \ Meander Belt Stream Corridor Boundary \ NOTE MEANDER BELTS ARE DETERMINED BY THE AUTHORITY TO BE 20 TIMES THE LOW FLOW CHANNEL WIDTH. CENTRED ON THE MID LINE OF THE NATURAL MEANDER BELT UNLESS STUDIES, APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY, DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 • wR-7y /9y DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.2 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.2.1 Valley Corridors (Cont'd) 3.2.2 Stream Corridors C) Alterations of valley corridors through such activities as filling or enclosure shall not be permitted to create additional useable area and /or to accommodate development. D) In the case where existing buildings and structures and /or their associated lot are within an active erosion zone of a valley slope, slope stabilization works consistent with MTRCA Regeneration Project objectives and policies may be permitted to protect these properties and /or structures provided: 1) alternative protective measures are not viable (eg. relocation, redesign); 2) the works incorporate slope stabilization measures that shall be based on the following alternatives, listed in order of priority: i) non - structural measures (eg. adjusting or cutting of slope to its natural angle of stability; vegetative plantings); ii) structural measures (eg. fill; retaining walls). 3) the works will not create or aggravate flooding, erosion or slope instability on adjacent properties; 4) the ecological integrity of the valley corridor is maintained; 5) Significant Areas will not be affected; and 6) corridor rehabilitation is incorporated into the proposed works. E) Structural works proposed to stabilize middle and upper portions of a valley slope will be discouraged. NOTE: Stabilization of a toe of valley slope is further discussed under Section 3.3 3.2.2 Stream Corridors A) Regional Storm flood plain limits are determined through the Authority's flood plain mapping. Where flood plain limits are not available through the Authority, the proponent of land use plans or development projects is responsible for carrying out flood plain mapping studies. Technical guidelines for flood plain mapping studies are available through the Authority. (This may result in flood plain limit surveys and /or development limit surveys being prepared by the landowner /proponent, as required.) B) Meander belts are determined by the Authority to be 20 times the low flow channel width, centred on the mid -line of the natural meander belt unless studies, approved by the Authority, demonstrate otherwise. The Ministry of Natural Resources' requirements for vegetative buffers and conveyance of major system flows must also be satisfactorily addressed. Technical guidelines for these studies are available through the Authority. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 19 WR75Ply DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.2 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.2.2 Stream Corridors (Cont'd) C) Alteration of stream corridors through activities such as filling, enclosure or channelization shall not be permitted to create additional useable area and /or to accommodate development other than (1) or (2) below: 1) A flood spill zone exists, where flood waters are not physically contained within the stream corridor and exit the watershed or subwatershed. As a consequence, the limit and depth of flooding are difficult to determine. Flood spill zones occur naturally or can occur as a result of downstream barriers to the passage of flood flows such as undersized bridges or culverts. The Authority will determine where flood spill zone policies are applicable. Alteration to stream corridor boundaries within flood spill zones may be permitted subject to the following: i) Within flood spill zones the delineation of the revised stream corridor boundary will be established as follows: • • the maintenance of the width of the stream corridor upstream and downstream of the spill zone for naturally occurring spill zones; or • the maintenance of natural flood limits, assuming downstream barriers are removed, for spill zones caused by constructed works; and /or • the inclusion of any Significant Area(s), habitats and /or riparian features and functions. ii) Measures to remediate flood spill zones by safely conveying Regional Storm flows through a revised stream corridor must be investigated and if approved, implemented. iii) Remedial measures to convey regulatory flood flows within a spill zone may be permitted if approved through the preparation and adoption of a subwatershed and /or corridor plan (addressing both incremental and cumulative impacts) that demonstrates: • there will be no upstream or downstream impacts on the control of flooding as a result of changes to flood storage and conveyance characteristics. The removal or redesign of downstream barriers that are the cause of a spill zone should first be investigated; • there will be no upstream and downstream impacts on watercourse erosion; • that a corridor length and width consistent with the size of the stream flowing through it and the meander belt will be maintained; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 20 WR7GAt, DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.2 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.2.2 Stream Corridors (Cont'd) • there will be no reduction /fragmentation of wildlife habitat (including forage, water supply, shelter and living space), or reduction of wildlife diversity or restriction of wildlife movement. • all policies and procedures for watercourse alterations as set out in Section 3.3 will be met. iv) Alternatives to the above (eg. floodproofing of site specific developments) shall be discouraged and may only be permitted where complete remediation is not feasible. Specific criteria will be determined on a site by site basis but must always provide Regional Storm protection. 2) A stream corridor with an unusually wide flood plain with shallow depths of infrequent flooding (which is not associated with passive and /or inactive storage areas) based on an analysis of the following: • upstream and downstream flood plain characteristics within the same corridor (including widths, depths, stream gradient and frequency); and /or • flood plain characteristics of corridors with similar drainage basins within the watershed. The Authority will determine where shallow flood plain policies are applicable. Alterations to stream corridor boundaries within shallow flood plains may be permitted subject to the following: i) Within shallow flood plains, the delineation of the revised stream corridor boundary will be established as follows: • Maintain a corridor length and preserve a stream corridor width consistent with the upstream and downstream corridor reach and /or similar drainage basins; and • Include any Significant Area(s), habitats and /or riparian features and functions. ii) Remedial measures to safely convey regulatory flood flows through a revised stream corridor must be carried out and must be approved through the preparation and adoption of a subwatershed plan and /or corridor plan (addressing both incremental and cumulative impacts) that demonstrates: • there will be no upstream or downstream impacts on the control of flooding as a result of changes to flood storage and conveyance characteristics; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 21 DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.2 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING CORRIDOR BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.2.2 Stream Corridors (Cont'd) 3.3 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING WATERCOURSES & ALTERATIONS • there will be no upstream and downstream impacts on watercourse erosion; • there will be no reduction /fragmentation of wildlife habitat, (including forage, water supply, shelter or living space), or reduction of wildlife diversity or restriction of wildlife movement; • all policies and procedures for watercourse alterations as set out in Section 3.3 will be met. NOTE: Within passive or inactive storage areas, regrading may be permitted that retains existing stage /storage characteristics provided it does not conflict with the policies outlined above. D) In the case where existing buildings and structures are flood susceptible, remedial works consistent with MTRCA Regeneration Project objectives and policies, may be permitted to protect these buildings and /or structures provided: 1) alternative protective measures are not viable (eg. relocation, redesign); 2) structural upgrades and /or flood warning does not provide sufficient protection; 3) the works will not create or aggravate risk associated with flooding, erosion or slope instability upstream or downstream; 4) the ecological integrity of the valley and stream corridor is maintained; 5) Significant Areas will not be affected; and 6) corridor rehabilitation is incorporated into the proposed works. 3.3 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING WATERCOURSES AND ALTERATIONS A) Watercourses and source areas are determined through Authority mapping and /or field investigation and include modified watercourse channels but exclude such things as artificial drainage networks and rill erosion features. B) Alterations through such activities as filling, enclosure and channelization shall not be permitted to create additional useable area and /or to accommodate development other than in the following circumstances: 1) if watercourse erosion is causing va- lley wall instability, erosion control structures for toe protection may be permitted; and /or MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 22 DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.3 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING WATERCOURSES & ALTERATIONS (Cont'd) 2) if urban drainage design requirements demonstrate the need. C) Watercourse alterations, pursuant to Section 3.3.2 above, may be permitted if approved through the preparation and adoption of a subwatershed plan and /or corridor plan (addressing incremental and cumulative impacts, and approvals under the Federal Fisheries Act, if required) that demonstrates: 1) alternative protective measures such as additional setbacks are not viable; 2) there will be no upstream or downstream effects on flooding, erosion, or slope instability; 3) the use of natural channel design techniques which: i) maintain or enhance existing channel length and the natural meander wave length; ii) use a range of particle sizes in the bed material and establishes or provides for the formation of pools and riffles at appropriate intervals; iii) protect existing riparian features and functions or re- establishes, where appropriate, a minimum 10m wide zone of riparian habitat on both sides of the watercourse; iv) do not result in the restriction of fish movement or migration for spawning, nursery or feeding; v) do not increase water temperatures by: reducing shade, decreasing water depth, reducing groundwater flows; or through inputs from surface draw dams or stormwater management facilities; vi) do not decrease baseflow characteristics; vii) do not reduce food sources through the reduction of in- stream or terrestrial (riparian) vegetation; viii) do not impair substrate characteristics; and ix) do not impair water quality through the introduction of sediment or other contaminants or pollutants. 4) no reduction /fragmentation of wildlife habitat (including forage, water supply, shelter and living space), reduction of wildlife diversity or restriction of wildlife movement; 5) the ecological integrity of the valley or stream corridor is maintained; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 23 uJ R lq IRy DEFINING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS, BOUNDARIES & ALTERATIONS 3.0 3.3 POLICIES & PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING WATERCOURSES & ALTERATIONS (Cont'd) 6) Significant Areas will not be affected; 7) disturbance to terrestrial vegetation is minimized; 8) rehabilitation is incorporated into the proposed works. D) In the case where existing buildings and /or structures and their associated lot are at risk from watercourse erosion, works consistent with MTRCA Regeneration Project objectives and policies may be permitted to protect these properties, buildings and /or structures provided: 1) alternative protective measures are not viable (eg. relocation, vegetative plantings); and 2) the relevant criteria outlined in Section 3.3.3 above is achieved. NOTE 1: Notwithstanding the policy intent for the protection of stream corridors draining less than 125 hectares and their associated watercourses and /or source areas, minor variations may be permitted to allow for the efficient utilization of land where it's deemed to be appropriate for effective land and water management. NOTE 2: The Authority will not accept responsibility for the maintenance of remedial works carried out by others. Prior to permitting such works, responsibility for maintenance /ownership must be determined. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 24 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.1 New Urban Development W R 80/9 4.0 4.0 POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program emphasizes the need to protect and rehabilitate valley and stream corridor landforms, features and functions. To this end, policies and criteria have been prepared to provide direction to land use planning and development projects, within and /or adjacent to valley and stream corridors, as carried out by the Authority and others. For ease of reference, these policies and criteria are presented in the context of: 4.1 New Development 4.2 Existing Development 4.3 Infrastructure and Servicing These policies and criteria will form the basis of the Authority's projects, reviews and approvals. 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program emphasizes the need to protect and rehabilitate valley and stream corridor landforms, features and functions while being sensitive to the development characteristics and needs of the Metropolitan Toronto Region as a whole and to the use of these important resources by the Metropolitan Toronto Region community. The main thrust of the Authority's policies and procedures for undeveloped valley and stream corridors is to prevent new development that would introduce risk to life and property associated with flooding, erosion and slope stability and /or is not compatible with the protection and rehabilitation of these natural resources in their natural state. 4.1.1 New Urban Development A) New urban development shall not be permitted within valley and stream corridors, except in areas of existing development as set out in Section 4.2. Urban development includes buildings, structures and associated private servicing such as parking and septic systems. B) Increased fragmentation of ownership within valley and stream corridors shall be discouraged. C) Property boundaries associated with new urban development should not extend into valley and stream corridors. D) Valley and stream corridors which form part of new urban development proposals should be set aside for public ownership. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 25 W281Ict 9 PQLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.1 New Urban Development (Cont'd) 4.0 E) Alternatives to public ownership may be considered, where appropriate. The Authority advocates that public ownership of valley and stream corridors provides the best protection for these natural resources; however it is recognized that public ownership of all valley and stream corridors may not be practical or feasible, and that ownership should be a partnership decision with the municipality, landowner and the Authority. The following mechanisms may provide a level of protection for the valley or stream corridor, while still permitting a portion of the valley or stream corridor to remain in private ownership. i) zoning by -law or covenant on title restricting use; ii) conservation easement /trust; iii) private land stewardship agreement. However, the Authority will continue to request public ownership of lands associated with flooding, erosion and slope instability. F) Structures associated with new urban development adjacent to valley and stream corridors should be in compliance with municipal rear /side lot setback requirements. Municipal setback requirements for development adjacent to valley and stream corridors should have regard to valleyland landforms, features and functions addressing such things as visual impacts, lighting, etc. Where municipal setbacks or studies to determine same have not been established, a minimum setback of 7.5 metres from the valley or stream corridor boundary is recommended. G) Surface drainage from any building, structure or paved surface adjacent to valley corridors shall not be permitted to discharge directly onto the valley wall. H) Proposals for new urban development adjacent to or affecting valley and stream corridors should only be approved on the basis of approved Watershed Strategies, Subwatershed Plans and /or Corridor Plans. 1) this includes all proposals for new urban development which are not currently within approved urban areas, as defined by municipal official plans and zoning documents, except permitted severances. I) Establishment of woody vegetation adjacent to valleylands should be included in all new development proposals to discourage encroachment. Present and future corridor access, maintenance and the potential use of the area for trail purposes should be considered in the design of these plantings. J) Fencing will generally be required at the property limit of all new urban development adjacent to valley and stream corridors. K) Development proposals adjacent to valley and stream corridors should protect and establish MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 26 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.1 New Urban Development (Cont'd) 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses W2 a /qt 4.0 linkages to adjacent greenspaces and built communities. 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses A) The Authority encourages the public and private use of valley and stream corridors only for such uses that are compatible with their landform, features and functions such that: - existing topography is retained; - existing features and functions are protected or improved; - unacceptable risks to Toss of life and /or property damage as a result of flooding, erosion and /or slope instability do not result; and - the need for mitigative and /or remedial measures and management strategies is avoided or minimized. Generally, this includes such uses as: - passive (low intensity) outdoor recreation and education; - local and regional trail systems; and - pasture, agriculture, gardening, horticulture and silviculture. Other types of more intensive uses associated with outdoor recreation and commercial operations may also be compatible within some valley and stream corridor reaches such as: - golf courses; - downhill skiing; and - sportsfields and playing fields. B) New "resource- based" uses may be permitted within valley and stream corridors subject to the following policies and criteria: 1) The preparation and approval of a Corridor Plan as described in Section 6.3. 2) Such uses shall not affect the control of flooding, such that: i) modifications to flood plain contours shall be minimized to grade changes not exceeding 0.5 metres to 1.0 metres (Filling in localized areas may be considered); ii) the pre - development characteristics of the flood plain, including flood storage and conveyance characteristics, shall be maintained. Detailed hydraulic and hydrologic analyses shall be required to demonstrate compliance; iii) the safe passage of flood flows including spring runoff events shall not be impeded; iv) primary structures and services or other significant development features MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 27 w R g 3i9y POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses (Cont'd) 4.0 such as clubhouses, barns, septic systems, parking areas shall not be permitted within the Regulatory Flood Plain; v) ancillary structures and /or services such as sheds and public washrooms may be permitted within the Regulatory Flood Plain provided that no potential for loss of life or substantial property damage connected with such structures /services results; however, these uses shall not be permitted within the hydraulic floodway and /or 100 year flood plain; vi) property damage in the event of a flood including spring runoff events shall be minimized and assumed by the proponent (a Save Harmless and Indemnification Agreement may be required); vii) there shall be no increase in flood risk to upstream or downstream properties. 3) Such uses shall maintain the natural configuration of watercourses and valley and stream corridor landforms and shall not cause adverse effects associated with erosion and /or slope stability either upstream or downstream, such that: i) primary structures and services or other significant development features shall not be permitted below the top of valley bank nor within active erosion zones adjacent to unstable valley walls as determined through appropriate geotechnical studies; ii) primary structures and services or other significant development features shall not be permitted within the meander belt (as calculated from the existing meander amplitude) or within the 100 year erosion limit of a watercourse unless located beyond the valley or stream corridor boundary; iii) ancillary structures or services may be permitted within the valleylands provided that no potential for loss of life or substantial property damage connected with such structures /services exist; however, these uses shall not be permitted on valley slopes and /or within active erosion /slope instability zones. iv) access to valley corridors shall not cause or aggravate slope instability; v) property damage associated with watercourse erosion and /or slope instability shall be minimized and assumed by the proponent (a Save Harmless and Indemnification Agreement may be required). 4) Self sustaining and diverse vegetation communities and associated wildlife should be protected from impairment from proposed activities, such that: MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 28 POLICIES at CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses (Cont'd) WRay/cty 4.0 i) proposals shall include: an inventory and evaluation of the aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal communities including functions in terms of existing and potential fish and wildlife habitat, linkages, and riparian functions (species composition, health, vigour, and condition); and an evaluation of the functions of vegetation communities in terms of the physical valley and stream corridor such as slope stability, surface and subsurface drainage; ii) woody vegetation and its associated understorey and ground cover should be retained; iii) vegetation community re- establishment should be incorporated into all proposals to restore valley and stream corridors for the purpose of aquatic, terrestrial and wildlife habitat and linkages, the enhancement of passive recreational use, aesthetics and other public benefits. Planting beneath the overstorey should be used, where required, to improve community structure; Vegetation plantings within valley and stream corridors should be physically and genetically compatible with local native vegetation. 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. 6) Proposals should include the retention and /or establishment of vegetation in the riparian zone for specific aquatic benefits such as food and cover, regulation of stream temperatures and stream bank stability. Riparian habitat should be retained or re- established where absent. The riparian zone should be a minimum 10 metre wide vegetated area located on each side and directly adjacent to the banks of the watercourse channel. Riparian zone encroachments should be limited to single points and be perpendicular to the watercourse to maintain the linear continuity of the vegetation. 7) Stormwater management practices (including source controls and non - structural stormwater management techniques) will be required for all resource -based uses and related services to eliminate or reduce, within acceptable limits, potential water quality and quantity impacts. - Proposals shall include sediment control during construction and subsequent phases until such time as erodible areas have been adequately stabilized and long term management strategies. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 29 W Cg 5X94 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses (Cont'd) 4.0 8) Proposals should extend, not reduce or fragment, wildlife habitat diversity including forage, water supply, living space and shelter and should include the establishment of wildlife habitat linkages to habitats external to the valley or stream corridor, where appropriate. 9) Footbridges /watercourse crossings shall be carefully sited to achieve the above and designed to be clear span, with abutments set back above the stream banks and wherever possible, have the approaches at grade. 10) All resource -based uses should provide for an inter - regional or local public trail and /or access. In addition: i) trail planning should be consistent with the Trail Planning and Design Guidelines, MTRCA, 1991 and subsequent amendments and with those of other applicable agencies; ii) the lands required for the trail should be placed in public ownership or reserved through a comparable mechanism. 11) Notwithstanding the above, at -grade parking facilities associated with local or regional municipal recreational uses located within valleylands may be located within valley and stream corridors provided that the at -grade parking facility and its construction and associated servicing requirements, including access: i) is not located on a valley wall; ii) is not located within the active erosion zone of a valley corridor, either adjacent to the top of slope or toe of slope; iii) will not create or aggravate erosion or slope instability on adjacent properties; iv) is not located within the meander belt (as calculated from the existing meander amplitude) or within the 100 year erosion limit of a watercourse unless located beyond the valley or stream corridor boundary; v) is not located within a Significant Area; vi) minimizes disturbance or loss of self- sustaining and diverse vegetation communities and associated wildlife; vii) if located within the Regulatory Flood Plain of a valley or stream corridor: as a minimum shall be floodproofed to the level of the 100 year flood; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 30 LJ 2 Sb /crc/ POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.1 NEW DEVELOPMENT 4.1.2 New Resource -based Uses (Cont'd) 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT shall implement non - structural floodproofing measures only based on compliance with the Authority's depth and velocity criteria (Appendix 1); shall not involve filling or regrading to achieve compliance with the Authority's depth and velocity criteria; and flood emergency response procedures shall be developed and implemented. 12) Where a local or regional trail system is proposed as a new resource based use, the preceding requirements of this Section shall apply in addition to the following: i) pathways within the floodplain must be designed to be at or as close as possible to existing grades and crossings should be perpendicular to stream flows; and /or ii) a trail may be located within the active erosion zone of a valley corridor (adjacent to top of slope or toe of slope) or riverbank erosion zone where it can be demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative and the risks associated are acceptable to all agencies. 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Within the Authority's jurisdiction, development has historically occurred within valley and stream corridors. This development has occurred in isolation (ie. single structures) in low concentration (ie. small groups of development or strip development along a valley wall), and in some instances settled communities or highly urbanized areas have been established. This includes: - development at risk from natural hazards associated with flooding, erosion or slope instability, including residential, industrial, commercial and recreational uses; and - resource - based /commercial enterprisels) such as golf courses, and tree nursery operations. The Program recognizes that where development has occurred within valley and stream corridors, increased flexibility for valleyland management is required. To this end, the Authority's policies and criteria for existing development within these areas permit higher levels of risk associated with flooding, erosion and slope instability, and recognize that environmental rehabilitation is more limited. Inherent in these policies is the objective to minimize, reduce or eliminate these risks and also achieve environmental protection and rehabilitation to the fullest extent possible. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 31 1),) (2. 57 fitti . POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (Cont'd) 4.2.1 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas A) Special Policy Area & Two Zone Area Boundaries & Designations The application of these policies will also have regard to the characteristics of the adjacent corridor reach; therefore, opportunities for development and redevelopment of any site will be consistent with, and dependant upon, the extent and nature of existing development on the subject site and with development patterns within the corridor reach as a whole. 4.2.1 Development and Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas The Authority implements a One Zone Approach to flood plain management based on the Regulatory Flood Standard, in accordance with Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy. Exceptions to the One Zone Approach may be permitted where it has been fully demonstrated that the prohibition of new development would have serious impacts on the economic and social health of an existing floodprone community, and that this potential impact warrants acceptance of a higher level of flood risk and approval as either a Special Policy Area or, within the Authority's jurisdiction, as a Two Zone Area pursuant to Provincial Policy. It is recognized that in some valley corridors, the boundaries of these established communities /highly urbanized areas extend beyond the flood plain such that: existing buildings and structures on the valley floor form part of the existing floodprone community; and existing buildings and structures on the valley slope form part of the existing floodprone community. Therefore, the Authority shall consider the application of Special Policy Area principles to these adjacent, non - floodprone lands. To this end, the following policies, criteria and implementation procedures shall be used by the Authority in its review and approval of: - municipal requests for Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area designation; and - development applications within these designated areas. A) Special Policy Area and Two Zone Area Boundaries and Designations 1) A Special Policy Area is an area of land, located within a flood plain, on which there is existing development that forms an integral part of an existing floodprone community. In most instances the continued viability of these areas depends on a reasoned application of Provincial Standards for flood plain management. When strict adherence to a One Zone or Two Zone Approach to flood plain planning is not feasible, the concept of Special Policy Area status is recognized as a possible option for existing floodprone communities or portions thereof. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 32 WRgg /7y POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.1 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas A) Special Policy Area & Two Zone Area Boundaries & Designations (Cont'd) 2) Within the Authority's jurisdiction a Two Zone Area is an area of land, located within a flood plain, that forms an integral part of an existing floodprone community. In most instances, the continued viability of these areas depends on a reasoned application of Provincial Standards for flood plain management. When strict adherence to a One Zone Approach to flood plain planning is not feasible, and when the reduced standards for flood plain management associated with Special Policy Area designations are not demonstrated to be necessary, the Two Zone Approach is recognized as a possible option for existing floodprone communities or portions thereof. 3) Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area designations shall be evaluated and recommended by the Authority on the basis of Provincial Implementation Guidelines for Special Policy Areas, such that: i) When requesting approval -in- principle of a Special Policy Area or Two Zone Area designation, the local municipality shall delineate the study limits (existing community boundary) associated with the request and justify the need for consideration of these flood plain management alternatives (and, if applicable, valley corridor management alternatives) based on the "Community Related" factors to be considered as described within Appendix "C" of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement, Implementation Guidelines. ii) Prior to the Authority's consideration of a municipal request for approval -in- principle, the study limits of the proposed Special Policy Area or Two Zone Area shall be screened with respect to: • the "Technical Criteria" factors to be considered as described within Appendix "C" of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement, Implementation Guidelines (as related to flood risk management); • technical factors related to riverbank erosion and slope stability, including remedial measures, consistent with this Program; • the protection of a riparian habitat zone adjacent to all watercourses, consistent with this Program; • provisions for local and /or regional trail linkages and /or access; • the potential inclusion of community areas beyond the floodplain and appropriate policies; • the protection of Significant Areas as defined by this Program. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 33 W2 sl/Ry POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.1 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas A) Special Policy Area & Two Zone Area Boundaries & Designations (Cont'd) iii) Following a Municipal, Authority and Provincial approval -in- principle of a Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area designation, the local municipality, in cooperation with the Authority and other applicable agencies, shall carry out the studies necessary to address the identified valley and stream corridor management issues. v) Studies shall include the assessment and design of permanent flood control remedial works if such works have not been previously carried out by the Authority such that: • the flood control remedial works strategy must be consistent with this Program; • remedial works should be undertaken to provide permanent flood protection under Regulatory Flood conditions. Where this is not technically feasible, a lower level of flood protection may be permitted. The reduced level of flood protection shall be the highest level determined to be technically feasible by the Authority in consultation with the local and regional municipality and appropriate provincial agencies; • remedial works cannot increase risks associated with flood, erosion and /or slope instability on adjacent, upstream or downstream properties and must maintain or enhance the ecological integrity of the valley or stream corridor. v) Studies shall include the assessment and design of erosion control remedial works and /or slope stabilization works, if applicable and as required. Any proposed works must be consistent with this Program. vi) The need for and the boundaries of a Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area shall be determined on the basis of the findings and recommendations of the studies carried out in support of the designation. vii) Municipal requests for final approval of Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area designations must be supported by: • Official Plan policies specific to the review and approval of development applications within the proposed Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area, including development control criteria and, if applicable, an implementation program for flood control, erosion and /or slope stabilization remedial works in relation to the timing and phasing of development; • the Zoning By -law that will implement the Official Plan policies; • a program for emergency response in accordance with Provincial /Conservation Authority /Municipal flood warning and forecasting systems. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 $4 W R 90159 l9y POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ' 4.2.1 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas B) Development Guidelines for Development /Redevelopment within Designated Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas B) Development Guidelines for Development /Redevelopment within Designated Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas 1) The following forms of development /redevelopment may be permissible within designated Two Zone Area or Special Policy Area: • new multi -lot and large lot development and redevelopment; • infilling, replacement structures and major and minor additions; • private servicing related to (a) and (b) above; • ancillary structures related to (a) and (b) above. 2) Activities associated with Public Safety (institutional, hazardous materials and emergency response) must be in compliance with provincial policies and standards. 3) All development /redevelopment must be floodproofed to the level of the Regulatory Flood. Where it is technically not feasible or it is impractical to flood protect development to the level of the Regulatory Flood, then a lower level of flood protection may be permitted as follows: i) the specific level of flood protection relative to individual development applications shall be determined by the Authority in consultation with the local municipality; NOTE: Within a Two Zone Area, Regulatory Flood protection is required ii) the required level of protection shall be the highest level determined to be technically feasible or practical; iii) in no instance shall the required level of protection be Tess than the 1:350 year flood event except for ancillary structures and /or private servicing (eg. parking); iv) the required level of flood protection for ancillary structures and /or private servicing shall be determined on the basis of site specific factors; v) ingress and egress should be "safe" pursuant to Provincial floodproofing guidelines and /or achieve the maximum level of flood protection determined to be feasible and practical based on existing infrastructure. 4) Flood damage reduction measures shall be carried out by the proponent to achieve the required level of flood protection. The selection of flood damage reduction measures shall be based on the following alternatives, listed in order of priority: MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 35 W R 91 I giy POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.1 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas B) Development Guidelines for Development /Redevelopment within Designated Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas (Cont'd) i) flood control remedial works shall be completed in accordance with the approved Special Policy Area or Two Zone Area designation; and /or ii) dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be implemented to the extent technically and /or practically feasible; and /or iii) wet floodproofing measures may be permissible to further minimize flood risk and /or to meet the required level of flood protection; and /or iv) where (ii) and (iii) above cannot be achieved, dry, active floodproofing measures may be considered. Dry, active floodproofing measures may also be implemented to further minimize flood risk in combination with the above. NOTE: Notwithstanding the above, a flood control remedial works strategy may be required to support large scale urban renewal projects within approved Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas prior to the Authority's approval of the proposed development project; 5) Erosion control and /or slope stabilization remedial measures shall be carried out by the proponent to achieve the required level of erosion and slope stability protection, such that: i) erosion control and /or slope stability remedial works shall be completed in accordance with the plan which supported the Special Policy Area or Two Zone Area designation. NOTE: Notwithstanding the above, the preparation of an erosion control and /or slope stabilization strategy may be required to support large scale urban renewal projects within approved Two Zone Areas and Special Policy Areas prior to the Authority's approval of the proposed development project. ii) erosion control and slope stabilization works shall be consistent with this Program. 6) Modifications to the valley and stream corridor Iandform shall be minimized (eg. minimize the placement of fill). 7) Sediment control during construction and subsequent phases, until such time as erodible areas have been vegetated /stabilized, shall be implemented. 8) Remedial measures shall not be permitted if risks associated with flooding, erosion and /or slope instability are increased on adjacent, upstream or downstream properties. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 36 0312 4a /lay POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.1 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas B) Development Guidelines for Development /Redevelopment within Designated Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas (Cont'd) C) Existing Two Zone Areas Or Special Policy Areas 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas A) New Multi -lot and /or Large Lot Development 9) All applications for development approval shall be accompanied by engineering studies, prepared by a qualified professional, detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage reduction measures including structural design details, stormwater management techniques, and other necessary information and studies (including geotechnical and fluvial geomorphological studies) as may be required by the Authority and the local municipality. 10) Ecological regeneration and restoration consistent with this Program should be included where feasible. C) Existing Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas Within the Authority's jurisdiction, there are several floodprone communities that have been designated as Two Zone Areas or Special Policy Areas. These communities may be identified within municipal Official Plans as "Flood Damage Centres" which was the comparable terminology prior to the 1988 Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement. In these communities: 1) When reviewing development applications, the development guidelines outlined above shall be incorporated to the extent necessary having regard to the specific nature of the proposal, particularly as related to the extent of new development or redevelopment that is proposed. 2) When reviewing Official Plan and /or Zoning By -law consolidations and /or comprehensive updates, the boundary and development guidelines outlined above shall be incorporated. 4.2.2 Development and Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas The following policies, criteria and implementation procedures apply to areas of existing development within valley and stream corridors that have not been designated as Special Policy Area or Two Zone Areas. A) New Multi -lot and /or Large Lot Development 1) New multi -lot and /or large lot development including all buildings and structures and associated private servicing, or comparable redevelopment /intensification, shall not be permitted. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 37 LA) 2931gy POLICIES at CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas B) Major Additions C) Minor Additions 4.0 B) Major Additions Major Additions are additions to existing buildings or structures that exceed 50% of the total area of the existing building or structure. 1) Major additions shall not be permitted. C) Minor Additions Minor additions are additions to existing buildings or structures that are up to 50% of the total area of the existing building or structure. Minor additions may be permitted provided that the minor addition, its construction and any new associated private servicing requirements comply with the following: 1) Are not located within the hydraulic floodway, which will be determined on the basis of site specific evaluation having regard to: i) critical /hazardous flood conditions (ie. ice, depth, velocity); ii) frequency of flooding; iii) existing and proposed land use within the (sub)watershed and corridor reach. 2) Can be floodproofed to the level of the Regulatory Flood. If Regulatory flood protection is not technically feasible, a lower level of flood protection may be permitted but shall not be Tess than the 350 year flood level (a 25% risk of flooding over an assumed life of 100 years). 3) The proponent agrees to carry out site specific flood damage reduction measures such that, in order of priority: i) dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be implemented to the extent technically possible to achieve the required level of flood protection; and /or ii) wet floodproofing measures are incorporated as required to achieve and maximize the required level of flood protection; and /or iii) where (i) and (ii) above cannot be achieved, dry, active floodproofing measures may be considered. Dry, active floodproofing measures may also be implemented to further minimize flood risk in combination with the above. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 38 w2 9y/ 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 C) Minor Additions (Cont'd) 4) Ingress and egress should be "safe" pursuant to Provincial floodproofing guidelines, and /or achieve the maximum level of flood protection determined to be feasible and practical based on existing infrastructure. 5) Emergency response procedures are developed and implemented as required by the Authority. This shall be a requirement for any development associated with the Public Safety Policy of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement. 6) The proposed flood damage reduction measures do not increase flood risk on adjacent, upstream and /or downstream properties. 7) All applications for development approval shall be accompanied by engineering studies, prepared by a qualified professional, detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage reduction measures including structural design details, stormwater management and other necessary information and studies as may be required by the Authority and municipality. 8) The risk associated with erosion and slope instability must be addressed through geotechnical investigation and /or study having regard to erosion processes, long- term slope stability and short -term slope stability, and demonstrate that the minor addition: i) does not increase the risk associated with the existing structure or property such that: • the existing slope's factor of safety is not reduced; • the addition is not within an active erosion zone adjacent to top of valley slope or toe of valley slope; • the addition is not associated with a building located within the active erosion zone adjacent to top of valley slope or toe of valley slope; • the addition does not result in development on the valley slope if the existing structure is not entirely located on the valley slope; • the addition is not located on an unstable valley slope; ii) does not create or aggravate erosion or slope instability on adjacent properties; iii) can be demonstrated that it will be safe for the life of the existing structure (assumed to be 100 years); MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 39 GUR 95 )ctq POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas C) Minor Additions (Cont'd) D) Replacement Structures 4.0 iv) is 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. 9) Minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a Significant Area or do not result in the loss of its significant features. 10) Minimize potential impacts to the function or structure of the riparian habitat. 11) Include sediment control during construction and subsequent phases until such time as erodible areas have been vegetated or stabilized. 12) Does not exceed a 50% increase in the total area of the existing building or structure based on existing conditions as of January 1, 1987. D) Replacement Structures Replacement Structures are structures that replace or reconstruct existing buildings or structures, including buildings and structures designated as architecturally or historically important and that have recently been demolished or destroyed but does not include reconstruction on remnant foundations. Replacement structures may be permitted provided that the replacement structure, its construction, and any new associated private servicing requirements comply with the following: 1) Can be floodproofed to the level of the Regulatory Flood. If Regulatory Flood protection is not technically feasible, a lower level of flood risk protection may be permitted and will be provided to the maximum extent possible as determined on the basis of site specific evaluation. 2) That the flood risk does not exceed the risk associated with the previous /existing structure or development such that: i) the location of the replacement structure and services are not susceptible to higher depths and /or velocities of flooding; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 40 w2 96 /qy 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 0) Replacement Structures (Cont'd) ii) the use associated with the replacement structure and development does not increase risk to property damage or public safety. In this regard, risk increases as uses change from non - habitable to habitable to those associated with the Public Safety Policy of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement; and iii) the use within the replacement structure and /or the property as a whole is not intensified. 3) The proponent agrees to carry out site specific flood damage reduction measures such that, in order of priority: i) dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be implemented to the extent technically possible to achieve the required level of flood protection; and /or ii) wet floodproofing measures are incorporated as required to achieve and maximize the required level of flood protection; and /or iii) where (i) and (ii) above cannot be achieved, dry, active floodproofing measures may be considered. Dry, active floodproofing measures may also be implemented to further minimize flood risk in combination with the above. 4) Ingress and egress should be "safe" pursuant to Provincial floodproofing guidelines, and /or achieve the maximum level of flood protection determined to be feasible and practical based on existing infrastructure. 5) Emergency response procedures are developed and implemented as required by the Authority. This shall be a requirement for any development associated with the Public Safety Policy of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement. 6) The proposed flood damage reduction measures do not increase flood risk on adjacent, upstream and /or downstream properties. 7) All applications for development approval shall be accompanied by engineering studies, prepared by a qualified professional, detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage reduction measures including structural design details, stormwater management, and other necessary information and studies as may be required by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the local municipality. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 41 UJR91 (cq POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas • ) Replacement Structures (Cont'd) 4.0 8) The risk associated with erosion and slope instability must be addressed through geotechnical investigation and /or study having regard to erosion processes, long- term slope stability and short -term slope stability, and demonstrate that the replacement structure: i) does not increase the risk associated with the previous /existing structure or development such that: • the slope's factor of safety does not decrease; • the use associated with the replacement structure and development does not increase the risk to property damage or public safety. In this regard, risk increases as uses change from non - habitable to habitable; • the use within the replacement structure and /or the property as a whole is not intensified; • the location of the replacement structure is not within the active erosion zone adjacent to the top of valley slope or toe of valley slope if alternative options exist or, as a minimum, unless the risk from slope instability or erosion can be eliminated through remedial works consistent with this Program; • the replacement structure is not located on the valley slope if the former structure was not entirely located on the valley slope; • the replacement structure is not located on an unstable valley slope; ii) does not create or aggravate erosion or slope instability on adjacent properties; iii) can be demonstrated that it will be safe for its assumed life of 100 years; iv) is 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. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 42 W 2 9 s /city 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 D) Replacement Structures (Cont'd) E) Property Improvements & Ancillary Structures 9) Minimize any impacts on the vegetation communities or functions of a Significant Area or do not result in the Toss of its significant features. 10) Minimize potential impacts to the function or structure of the riparian habitat; 11) Include sediment control during construction and subsequent phases until such time as erodible areas have been vegetated or stabilized. 12) Notwithstanding the above, if a structure is being replaced and added to, the policies and criteria for Minor Additions shall apply. Major additions shall not be permitted. E) Property Improvements and Ancillary Structures It is recognized that where development exists within valley and stream corridors, provisions for property improvements and ancillary structures need to be addressed; however, it must be recognized that property improvements and ancillary structures can negatively impact valley and stream corridor landforms, features and functions. To this end, property improvements and ancillary structures associated with typical lot appurtenances such as fencing, decks, stairs and minor alterations to grade /landscaping may be permitted subject to and in compliance with the following: 1) If located within the Regulatory Flood Plain the location and design must: i) not result in unacceptable impacts to flood storage and conveyance; ii) not create or aggravate flooding on adjacent, upstream or downstream properties; iii) minimize property damage associated with flooding to the extent technically possible and the liability be assumed by the owner. NOTE: Notwithstanding the above, ancillary structures will be restricted from locating within the hydraulic floodway or will be subject to more rigorous design requirements. 2) If located on or adjacent to a valley wall: i) will not be permitted within the erosion impact zone (either adjacent to or on the valley wall itself), if the valley wall is unstable; ii) will not result in unacceptable impacts to slope stability and river erosion; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 43 we 9qict(-1 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.2 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 4.2.2 Development & Redevelopment /Intensification Within Non - Established Communities /Highly Urbanized Areas E) Property Improvements & Ancillary Structures (Cont'd) F) Opportunities for Regeneration G) Infilling 4.0 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 Toss 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 Plain and /or adjacent to stable valley slopes subject to the criteria outlined above. F) Opportunities for Regeneration 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) Infilling 1) Where an existing lot of record small lot only, eg. 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; iv) are not located within the active erosion zone of an unstable valley slope, MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 44 (AA ,00 / 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) H) Existing Resource -based Uses 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) Existing 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 (A) to (F). MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 45 (RJ(Z Io\ let %.; POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICING 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICING It is recognized that certain utilities or services such as storm and sanitary sewers and associated runoff control facilities may need to be located within valley and stream corridors. Other infrastructure and servicing such as natural gas or oil pipelines, communication corridors, hydro corridors, and transportation corridors (motorized vehicles) may need to cross valley and stream corridors. A. The following type and extent of services may be permitted within valley and stream corridors: 1) New transportation corridors and above - ground utility corridors shall not be routed within valley and stream corridors; however, they may be permitted to cross valley and stream corridors. 2) Underground utility corridors will be encouraged to locate outside of valley and stream corridors wherever possible; however, they may be permitted to cross, or locate within, valley and stream corridors. 3) Storm sewer outfalls may be permitted within valley and stream corridors. 4) Storm water runoff control facilities may be permitted within valley and stream corridors. B. Services should be carefully sited and designed to: - prevent risk associated with flooding, erosion or slope instability; - protect and rehabilitate existing landforms, features, and functions; and - provide for aquatic, terrestrial and human access, such that: 1) All new servicing shall be approved through the preparation and adoption of a subwatershed plan and /or corridor plan. If other approval processes, such as the Environmental Assessment Act, incorporate comparable planning processes, this requirement will be waived. 2) The safe passage of flood flows shall not be impeded. 3) Structural abutments or piers should be located outside of the regulatory flood plain to minimize obstruction to water flow. 4) Where abutments or piers are approved within the flood plain, the structure shall be designed so that overtopping or flanking can occur with a minimum of damage. Bridges or culverts with openings not designed for the Regional Flood should have their approach ramp(s) designed as spillways. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 46 w2 ma ply POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICING 5) There shall be no increase in flood risk to adjacent, upstream or downstream properties. A detailed hydraulic analysis may be required to demonstrate compliance. 6) Bridge or structural abutments should be located outside the meander belt (as calculated from the existing meander amplitude) or the 100 year erosion limit of a watercourse, unless located beyond the valley or stream corridor boundary. 7) Underground utility corridors, if approved, shall not be permitted within the meander belt (as calculated from the existing meander amplitude) or within the 100 year erosion limit of a watercourse unless located beyond the valley or stream corridor boundary. Routes parallel to watercourses shall be constructed and protected so as to prevent scouring and possible failure at a later date. 8) Underground utility corridors, if approved, shall not be routed along valley walls or within an active erosion zone adjacent to the top or toe of a valley wall. 9) Access to valley corridors for construction or maintenance purposes shall not cause and /or aggravate slope instability. 10) Storm sewer outfall headwalls should not be located within the meander belt (as calculated from the existing meander amplitude) or within the 100 year erosion rate of a watercourse unless located beyond the valley or stream corridor boundary. Alterations to stream profiles may be permitted pursuant to Section 3 - Watercourses. 111 Innovative design and construction technologies should be used, such as tunnelling or corridor spanning, to reduce the risk and ecological impacts of corridor crossings. 12) On and off stream sediment control during construction shall be required until such time as erodible areas have been vegetated /stabilized. 13) Services shall not be permitted within Significant Areas. 14) Services should protect existing riparian features and functions or re- establish a minimum 10m wide zone of riparian habitat on both sides of the watercourse, where appropriate; 15) Services should not: i) result in the restriction of fish movement or migration for spawning, nursery or feeding; ii) increase water temperatures by reducing shade, decreasing water depth, reducing groundwater flows, or permitting inputs from surface draw dams or stormwater management facilities; iii) decrease baseflow characteristics; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 47 wR io3 1a4 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICING iv) reduce food sources through the reduction of in- stream or terrestrial (riparian) vegetation; v) impair substrate characteristics; and /or vi) impair surface and /or ground water quality such as through the introduction of sediment or other contaminants or pollutants. 16) Services should not reduce /fragment wildlife habitat (including forage, water supply, shelter and living space), nor reduce wildlife diversity nor restrict wildlife movement. 17) Services shall ensure the ecological integrity of the valley or stream corridor is maintained. 18) Services shall ensure rehabilitation is incorporated into the proposed works. 19) Services shall safeguard corridor linkage objectives. Crossings in particular shall be designed to permit aquatic, terrestrial and human access. C) In addition to the above, services such as stormwater management facilities, for the purposes of reducing or eliminating groundwater or surface water impairment and /or risks associated with flood or erosion may be permitted where: 1) A comprehensive analysis demonstrating that alternative servicing design techniques (eg. SWMP's) have been incorporated to the extent possible. Provincial guidelines for the siting, selection and design of stormwater management practices are available. 2) Water quality improvement will offset negative impacts related to public safety and other ecological and environmental quality concerns within the corridor. 3) The stormwater management facility location results in the greatest net public benefit. This evaluation must consider public safety, social, economic, recreational, and other ecological and environmental quality concerns. 4) Whenever feasible, stormwater management facilities shall not be located within the meander belt (as calculated from the existing meander amplitude) or within the 100 year erosion limit of a watercourse, or within the 100 year flood plain, whichever is greater. D) Remedial erosion control works /major maintenance shall be permitted to protect existing services provided that: 1) The potential for the aggravation of upstream or downstream erosion and /or slope instability is minimized. 2) The potential for the aggravation of upstream or downstream flooding is minimized. 3) The works will get an approval pursuant to the Federal Fisheries Act. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 48 wR►oy /9LI POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR LAND USE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 4.0 4.3 INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICING 4) Corridor planning and rehabilitation is incorporated into the proposed works and is consistent with Section 4.1 .2. NOTE: Special provisions for emergency /temporary works may be arranged provided the urgency can be demonstrated and the permanent solution will meet the intent of this section. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 49 wR cos let4 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.1 FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS 5.0 5.0 POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS The Authority's goal, principles, and objectives for protection of life and property and the rehabilitation of valley and stream corridors can also be achieved through active remedial works and resource management projects. Projects to reduce and eliminate existing flood, erosion and slope stability hazards and to rehabilitate valley and stream corridors are undertaken by the Authority on private and public lands, as well as Authority owned lands. The Authority's remedial works shall be designed using a Corridor Reach Planning approach (Section 6.3). They will be planned and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and addressed in the "Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects" as required, and will require site screening and investigations consistent with requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and other provincial and federal legislation. The Authority will promote active partnerships in implementing its projects. Valley and stream corridor regeneration projects are also carried out by others. The Authority will encourage these projects to be designed and implemented in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Many of the local municipalities and a number of other agencies own and maintain water control structures and will be encouraged by the Authority to carry out regular maintenance in accordance with the goals and principles of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Where municipalities or other agencies are considering major maintenance, the Authority will request that they carry out a corridor management plan. The policies and criteria for MTRCA valley and stream corridor regeneration projects are presented within the context of: - Flood Control Remedial Works; - Erosion Control and Slope Stability Remedial Works; - Maintenance and Operation of Authority owned Flood and Erosion Control Structures; - Corridor Rehabilitation Projects. 5.1 FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS These projects deal with the reduction or elimination of risk to life and property through the construction of remedial works. An extensive inventory of flood susceptible areas on those sections of watercourses in the Authority's jurisdiction which drain 1,300 ha and greater, where mapping exists, has been developed. Many of the sites inventoried consist of a single affected structure or group of structures affected by flooding. In other cases, substantial development is affected by flooding and may be considered under the Two Zone Approach and /or Special Policy Area policies of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning-Policy Statement. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 50 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.1 FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS (Cont'd) 5.1.1 Design Criteria U.A. 106 My 5.0 In general, there are three tools available for flood protection, which may be used singly or in combination: - Acquisition; - Remedial works; and - Flood warning and forecasting. In view of the number of sites requiring flood protection throughout the Metropolitan Toronto Region and in order to fairly assess which sites should be considered for work in a given year, the Authority carries out remedial works on a priority basis. Priorities are based on an evaluation of potential risk to life and property. In evaluating and assigning priorities for flood control protective measures the following factors are considered: - Reduction in the average annual risk exposure; - Warning time available; - Flood frequency, depth and velocity; - Land use; and - Benefit /cost. Flood control remedial works are designed to provide protection that will reduce the risk of flooding to less than 50% over the assumed life (100 years) of the affected structure(s). Protection to a higher level will be provided if economically and /or socially justified. Where appropriate or feasible, the design will improve or enhance the aquatic and terrestrial habitats, through natural channel designs, and other means. The level of flood protection may be reduced in consideration of environmental concerns. Works will be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and addressed in the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. The principal funding sources for remedial works will be grants from the Province of Ontario and levies from the designated benefiting municipalities. The levy is assigned to the regional municipality where the works are located except where significant downstream benefits are involved. 5.1.1 Design Criteria The design criteria governing flood control remedial works are as follows: A) Works should be undertaken based on a Corridor Management Plan. These corridors shall be of a size to be environmentally responsible, and technically and economically feasible. B) Flood protection will be implemented on a priority basis related to public safety and property damage within the limitations of funding, approvals, access and property requirements. Priorities shall generally be based on the technical criteria described above. C) Where flood control remedial works are proposed on private lands, title to the land or an easement, where applicable, will be required. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 51 wcL to-t I GI L1/4 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.1 FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIAL WORKS 5.1.1 Design Criteria (Cont'd) 5.2 EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILITY REMEDIAL WORKS 5.0 D) Flood control remedial works will be analyzed on the basis of financial and environmental cost /benefit and acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works where the proposed works exceed the value of the property or would not be compatible with this Program. 5.2 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILITY REMEDIAL WORKS The Authority currently maintains information on active erosion /slope instability sites on those watercourses draining generally in excess of 1,300 hectares. The implementation of this program component relies on the continued monitoring and updating of the data base in order to keep abreast of changing site conditions. Because erosion and slope instability is dynamic, priorities must be continually updated not only to make the system equitable, but also to adjust annual funding requirements. In evaluating and assigning priorities for erosion control /slope remediation works, two major factors are considered: risk to structure(s) and cause of erosion /slope instability hazard. The potential risk to existing structures is deemed the most important factor and accordingly is given more weight than the physical and geological condition associated with the cause of the hazard. Valley wall factors considered include the height, slope angle, vegetative cover, groundwater characteristics and the soil type and composition. River or river action, as a factor of risk, considers the present river alignment as well as the potential cutting action. In all cases, the design of erosion control works will provide protection compatible with the Authority's Design Criteria and will improve or enhance the aquatic and terrestrial habitats through natural channel designs and other means to the extent possible. In the case of in- stream work, the natural pool /riffle systems will either be maintained or recreated. The deep channels which often occur on the outside bend will be simulated and, by creative positioning of the stone protection, shading and opportunities for riparian plantings will be provided. Riparian and slope plantings will generally consist of native plant material. Works will be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act as addressed by the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. The principal funding sources for the remedial works will be grant from the Province of Ontario and levies from the designated benefiting regional municipality. The regional municipality may, however, choose to pass on their share to the local municipality and the Authority will provide the necessary information should this occur. As a result, an erosion inventory and priority list has been developed and will be maintained for each of the regional municipalities. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 52 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.2 EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILITY REMEDIAL WORKS 5.2.1 Design Criteria wRio?l9y 5.0 5.2.1 Design Criteria The design criteria governing erosion control and slope stability remedial works are as follows: A) Remedial works will be carried out on those watercourses which generally drain in excess of 1,300 hectares. B) Works should be undertaken based on a Corridor Management Plan. Corridor lengths shall be of a size to be technically and economically feasible and environmentally responsible. C) Works will be implemented on a priority basis related to the safety of property and structures within the limitations of funding, approvals, construction, access and property acquisitions. Priorities shall be based on technical criteria including, but not necessarily limited to the following: i) distance from top of bank to structure ii) rate of slope retreat iii) extent of ground water seepage iv) height and steepness of slope v) evidence of previous movement vi) condition of toe or slope vii) existing habitat resources. D) Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the Authority on an annual basis. E) Where erosion protection works are proposed on private land, the Authority shall require title to the land or an easement where applicable and /or require a suitable financial contribution from the benefiting owner(s). F) Erosion protection works will be analyzed on the basis of financial and environmental cost /benefit. Acquisition will be considered as a viable alternative to remedial works where the proposed works exceed the value of the property or are not in compliance with this Program. G) Design criteria for erosion protection works on the designated watercourses are dependent upon the nature of each specific problem. Generally, two types of problems exist. The first and less common type, involves bank or valley wall instability in which slumping or major rotational failure is involved due to inherent soil conditions or overloading of the slope. The more common type of problem is river bank erosion which can also be coincident with the valley wall. Wherever possible, erosion control work shall be designed to: 1) accommodate the 100 year flood for coincident (slope /river) erosion protection; 2) accommodate the low flow channel in all other cases as a minimum; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 53 wR ioglqN POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.2 EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILITY REMEDIAL WORKS 5.2.1 Design Criteria (Cont'd) 5.3 MAINTENANCE & OPERATION OF AUTHORITY OWNED FLOOD & EROSION /SLOPE STABILITY CONTROL STRUCTURES 5.0 3) permit channel overtopping with minimal danger to the remedial work; 4) decrease the velocity of the stream by flattening the hydraulic gradient and minimizing the flow energy by incorporating meanders and natural channel design; 5) enhance aquatic habitat by incorporating natural channel design such as pool and riffle features, deep channels and overhangs on outside bends; 6) enhance terrestrial habitat through the planting and establishment of riparian habitat (10m from river edge) and through the introduction of native plants on the valley slopes and other flood plain lands; 7) minimize potential aggravation of upstream or downstream flooding and /or erosion; 8) a non - structural approach to remedial works will be utilized wherever possible, in particular, with upper and middle valley slopes. H) In the design of all protection works, the Authority shall be cognizant of the natural features, functions and resources and will, where appropriate, enhance the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. 5.3 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF AUTHORITY OWNED FLOOD AND EROSION /SLOPE STABILITY CONTROL STRUCTURES Maintenance and operation of Authority owned flood and erosion control slope stability structures will be carried out in accordance with the goal and principles outlined in the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Maintenance and operation programs will be used to provide opportunities to regenerate /rehabilitate the valley and stream corridors. Authority owned structures vary greatly in age, condition, level of engineering and level of maintenance required. Generally, maintenance on Authority owned water control structures has been minimized. In a number of cases, for example where flow conveyance is not a critical factor or the channel lining is not affected and the community interests are still being addressed, maintenance has been completely eliminated and the channel reaches have been allowed to renaturalize. However, maintenance also provides opportunities to regenerate or rehabilitate the valley and stream corridors. Maintenance and operations can be divided into two categories: regular /preventative maintenance and major maintenance. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 54 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.3 MAINTENANCE & OPERATION OF AUTHORITY OWNED FLOOD & EROSION /SLOPE STABILITY CONTROL STRUCTURES (Cont'd) 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS WR 110 1c39 5.0 Regular /preventative maintenance can be defined as those activities which are scheduled and /or are routine in nature, generally associated with appearance, upkeep, ensuring continued performance, preventing the deterioration of the super structure, and revegetation. The level and type of regular maintenance and opportunities for regeneration vary greatly from structure to structure, and may be better defined and modified through corridor management plans. The types of activities carried out through regular maintenance are listed, but not limited to the following: - inspections - debris removal - clean out of channels (eg. sediment, vegetation) - graffiti removal - minor repairs to channel linings (eg. repairs to gabion basket cells, replacing displaced rip rap stone) - plantings (eg. riparian and valley slope). Major maintenance tends to be either unanticipated in nature (ie: maintenance required as a result of a major storm) or although anticipated over the long term, is not carried out frequently and requires funding beyond current operational budget levels. Major maintenance provides an opportunity to incorporate natural channel design principles into the repairs. This is particularly true with older structures, which typically were designed to address only the public safety aspects related to flooding and erosion and slope stability. Major maintenance may involve replacement of an entire structure; however, more often it involves repairs to a section or component and environmental gains may be achieved through the application of natural design principles. The design of major maintenance should be carried out in the context of a corridor management plan which incorporates the following natural design principles and must be assessed with respect to the flood, erosion and /or slope stability public safety objectives and community issues: 1) Maintain and /or re- establish a functional corridor through linkages (terrestrial). 2) Maintain and /or re- establish a riparian zone. 3) Increase instream diversity and habitat. 4) Removal or modification of fish barriers (eg. weirs, drops and small dams). 5) Establish the ecological watercourse relationship with the flood plain. 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS The Authority will carry out a broad range of projects to assist in the rehabilitation of valley and stream corridors and to achieve objectives specified in Section 2.2 of this document. To accomplish this, the Authority prefers to undertake corridor rehabilitation projects that are part of more comprehensive plans. This will ensure that ecological needs and opportunities are integrated with the needs of the public and other social and economic issues. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 55 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS (Cont'd) 5.0 Corridor rehabilitation projects may be based on Subwatershed or Corridor Management Plans. Projects may also be based on resource management plans prepared for properties owned and directly managed by the Authority. In the absence of a comprehensive plan, the Authority may still implement individual small scale projects where an immediate need is identified. In these cases, preplanning will be undertaken including site inventory (upstream and downstream), evaluation of options and consultation. To give effect to the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, the Authority will carry out projects associated with, but not necessarily limited to, the following activities: A) Environmental Planning Services The purpose of environmental planning services is to assist in short and long term resource planning activities to ensure effective and efficient management practices are implemented. To accomplish this, the Authority will continue to emphasize its role and interest in watershed and community -based resource planning activities. For example, MTRCA will coordinate staff and consultants, and liaise with other agencies and groups in the development and implementation of watershed strategies. Similarly, the Authority will promote, assist and undertake, when appropriate, the development and implementation of Subwatershed Plans and Corridor Plans. Environmental policies and guidelines will be developed by MTRCA to assist staff and other landowners, groups and agencies in planning and implementing regeneration projects. Planning and development applications will be reviewed and recornmendations provided to ensure environment& features or conditions are recognized and proper protection, enhancement or rehabilitation measures are undertaken. The Authority will provide assistance and advisory services to individual private landowners and non - government agencies involved in valley and stream corridors /regenerating projects. Partnerships, education and public consultation will be encouraged in all planning and implementation activities. B) Environmental Management Projects The Authority will collaborate with the Ministry of Natural Resources, other agencies, groups and individuals to protect, enhance or rehabilitate habitats. Historic conditions, habitat potential and social /economic constraints will be considered in order to establish targets to achieve the highest sustainable conditions. 1) Terrestrial Regeneration For terrestrial flora and fauna, appropriate management techniques will be used to: i) reduce off - stream erosion and sedimentation; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 56 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS (Cont'd) lk) R i i g.)14 5.0 ii) maintain diverse natural vegetation communities including grasslands, wetlands, woodlots, and other forested areas; iii) expand vegetative cover; iv) establish vegetation linkages to provide wildlife habitat and migration corridors; v) maximize the establishment of native plant species; vi) manage forests consistent with sound environmental practices to ensure healthy and vigorous sustainable growth; vii) reduce the loss of natural communities through the control of invasive, non- native species; viii) protect or actively manage Significant Areas as required; ix) manage wildlife populations to ensure their presence is compatible with other land uses. 2) Aquatic Regeneration For aquatic flora and fauna, appropriate management techniques will be used to: i) reduce on- stream erosion and sedimentation; ii) improve water quality by eliminating or reducing sources of bacterial, nutrient and other kinds of pollutants; iii) establish and manage diverse riparian habitat; iv) Zink fragmented riparian habitat corridors; v) improve aesthetic qualities; vi) control public access within riparian zones; vii) renaturalize artificial stream channels using proper morphology, geometry and other physical characteristics; viii) alter or remove on- stream barriers to facilitate fish migration and reduce water temperatures; ix) protect or actively manage Significant Areas to increase the number, distribution or size of the significant populations or habitat; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 57 RJR 1a 1(14 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS (Cont'd) 5.0 x) protect and enhance base flows; xi) improve instream cover for aquatic life. 3) Operational Criteria The operational criteria governing for projects are as follows: i) projects may be carried out on private, public and Authority owned land within any valley or stream corridor; ii) for MTRCA properties that are managed by other agencies, the Authority will enter into formal agreements to plan and implement projects on their behalf. This includes the Authority carrying out Corridor Management Plans for its member municipalities on a cost recovery basis; iii) regeneration projects will be based on Corridor Management Plans where they exist; iv) in the absence of Subwatershed or Corridor Management Plans, the Authority will carry out small individual projects where net environmental gain and social benefits will result. Preplanning for each project will include an environmental inventory and evaluation of sufficient study area (including upstream and downstream of the project site) to place the specific project within the extent of the surrounding ecosystem, yet remain economically feasible. Each preplanning document will be based on technical detail including, but not necessarily limited to the following: • location description with maps and reference points; • vegetation communities: species, condition and significance; • wildlife communities: species and significance; • aquatic communities: physical, chemical and biological characteristics; • cultural resources; • project recommendations including access, remedial work and constraints; • contacts and approval received; v) projects will be initiated on a priority basis. Factors determining priority may include the following: • type and scope of problem(s); • watershed and location of project within the watershed; • existence of Subwatershed and Corridor Management Plans; • partnerships with private landowners, non - government organizations and government agencies; MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 58 POLICIES & CRITERIA FOR MTRCA VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDOR REGENERATION PROJECTS 5.4 CORRIDOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS (Cont'd) WR i 14 Iti 5.0 • funding sources; • approvals including landowners and other agencies; • cost /benefit factors; • construction timing guidelines; vi) regeneration projects will be reviewed and approved by technical staff, senior management, full Authority and Executive Committee as required; vii) where regeneration projects are carried out on private and municipally owned land, the Authority may require a pre- determined financial contribution by the owner(s). viii) projects will be monitored during implementation to ensure all procedures, terms and conditions of any approval are adhered to. When applicable, post construction monitoring and evaluation will be conducted; ix) consultation with individual landowners, the general public, organizations and other agencies will be undertaken as required prior to implementing projects. The need and level of consultation will be determined by Authority staff based on the type, size, location, legislative requirements and potential impacts of the projects. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 59 WR II (9y IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.0 6.1 WATERSHED STRATEGIES 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK In updating the Watershed Plan in 1986, the Authority recognized that while the existing programs were important contributions to watershed management, a greater environmental advocacy role was required. This was necessary to ensure the protection and conservation of the natural resources given the development pressure on these resources across the Metropolitan Toronto Region. To this end, in 1989, the Greenspace Strategy for the Metropolitan Toronto Region was adopted by the Authority. The Greenspace Strategy is an important advocacy document. It identifies the need to improve the co- ordination of natural resource management within the Metropolitan Toronto Region. The conservation of valley and stream corridors is central to this effort. The Greenspace Strategy advocates the establishment of a planning task force for each major watershed; the provision of environmental services to municipalities; increased protection of headwaters and the Oak Ridges Moraine; improved compliance monitoring for permits issued pursuant to Authority Regulations; the acceleration of acquisition of valley lands; and a vision for an inter - regional public trail system linking the greenspace resources of the Metropolitan Toronto Region. To implement the Greenspace Strategy, it was anticipated that detailed programs, such as the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program, and projects would be prepared and implemented by the Authority. Management decisions which affect valley and stream corridors are a responsibility shared by many jurisdictions, each with specific resource management or land use planning concerns. Included are federal departments, provincial ministries, the Conservation Authority, and local and regional municipalities. In addition, while this Program focuses on valley and stream corridor management, it is recognized that the cumulative effects of decisions made within each watershed as a whole will have impacts affecting these corridors. To this end, inherent within this program are recommendations to the Authority's watershed management partners which will contribute to integrated planning and management for valley and stream corridors and which can be achieved through the following implementation framework. 6.1 WATERSHED STRATEGIES 6.1.1 The Authority advocates and is committed to facilitating the preparation of watershed strategies for the watersheds within its jurisdiction. All watersheds are different; therefore, planning on a watershed basis is critical to ensure the most effective and efficient means to manage natural and economic resources. Watershed strategies establish the overall "vision" and management framework for a watershed as a whole based on the unique physical, environmental and social attributes and issues defined by the watershed community. Watershed management goals and objectives for public safety, environmental conservation, protection, management and rehabilitation of all resources within a watershed are identified; priority actions to achieve these goals by all watershed partners are recommended; and the effects of changes in land use can be evaluated and integrated. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 60 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.1 WATERSHED STRATEGIES (Cont'd) 6.2 SUBWATERSHED PLANNING 1.0211(0 194 6.0 The recommendations contained within a watershed strategy provide important direction to all planning and development initiatives. The Province has prepared guidelines which provide general direction for the preparation of watershed strategies. The Authority has been a key player in promoting and facilitating the preparation and implementation of Watershed Strategies. Outlined below is a brief summary of the watershed strategies the Authority has coordinated for two very different watersheds: A) Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed In 1990, the Authority adopted the Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed ICBMS), the first of nine watershed strategy initiatives. This strategy established a vision for the Rouge River watershed which integrated its role within the Great Lakes ecosystem with objectives for sustainable economic growth and development and ecological health and quality. The Rouge CBMS included policies and operational criteria for the prevention of new or increased hazard to life or property; the control of urban stormwater (both quantity and quality); the safeguarding of existing ecosystem resources; and the improvement, or rehabilitation, of degraded areas. The Strategy was developed through a consultative process recognizing provincial and municipal interests and responsibilities as well as those of the community, as represented by special interest groups. Similarly, the implementation of the Strategy is based on the interests, responsibilities and opportunities of its stakeholders. The policies adopted for the Rouge watershed did not necessarily apply to the Authority's other river systems; however, it was recognized that a similar policy direction was critical for the remaining watersheds. B) Don River Watershed Regeneration Plan (40 Steps to a New Don) The 1994 Don River Watershed Regeneration Plan established a vision for a healthy urban watershed and guiding principles for the regeneration of the Don River. The Strategy presents 40 Steps to be taken to regenerate the watershed, accompanied by specific guideline documents to support the Plan. The Don Strategy also includes seven subwatershed plans and developed conceptual regeneration plans for six specific sites to demonstrate how the 40 Steps can be achieved. 6.2 SUBWATERSHED PLANNING 6.2.1 The Authority advocates and is committed to participate in and, where appropriate, facilitate the preparation of subwatershed plans. A subwatershed is an important ecological unit within which to implement watershed strategy recommendations OR to plan in the absence of a watershed strategy. The Subwatershed Plan addresses the same elements as a watershed strategy but in a greater level of detail. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 61 WR Ill 19y IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.2 SUBWATERSHED PLANNING (Cont'd) 6.3 CORRIDOR REACH PLANNING 6.0 Subwatershed plans are prepared on a subwatershed basis (drainage basins) and are initiated as a part of studies related to a proposed change in land use (secondary plans) or to evaluate and determine areas for future urban growth or for use in developed areas to guide rehabilitation, redevelopment or urban intensification. Subwatershed plans provide important information in the land use decision- making process for the use and management of water and land to integrate natural system protection with changing land uses. Its purpose is as follows: To promote an ecosystem -based approach to environmental and land use planning at a subwatershed level; To foster early, integrated planning for land use, water management and environmental protection and management on a subwatershed basis; To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the land use plan preparation and review process. Each subwatershed plan is different. There are several examples of subwatershed plans within the Authority's jurisdiction. The Province also has prepared guidelines which provide general direction for the preparation of subwatershed plans. 6.3 CORRIDOR REACH PLANNING Valley and stream corridors are important natural resources; therefore, careful planning and analysis within and adjacent to valley and stream corridors are critical to the successful management of these natural resources. The purpose of corridor planning is: • to protect and rehabilitate the natural landform, features and functions of these corridors; • to protect and establish linkages within the corridors, and linkages to adjacent greenspaces and built communities; and • to ensure that only uses that are consistent with the overall management of valley and stream corridors, as set out in this Program, are permitted. The landform, features and functions vary within valley and stream corridors. Accordingly, compatible uses within valley and stream corridors and the complexity of corridor planning will also vary. Corridor planning is appropriate at all stages of land use planning and for all development projects located within or adjacent to valley and stream cor-ridors. The level of detail required is equivalent with the scale and scope of the land use plan or development project, and with the characteristics of the particular valley or stream corridor reach. Corridor plans will typically take the form of management plans or detailed site plans. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 62 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.3 CORRIDOR REACH PLANNING 6.3.1 Corridor Management Plans 6.3.2 Corridor Site Plans 6.3.3 Implementation 6.0 6.3.1 Corridor Management Plans The Authority advocates and is committed to participate in and where appropriate, facilitate the preparation of, management plans for the valley and stream corridors within its jurisdiction. Management plans should generally be prepared utilizing a subwatershed planning approach and be initiated as a part of studies related to proposed changes in land use (secondary plans), or to prepare open space master plans, or for use in developed areas to guide rehabilitation and /or redevelopment. It provides many of the same benefits as subwatershed planning. The Don River Watershed Concept Plans prepared under the Don Watershed Strategy provide a good example of corridor management plans. 6.3.2 Corridor Site Plans The Authority requires the preparation of corridor site plans prior to the approval of development projects within valley or stream corridors. Site plans are prepared on a local basis and are initiated as a part of studies related to a proposed valleyland use such as: - servicing (SWM ponds, bridges, culverts and other utility crossings, outfalls); - regeneration projects (flood, erosion, rehabilitation); - resource -based uses (golf courses, trails, nursery). The corridor site plan provides the detailed information necessary to evaluate the compatibility of development projects prior to establishing the principle of use within a specific reach of a valley or stream corridor. 6.3.3 Implementation Corridor reach planning should be carried out in four phases, generally prescribed as follows: Phase I: Concept evaluation, including: inventory of existing landform, features and functions such as natural hazards, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, vegetation communities; and - location and general description of proposal. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 63 WR 11q (Ry IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.3 CORRIDOR REACH PLANNING 6.3.3 Implementation (Cont'd) 6.4 REGULATIONS 6.0 Phase II: Preliminary design including: surveys and studies (engineering and environmental); location, sizing, grading of all components of the project; and construction and maintenance requirements. Phase III: Detailed design including: - construction and maintenance details. Phase IV: Implementation and compliance monitoring Phase I and Phase II facilitates the evaluation of opportunities and constraints which is necessary to determine the compatibility of the proposed use within the valley or stream corridor and should be completed prior to new uses being established. Phase III and IV are only completed if and when the project proceeds to implementation and construction. The Authority's review and approval of corridor plans will be in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Consultation through all phases of the planning process is important to determine the valleyland management objectives and study requirements. 6.4 REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. These are typically referred to as Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations. These Regulations have been adopted within the MTRCA jurisdiction. Pursuant to this Regulation, the Authority's permission is required to: A) Construct any building or structure or permit any building or structure to be constructed in or on a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a regional storm. NOTE: The Regional Storm is based on Hurricane Hazel. Ponds and swamps are based on discernible water resource features and wetlands. The Authority regulates all regional storm flood plains, ponds and swamps whether or not these areas have been mapped. B) Place or dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in the areas described in the schedules whether such fill is already located in or upon such areas, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 64 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.0 6.4 REGULATIONS (Cont'd) NOTE: The Authority's Fill Line is the general representation of valley and stream corridor boundaries. This Regulation is only applicable where the Authority has registered Schedules and Fill Line mapping. C) Straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse. NOTE: The existing channel is based on a discernible watercourse feature. The Authority regulates all river, creek, stream and watercourse channels whether or not these channels have been mapped. Permission may be refused if, in the opinion of the Authority, the proposal affects the control of flooding, pollution, or conservation of land. The Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation is an important tool in the protection and management of valley and stream corridors. The Authority will administer its Regulation, where applicable, in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. Enforcement Enforcement plays an important role in valley and stream corridor management. The objective of enforcement administration is to ensure compliance with the regulations and policies adopted by the Authority. To achieve this objective, the following general procedures have been developed and carried out: A) Preventative Approach 1) Provide information (eg. regulations and development restrictions); 2) Liaise with contractors /excavators on approved work sites; 3) Undertake inspections of potential violation sites as a preventative measure; and 4) Regularly inspect permitted activity sites for compliance with approved permits. B) Responsive Approach 1) Resolve minor infractions through landowner cooperation; 2) Resolve violations by notice through discussions, removal, restoration and /or the permit process, where possible; and 3) Process legal proceedings when necessary to ensure compliance. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 65 u.N2 tai )Lf IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.4 REGULATIONS (Cont'd) 6.5 LAND ACQUISITION 6.0 The Authority will enforce its policies and regulations, where appropriate, in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. 6.5 LAND ACQUISITION Land acquisition plays an important role in valley and stream corridor management. The Authority's Land Acquisition Program identifies certain greenspace lands, including valleylands, and Environmentally Significant Areas, which are lands suitable for public ownership and Authority acquisition. The Authority recognizes that components of the greenspace system can be protected by a combination of measures including restrictive land use designations, public /community stewardship, and private land stewardship. In this regard, the following criteria is followed by the Authority to determine acquisition priorities: A) The availability of long term alternatives to acquisition including existing regulatory and /or planning mechanisms, landowner stewardship, conservation easements or agreements B) The ability of other agencies to protect the lands. C) The nature and immediacy of the threat to public safety. D) The nature.and immediacy of the threat to property. E) The significance of the lands to the greenspace system. F) The relationship of a specific property to lands already in public ownership. G) The need for the lands to implement an adopted project. H) The willingness of the owner to enter into negotiations. I) The ability to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of greenspace. J) The specific interests of the funding partners /sources and the availability of funds. K) The costs involved both for purchase and long term management. The Authority will employ the following mechanisms to bring valley and stream corridor lands into public ownership: A) The identification of valley and stream corridors as lands which should be set aside through the planning process for conveyance to or purchase by the Authority or the municipality. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 66 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 6.5 LAND ACQUISITION (Cont'd) 6.6 PLANNING ACT 6.7 OTHER LEGISLATION w2 iaa -/95 6.0 B) The donation of valley and stream corridor lands as charitable gifts or bequests to the Authority, the Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto or the Ontario Heritage Foundation for conservation purposes. C) The exchange of valley and stream corridor lands for surplus Authority owned tablelands in accordance with Authority policy (Resolution # 26, Authority Meeting #1/91). D) The purchase of priority properties. E) The purchase of lands required for an approved project, including lands required for access or maintenance. F) The conveyance of lands that are required for an approved project or conservation purposes from municipalities or other public bodies. G) Other mechanisms provided by the Conservation Authorities Act. 6.6 PLANNING ACT The Planning Act grants the opportunity for all boards, commissions, authorities, or other agencies to be provided information on municipal planning activities including official plans, zoning proposals and subdivisions. Under this provision, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has implemented its programs and policies, where appropriate, through municipal land use planning decisions in cooperation with its member and local municipalities. The Authority's plan input and review activities, pursuant to the Planning Act, will be in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. 6.7 OTHER LEGISLATION Other legislation most directly related to the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program is identified on Figure 10. The Authority's plan input and review activities, pursuant to other legislation, will be in accordance with the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 67 s) LA) FIGURE 10 LEGISLATION ROUTINELY AFFECTING VALLEY & STREAM CORRIDORS I r jk Seepage Zone Valley Slope rc Active Channel Abandoned Channel Regulatory Flood Plain k Valley Slope FEDERAL FISHERIES ACT I I I t x x > LAKES AND RIVERS IMPROVEMENT ACT i I I x x ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES ACT x i I j j I x x x Water Pollution, Groundwater Water Pollution, Surface Waters CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT I i x FILL j x CONSTRUCTION x x TO WATERCOURSE x ALTERATION PLANNING ACT j Land Use I I I > I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES x i I I 1 x * Project Specific ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT ACT Specific i < * Project FEDERAL NAVIGATABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT I x 1 I j j x For Specific Reaches of Certain Watercourses MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 68 GLOSSARY Alteration of a Watercourse WIZ laµl9y An alteration of a watercourse is the straightening, piping, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse. (O.R. 158) Baseflow Stream flow derived from groundwater. Cumulative Effects- The combined effects of all activities in an area over time and the incremental effects associated with individual projects in an area over time. Design Block Design blocks are valley or stream corridor sections with physical characteristics which permit the section to be protected as a unit. Ecosystem Approach An ecosystem approach to valley and stream corridor management assumes a broad definition of the environment which includes natural, physical, social, cultural, and economic issues. This approach focuses on linkages and relationships involving air, land, water, and living organisms, including humans. The ecosystem approach is adaptive and recognizes the dynamic nature of watersheds, watercourses and their associated landforms, including the risks associated with flooding, erosion and slope instability. The ecosystem approach emphasizes the importance of living species and of both present and future generations. It works to restore and maintain the integrity, quality, productivity, and well- being of the corridor system. It is an open process that requires public involvement. Erosion Erosion is the process of gradual washing away of soil by water movement or seepage (at the ground surface), commonly occurring in one of the following manners: a) rainfall or snowmelt and surface run off (sheet, rill or gully erosion); MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 69 b) internal seepage and piping; c) water flow (banks or base of river, creek, channel); and d) wave action (shorelines of ponds, lakes, bays) The erosion process affects the soil at the particle level by dislodging and removing (transporting) the soil particles from the parent mass (with water movement as the agent). Other processes such as wind and frost may assist in the weathering or dislodging and transport of soil particles. Fill Fill means earth, sand, gravel, rubble, rubbish, garbage, or any other material whether similar to or different from any of the aforementioned materials, whether originating on the site or elsewhere, used or capable of being used to raise, lower, or in any way affect the contours of the ground. (O.R. 158). Headwater Watercourse The smallest watercourse (1st order) that conveys surface and /or groundwater. Floodwav The channel of a watercourse and that inner portion of the flood plain where flood depths and velocities are generally higher than those experienced in the flood fringe. The floodway represents that area required for the safe passage of flood flow and /or that area where flood depths and /or velocities are considered to be such that they pose a potential threat to life and /or property damages. Meander Amplitude The width of an existing meander measured perpendicular to the centre line of the meander, from mid - channel to mid - channel. Meander Belt The area of land in which a watercourse channel moves or is likely to move over a period of time. One Hundred Year Erosion Limit The predicted lateral movement of a watercourse over a hundred year period. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 70 W2 la 6 /4y Regulatory Flood Plain The Regulatory Flood Plain is the approved standard used in a particular watershed to define the limit of the flood plain for regulatory purposes pursuant to Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement. Within the Authority's jurisdiction, the Regulatory Flood Plain is based on the regional storm, Hurricane Hazel, or the 100 Year Flood whichever is greater. Riparian Habitat Riparian habitat is an area of transition between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem. It is located immediately landward of watercourses and other waterbodies. Soils that exhibit signs of regular saturation and vegetation tolerant of periodic inundation characterize this zone. Riparian vegetation provides habitat, food and shelter and contributes to both the adjacent aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. For management purposes, the Authority has generally defined this zone as a minimum 10 metre wide vegetated area along a both sides of waterbody or watercourse. Riparian Storage Riparian storage is the natural stage /storage stage discharge relationship within a reach of a valley or stream corridor. Significant Area Significant Areas are those that have been identified as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) by the MTRCA or regional or local municipality; as a Class 1 -7 Wetland by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR); as an area of Natural and /or Scientific Interest (ANSI) by the MNR; and /or Areas that exhibit characteristics which meet the criteria for one of the above classifications but have not been previously identified. These areas must be determined through site inventories and their suitability for classification confirmed by the appropriate agency. Slope Stability Generally, a slope is stable if it is well vegetated and shows no signs of stress leg. tension cracks, localized sloughing, seepage, creep, etc.) or erosion and the ratio of the forces resisting movement (shear strength, internal friction) over the active forces (gravity, seepage) is in excess of 1.5. Slope stability depends upon slope geometry, groundwater behaviour and the geotechnical properties of the bank materials. Other factors, such as river erosion, weathering, piping, fill placement and vegetation are significant in determining slope stability. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 71 (AA i a7 lei y ToD of Valley Bank The physical top of valley bank is that point where there is a break in slope or grade which distinguishes the valley corridor Iandform from its surrounding landscape. The top of valley bank is determined and delineated through site investigations. Watercourse A watercourse is flowing water, though not necessarily continuous, within a defined channel and with a bed or banks and usually discharges itself into some other watercourse or body of water. MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 72 w2 i as /y APPENDICES MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 Al APPENDIX 1 PARKING LOT FLOODPROOFING MEASURES FLOOD DEPTH AND VELOCITY CRITERIA MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994 ♦ , , , • = It . . , , :. :1._:. .- 1111-: :.- :.. .. ::: .: I : - : -i.. -. _ it _. . • 11111Arinliiill • • • . . - : • MORMIII' : • :- . 1111021111111 . IMUIRZEI EgrAlial 1 - PARKINGI NO PERMISS BLE • IN 11HIS ZON : :: .: • . I : _ :I - - 11 MAI rafill MOYANIMPAII WATIMIGNINFIL I 1 I I ; . - •.j : ' . • . PERM SSIBLE MA IN . - I . . . .. ! - . --1 1 = i A : i INEWAVAVAMFASEN111 Arli 1 . . I 1 I • 3 I ! ♦ = VELOCIT`'_( 7sed1.- I 1 MTRCA VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 28, 1994